Civil Procedure

CCSF wrongly terminated Morgado's employment as a police officer.  While he was no longer working for CCSF, Morgado was engaged as a broker, earning $181,000 in gross income.  This decision holds that Morgado's earnings as a broker must be offset agaisnt the damages he is awarded against CCSF whether for front or back pay.  Morgado is entitled only to be… Read More

Defendant sold goods through its Internet website.  It had no physical presence in California but 8 to 10 per cent of its sales were to California residents. That was sufficient availment of the benefits and protections of California law to satisfy due process, even though the defendant did not target California residents any more than residents of other states. Making… Read More

Following Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, this decision holds that the district court erred in judging specific personal jurisdiction on the particular transaction that gave rise to the lawsuit rather than on the whole business relationship between the parties, of which the particular transaction was a part.  Defendant was a Honduran company that imported into… Read More

Under the FRCivP 58(e), a judgment is final and appealable when entered, even though the district court retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion to tax costs or award attorney fees, unless the district court orders that the judgment is not final until the motion is ruled upon.  A notice of appeal filed within 30 days of entry of the… Read More

Since Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) 121 S.Ct. 1511, federal courts do not imply private causes of action unless a federal statute evinces an intent to create one.  The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) does not show any intent to create a private right of action.  It is a simple criminal statute, outlawing use of robbery, extortion or threats of… Read More

Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer.  Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds.  The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement.  Held:  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene.  The motion was… Read More

Under CCP 170.6, a party may peremptorily challenge a judge who presided at a prior trial of the action if the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.  However, as Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245 held, a new trial is “a reexamination of an issue of fact in the same court after… Read More

Disabled residents of New Orleans had Article III standing to sue Uber for refusing to make uberWAV (wheelchair accessable rides) available in New Orleans.  The residents didn't have to sign up to use Uber's app (and thus agree to its arbitration clause) to have Article III standing since doing so would have been a futile gesture.  As there was no… Read More

The district court correctly dismissed this copyright infringement suit against the Polish owner of a Polish porn website for lack of personal jurisdiction.  To establish specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum or purposefully directed his activities to the forum,… Read More

Brembo, an Italian corporation, was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California in a suit by its distributor TAW, which though originally a California entity, had moved its principal place of business to North Carolina before entering into the distributorship agreement that was the subject of this suit.  The agreement authorized TAW to distribute Brembo products throughout the United States,… Read More

California has jurisdiction over the mother, her brother, and her daughters, all of whom now live in other states, in a suit filed by the son challenging actions taken by the others in connection with the family trust.  Mother and trust had deep California roots.  She lived in Santa Monica until 2016 and formed the trust there.  In 2016, the… Read More

Generally, an order denying summary judgment is not reviewable on an appeal from a judgment entered after trial.  Ortiz v. Jordan  (2011) 562 U.S. 180, 184-185.  However, at least in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals may review an order denying summary judgment on a post-trial appeal if the denial was based on a purely legal issue, such as… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant in an age and racial association FEHA discrimination case is affirmed.  The employer provided evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact that the stated reason was pretextual.  The few alleged comments about plaintiff's age--mostly that she looked much younger than her age--were harmless and… Read More

A private citizen group of taxpayers had taxpayer standing under CCP 526a to sue the District Attorney seeking an injunction to stop his office's confidential informant program, the principal aim of which was to secure confessions from criminal defendants in violation of their constitutional rights.  The suit was brought by taxpayers to enjoin waste of public funds on an illegal… Read More

The trial court wrongly granted a health insurer summary judgment on the insured's bad faith and UCL claims.  The insured's son was autistic and, before he turned 7 was given 157 hours a month of insured treatments.  When he turned 7, Magellan reduced the monthly allotment to 57 hours.  On the insured's appeal to the Department of Managed Health Care,… Read More

Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period.  Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade.  When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued. … Read More

Agreeing with Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1105, the Supreme Court holds that an intentional tortfeasor is not entitled to the benefits of Proposition 51 and CIvil Code 1431.2.  An intentional tortfeasor is fully liable for all of the plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages.  Whereas, under secction 1431.2, a negligent tortfeasor is liable for the amount… Read More

An order denying a reconsideration motion under FRCivP 59(e) brought a year after an order denying summary judgment was not appealable.  The time to appeal the denial of summary judgment had long since expired.  A delayed motion for reconsideration under FRCivP 59(e) cannot be used to resurrect the case for appeal.  The denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is appealable… Read More

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding, an appellate court must make an appropriate adjustment to its analysis when the clear and convincing standard of proof applied before the trial court. In general, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could… Read More

In computing the three-year time within which summons and complaint must be served, CCP 583.240(b) excludes any time in which the prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service.  This case holds that if litigation between plaintiff and defendant 1 is stayed (as it was here while those parties engaged in a… Read More