Civil Procedure

Following  Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115 and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, this decision holds that the Court of Appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a voluntary dismissal entered for the purpose of trying to appeal from an order compelling arbitration in a putative class action.  It does… Read More

Distinguishing Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 940 F.3d 1130 as interpreting federal, not California law, and involving a one-time litigant against a repeat player, this decision holds that in a commercial, non-consumer, arbitration, California law does not require an arbitrator to disclose his 0.1 percent interest in JAMS.  Arbitrators are required to disclose their relationship… Read More

Over a vigorous dissent, the majority holds that the adult daughter of the insureds under this homeowner's insurance policy does not have standing to sue the insurer for bad faith in regard to coverage for damage to the daughter's personal property that was damaged while in the insured premises.  Only the parents were named insureds under the policy, which expressly… Read More

California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device.  A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More

BPI was a subcontractor on a public works project.  The department found that BPI had not been paying its workers at the prevailing wage rate and issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment for the underpaid wages plus a statutory penalty.  BPI claimed the general contractor was at fault for misinforming it about the prevailing wage rate.  After BPI filed a… Read More

Plaintiff sued City in federal court, alleging both federal and state law claims arising from her arrest and strip search by City police officers.  The federal jury rendered a verdict in the City's favor on the federal law claims.  The federal court dismissed the state law negligence claims without prejudice.  Plaintiff refiled those claims in state court.  Following Hernandez v.… Read More

To establish organizational standing, the plaintiff associations  needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organizational missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct.  Diversion of resources happens when the plaintiffs alter their resource allocation to combat the challenged practices, but not when they go about their business as usual.  Here, the evidence on defendant's Rule 12(b)(1)… Read More

In a proceeding under 9 USC 7 to enforce a subpoena that an arbitrator has issued to a non-party witness, when no federal claim is at stake, a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter only if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (including the amount in controversy requirement) are satisfied.  The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, if the value of… Read More

Following Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal..App.5th 543 and distinguishing Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, this decision holds that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Canadian resident defendant.  He published defamatory internet postings about plaintiff, a California resident, on an internet site run by another California resident as well as on plaintiff's internet site.  The… Read More

Plaintiff obtained an arbitration award against Adamstos which it sought to collect from Vigorous and Blue Wall as successor corporations or alter egos of Vigorous.  Since the claim arose in admiralty, the court applied federal common law.  Summary judgment was affirmed.  Plaintiff failed to allege that Vigorous or Blue Wall received a transfer of all or substantially all Vigorous' assets… Read More

In a transactional legal malpractice case arising from the defendant lawyer's advising plaintiff to enter into two marketing contracts that conflicted with each other, the plaintiff had to show only that the lawyer's negligent advice was a substantial factor in causing her loss.  This she did at least sufficiently to overcome summary judgment by showing that she was considering not… Read More

Questions of fact about when Greenberg's partner stopped working for plaintiff precluded summary judgment in Greenberg's favor on statute of limitations grounds. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding an expert's opinion as to lost profits in ruling on a summary judgment motion.  While most of his opinion was speculative, one part dealt with lost profits using a before-and-after method based on 16 months of actual profits earned before the allegedly harmful event.  The before-and-after method is an approved way to… Read More

After a voluntary dismissal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff's claims but may still rule on ancillary matters not involving the merits, such as in this case, a motion to reconsider discovery sanctions that were issued based on the plaintiff's misleading statement of his lawyer's hourly rate without revealing that the lawyer had agreed… Read More

For specific jurisdiction is sufficient if the plaintiff's claim "arises from or is related to" the defendant's contacts with the forum state.  Arises from describes a causal relationship between the defendants contacts and the claim.  But relates to does not require causation.  Here, Ford had substantial contacts with Montana and Minnesota, selling cars of the same type as those involved… Read More

USC did not exceed its jurisdiction in suspending Alpha Nu for six years as a result of its misconduct in hazing pledges during the 2016 rush week even though it acted on a complaint filed 14 months later.  USC's internal disciplinary process is not governed by any statute of limitations.  Here, the complaint was just two months later than USC's… Read More

The district court's transmittal of its remand order to the state court from which the action had been removed does not deprive the Court of Appeals of appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order.  Also, 28 USC 1447(d) does not block review unless the remand is granted on one of the grounds allowed under 28 USC 1447(c)--i.e., lack of subject… Read More

Following Eisenberg Village, etc. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201, this decision holds that an owner's suit seeking disgorgement of compensation paid an unlicensed contractor is a suit for a statutory penalty governed by CCP 340(a)'s one-year statute of limitations.  The discovery rule and other equitable doctrines do not operate to extend that one year limitations period. Read More

Gov. Code 91003 allows an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in an action seeking injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act.  This case holds that the statute does not pit impecunious plaintiffs against well-healed defendants.  So, the prevailing party standard adopted in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994) 510… Read More

Judgment may not be entered against someone who has not been made a party to the suit even if that person funded the litigation.  See Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604. Read More