The trial court did not err in denying a motion to compel arbitration in this case on the ground of unconscionability. The employee was required as a condition of employment to sign the arbitration agreement and a separate confidentiality agreement. The two had to be construed together since they both dealt with resolution of disputes arising out of plaintiff's employment… Read More
In response to Smith v. Superior Court (L'Oreal USA, Inc.) (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, the Legislature enacted Lab. Code 201.3(b), which provides that a temporary worker hired by a staffing company and working on assignment for another employer is not terminated for purposes or receiving a final pay check when the temporary assignment ends, but only when the staffing agency… Read More
This decision holds that an unsecured creditor that was the chair of the committee of unsecured creditors in East Coast's Chapter 11 proceeding lacked Article III standing to appeal from the bankruptcy court's order awarding the Chapter 11 trustee the maximum allowable fees. The confirmed Chapter 11 plan provided for the debtor's reorganization and full payment of all allowed claims,… Read More
A court may properly sustain a general demurrer to a declaratory relief cause of action when it can determine as a matter of law that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration that it seeks. Read More
Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff's complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt. Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for… Read More
Rule 60(a) provides that a court “may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” This portion of the rule allows only for correction of "clerical errors"--blunders in framing the judgment to reflect the district court's actual rulings. Rule 60(a) is limited… Read More
In this case, plaintiff obtained a UIM arbitration award for the entire $1 million umbrella policy limit due to emotional distress plaintiff suffered from seeing the underinsured motorist hit her mother who was crossing the street with her. Before the arbitration award, plaintiff made a 998 offer for a penny less than the umbrella policy limits, which the insurer refused. … Read More
Though the ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws is in the nature of an affirmative defense that the defendant must allege and prove, the trial court did not err in allowing the defendant in this case to raise the exception for the first time by a summary judgment motion after the close of discovery. Plaintiff couldn't show any prejudice because… Read More
Plaintiff wanted to give her cat "a good death." She alleged an actionable fraud claim against the defendant vet for promising to give the cat a painless death, thereby getting plaintiff to agree to an intracardiac injection. Plaintiff suffered damage from her reliance on that representation when her cat suffered a long and painful death instead. Plaintiff also stated a… Read More
This decision affirms a summary judgment for the insurer against a business interruption insurance claim by a casino due to COVID-19. The decision holds that while it may be enough to overcome a demurrer for the complaint to allege simply that COVID-19 altered the surfaces of the plaintiff's business property, at the summary judgment stage much more is required to… Read More
Plaintiff mother sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress. She was on the telephone with her daughter while the daughter drove a car at an intersection where her vision of on-coming traffic was obscured by defendants' negligent maintenance of vegetation on adjoining property. That mother heard the crash on the phone was insufficient in itself to allow her to sue. … Read More
The district court erred in not awarding Apple its attorney fees under the indemnity provision of its app developer agreement. The indemnity clause expressly required indemnity of loss and expense due to the developer's breach of an obligation or warranty, showing that the clause was intended to cover litigation between the contracting parties as well as third party claims. Read More
The district court did not err in holding that Apple violated the UCL's "unfair" prong by prohibiting app developers from advertising to consumer iPhone users that they could pay through other means than Apple's in-app payment system and thereby save money. Epic's mere failure to prove its antitrust claim doesn't bar it from establishing the practice is unfair under Cal-Tech's… Read More
The federal 30-day limit on filing a notice of appeal runs from entry of a separate document judgment as required by FRCP 58. Here, the district court entered an order granting an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike but then delayed three weeks before entering a separate document judgment. The appeal time did not start to run until the judgment was entered. Read More
In this suit, a general contractor and its subs sued the LA school district for delay damages caused by construction stalled while cracks in the concrete foundation were repaired. The contractors claimed that the cracks were caused by a design flaw--certain additional features should have been included in the foundation plan to avoid cracks. The district claimed that the cracks… Read More
Issued by the same court on the same day as Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2023) 2023 DAR ___, this decision also holds that the standard arbitration provision in a Nissan dealership's employment agreement is not unconscionable because it is not substantively unconscionable. Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the arbitration agreement did not prevent the employee from seeking administrative relief… Read More
Disagreeing with Davis v. TWC Dealer Group, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 662, this decision holding that the arbitration provision in Nissan dealerships' standard employment agreement is not unconscionable. Though having a high degree of procedural unconscionability due to small print size and lengthy, obscure language, the clause is not substantively unconscionable. Small print size and obtuse phrasing relate to procedural… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert witness' opinion regarding the accused diabetes drug's causing an increased risk of heart failure in diabetics. The expert relied on only one test, the authors of which noted that its results as to heart failure were anomalous and required comparison with other tests. The expert also did not… Read More
To intervene as of right in an action under CCP 387(d)(1)(B), the intervenor must show that its interest is not “adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” Ordinarily, that is not a high hurdle, but a compelling showing is required to demonstrate inadequate representation if the intervenor's interest is the same as one or more of the… Read More
Continuing its campaign to rein in the use of "jurisdiction" to describe limitations on court powers, the Supreme Court holds in this case that 11 U.S.C. 363(m) does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction but merely sets out a rule merely cloaking certain good-faith purchasers or lessees with a targeted protection of their newly acquired property interest, applicable even… Read More
