Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Civil Procedure

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A student is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a written disciplinary reprimand is placed in his student file.  However, the student is not entitled to a trial type hearing or to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him when such a low level of discipline is imposed.  A trial-like hearing would impose too great a burden… Read More

While a trial court has broad discretion to appoint a receiver for property or a business owned by a judgment debtor, as a means of enforcing a judgment (CCP 708.620), a receiver is a harsh, expensive remedy that should be employed only based on evidence that the judgment debtors have obfuscated or frustrated the creditor’s collection efforts and that less… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered against plaintiff on his FEHA retaliation claims.  The employer introduced evidence showing it promptly investigated plaintiff's complaint about his supervisor's discriminatory conduct and moved plaintiff to a different part of the company under a different supervisor.  When plaintiff was later fired, it was for poor performance, as determined by three supervisory employees who were unaware… Read More

Summary judgment was properly granted the employer on plaintiff's California Family Rights Act claims.  Plaintiff introduced no evidence that he had requested medical leave.  Instead, when he complained about suffering migraine headaches, and the employer asked who could replace plaintiff in supervising his staff, plaintiff said medication would cure the headache in a few hours.  The employer also produced unrebutted… Read More

An order dismissing a co-defendant's cross-complaint for indemnity against another defendant is appealable even if the cross-complainant remains in the case on the plaintiff's complaint.  The dismissal finally resolved all claims between the two defendants and thus was a final, appealable order. Read More

Recognizing split of authority on question of whether a defendant may challenge a good faith settlement determination on appeal from a final judgment or whether the only remedy lies in a writ petition from the good faith finding, and choosing to side with those decisions allowing a challenge on appeal from a final judgment even when the appellant did not… Read More

A defendant is not aggrieved by, and so has no standing to appeal from, an order exonerating a co-defendant from liability to the plaintiff, even if the would-be appellant has a claim for contribution or indemnity against the exonerated defendant.  So, in this case, one contractor at the work site where plaintiff was injured had no standing to appeal from… Read More

Whitaker adequately alleged standing to bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act by alleging that the counters in Tesla's showrooms were inaccessible to him (as a wheelchair-bound person) and deterred him from returning to Tesla's showrooms.  However, Whitaker's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to meet Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards as it mostly repeated the statutory elements of an… Read More

This decision reverses a preliminary injunction against the county's implementation of COVID-19 health protocols that shut down restaurants, and particularly, those like plaintiff's restaurant that provided nude or semi-nude adult entertainment with their restaurant services.  The preliminary injunction violated due process in banning all restrictions on restaurants generally, when the complaint and preliminary injunction papers were limited to First Amendment… Read More

Plaintiff sought to serve her petition for issuance of a Civil Harrassment injunction on the defendant by social media since she had been unable to serve him by normal means of service of process.  Though it notes that some states (New York, New Jersey and Texas) have allowed service of process by social media, this decision holds that at least… Read More

An organization may have associational standing to sue on behalf of its members when: (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.  When… Read More

A federal court may award sanctions using civil procedures only if the sanctions are compensatory in nature, recompensing the harmed party for harm that was caused by (would not have occurred but for) the sanctioned party's sanctionable conduct.  For any sanctions beyond that or having a punitive or deterrent purpose, the court must employ criminal type of procedure with an… Read More

The trial court prejudicially erred in granting plaintiff's in limine motion to exclude defendant from introducing evidence and seeking allocation of fault to two defendants (the State of California and an adjoining landowner) which had settled out of the case before trial.  Under Prop. 51, a defndant is entitled to have the jury allocate fault (and thus the share of… Read More

This split decision holds that when the case is in federal court under their federal question jurisdiction, federal common law, rather than the law of the state or foreign country in which the contract was entered into, governs threshold questions of arbitrability, such as whether a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement may enforce it through equitable estoppel.  Under federal common… Read More

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's regulation interpreting 49 U.S.C. § 31141(c) governing preemption of state law relating to commercial motor vehicle safety was entitled to Chevron deference.  The regulation reasonably found California's meal and rest breaks statutes preempted by federal law since the state laws required more frequent and longer rest and meal breaks than federal law and with… Read More

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal decides that the plaintiff hospital cannot prevail on its claim of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations to petition for relief from the state agency's decision against it.  The decision clearly stated that it was effective immediately.  The state APA sections (Gov. Code 11521 and 11523) clearly provide that… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's forum non conveniens motion, but did err in dismissing the action rather than merely staying it.  The suit was by residents of China against a California resident regarding alleged misuse of funds donated to the defendant's charitable foundation for his personal benefit.  China was an available forum.  It was… Read More

Under CCP 340.5, the statute of limitations on a medical malpractice claim expires at the earlier of three years from the date of injury or one year from the date of discovery.  Injury from the failure to diagnose a latent, progressive condition occurs “when the undiagnosed condition develops into a more serious condition,” and that more serious condition is made… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on the issue of duty of care when defendant moved for summary judgment, and its statement of undisputed facts related, only to the different issue of causation.  A court may grant a summary judgment motion on an issue not raised by the moving party, but only if the moving party's statement… Read More

CCP 2019.210 provides that in a trade secret  misappropriation case under Civ. Code 3426, before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.  This decision holds that the plaintiff cannot wait to raise a new alleged trade secret in opposition to a summary judgment motion directed towards its… Read More

1 34 35 36 37 38 59