Civil Procedure

The National Bank Act does not preempt California’s statute requiring lenders to pay interest on home loan escrow accounts. Read More

International service of process by Federal Express and e-mail fails for lack of an acknowledgment of receipt; Doe defendants not served within three years must be dismissed. Read More

Handing a plaintiff a credit card receipt bearing the credit card’s expiration date does not create a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) Read More

A judgment holder seeking to take advantage of the exception to the general immunity granted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) must identify a basis under one of § 1610's express immunity-abrogating provisions to attach and execute against a relevant property. Read More

San Francisco’s ordinance banning eviction of families with school-age children during the school year is not preempted by state law as it creates a substantive defense to eviction and does not interfere with state law unlawful detainer procedure. Read More

An unlawful detainer judgment does not bar the landlord’s civil action to collect past-due rent since the landlord can collect only limited amounts of rent in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Read More

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) does not preempt California law to the extent it allows a district attorney to bring an Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) action based on the defendant's unlawful practice of failing to meet CalOSHA workplace safety standards even though the state plan did not provide for enforcement by that means. Read More

California minimum wage and overtime pay laws are not inconsistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and so apply to workers on oil rigs on the outer continental shelf off the California coast. Read More

Demurring in state court does not waive the right to remove the case to federal court, at least when the complaint does not reveal on its face that the case is removable. Also, waiver of the right to remove is not a jurisdictional defect so the district court cannot remand sua sponte on that ground. Read More

A joint offer by two plaintiffs was effective to allow enhanced cost recovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 when one plaintiff recovered more than the joint offer, thus establishing with certainty that the recovery was more favorable than the rejected joint offer. Read More

A motion for sanctions filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 must comply with the 21-day safe harbor requirement. Read More

A third party’s payment to a plaintiff in the same amount of a judgment, but for something collaterally related to the judgment, does not constitute a satisfaction of the judgment. Read More

Code of Civil Procedure section 369(a)(3) permits a party to file a lawsuit without joining a party for whose benefit the suit is brought, but the party filing the suit must be acting solely for the benefit of another rather than his or her self-interest. Read More

A suit alleging that Uber misappropriated passengers and income from licensed taxicab drivers are barred under Public Util. Code section 1759 because a finding of liability against Uber would require factual findings that could hinder or interfere with the Public Utility Commission’s ongoing rulemaking pertaining to third-party carriers. Read More

Unnamed class members do not have standing to appeal from a class judgment or attorney fees award unless they intervene or move to vacate judgment. Read More

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. Read More

When parties try to force a premature appeal by dismissing some claims without prejudice, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court so it can finally resolve all claims and enter a final, appealable judgment. Read More

An order removing an executor is not a final and appealable order if the trial court, in issuing the order, states that a written statement of decision providing the findings and reasoning supporting the order will be issued later. Read More

Judicial estoppel forbids a defendant from asserting that a court lacked authority to impose monetary sanctions when, in an earlier suit, the defendant successfully argued that the court should have entered monetary sanctions rather than terminating sanctions. Read More

Appeal time limits set by congressional statute are jurisdictional; those prescribed by court rule are merely mandatory and may be waived if the opposing party does not promptly object. Read More