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.

An order granting or denying a motion to disqualify counsel is immediately appealable; the appeal automatically stays the appealed order but not other proceedings in the trial court, so a disqualified attorney may continue to the representation while the appeal is pending. Read More

Prior state court judgment based on collateral estoppel effect of a federal court judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect after the federal court judgment was reversed on appeal. Read More

California’s law banning foie gras and other products made from force-fed birds is not preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, since that act only prohibits states from imposing ingredient requirements, as opposed to restrictions on animal husbandry practices.    Read More

The Home Owners Loan Act does not preempt a state law breach of contract claim that the bank miscalculated adjusted interest rates on loans, since common law breach of contract claims impose no requirements other than those the bank voluntarily assumed in its own agreements.   Read More

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) preempts a Nevada law that limited deficiency judgments on foreclosure to the amount by which the price the owner paid to acquire the loan exceeded the foreclosure sale price.   Read More

Trial court abused its discretion in declining to consider time records that had been filed with a previous attorney fee motion in the case and were incorporated by reference in a later attorney fee motion in the same case, since parties are permitted to incorporate by reference any paper previously filed in the action.   Read More

The Fair Employment and Housing Act’s one year statute of limitations starts to run from the date of termination of employment of a faculty member, rather than the earlier date on which he was denied tenure for allegedly discriminatory reasons.   Read More

CIVIL PROCEDURE—STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The last act in a series of sexual abuses remains the date of accrual of the claim for purposes of Gov. Code 901 and 905 requiring, as a condition of suing a government entity, that a claim be filed within 6 months of the accrual of the cause of action.  Following Shirk v. Vista Unified School… Read More

If the issues in a insurance coverage declaratory relief action overlap the issues in the underlying litigation against the insured, the insurer cannot, over the insured’s objection, take discovery on the overlapping issues or litigate them in the declaratory relief action.   Read More

Defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment resulted in a binding contract whereby plaintiff was to receive reasonable attorney fees to be awarded by the court; consequently, court could not revisit whether fee award was permitted, only what sum would be reasonable.   Read More

Under Colorado River, district court should have abstained from ruling in a suit to condemn easements and other rights as against the defendants' mining claims, since a state court had already declined to enter a decree that the mining claims were invalid.  Read More

If a defendant in a Fair Employment and Housing Act lawsuit makes a section 998 offer that the plaintiff rejects and does not improve upon at trial, the defendant may recover its costs under section 998 notwithstanding the normal rule that a defendant cannot recover costs against the plaintiff in a FEHA action unless the action was objectively without foundation.… Read More

Suits under the Private Attorney Act are unlike class actions in that plaintiffs cannot belatedly add new plaintiffs to carry on the suit in place of the original named plaintiffs, if it turns out the original plaintiffs’ claims fail.   Read More

On his motion to quash service of summons in an unlawful detainer action against him, plaintiff fully litigated his claim that he was fraudulently induced to sign a lease rather than a loan agreement, so the unlawful detainer judgment collaterally estopped him from pursuing his parallel civil action.  Read More

Defendant could not get a settlement agreement invalidated by claiming plaintiff United States had committed fraud on the court, since the later-discovered information on which defendant relied either didn't show fraud at all or only filled in details of fraud that defendant suspected before it settled.   Read More

1 49 50 51 52 53 59