Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Contracts

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.

The FAA's exemption for contracts of employment for workers in interstate and foreign commerce applied to plaintiff who worked in a warehouse in California which served as a transhipping depot for Adidas products which arrived at the warehouse from foreign countries, were stored temporarily at the warehouse before being loaded on trucks for distribution to local retailers.  Though plaintiff transported… Read More

This decision holds that the Court of Appeals the de novo standard of review to an order denying a nonsignatory's motion to compel arbitration by invoking equitable estoppel.  It also holds that 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 which forbids air carriers from including forum selection clauses in their contracts of carriage does not forbid an airline from relying on an arbitration… Read More

Through defendant talent agency, plaintiff hired several performers for a rock concert to be held in April 2020.  Under the contract, plaintiff made a $6 million deposit that was non-refundable.  However, the contract had a force majeure clause which defined force majeure broadly enough to include cancellation of the concert due to COVID restrictions.  However, the clause further provided that… Read More

The Song-Beverly Warranty Act requires new car manufacturers to provide restitution of the purchase price to the buyer of a defective car.  (Civ. Code 1793.2(d)(2)(B).)  This decision holds that if the buyer trades in or sells the defective car. the trade in credit or resale price is not deducted from the restitution that the manufacturer must pay, at least when… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiff could not have validly entered into a contract with an arbitration clause when the contract was 21 pages, the review period was 38 seconds and through a cell phone, and plaintiff was 81 years old with virtually no technological ability. Furthermore, plaintiff's income was limited; she was careful… Read More

An action to rescind a contract for fraud is an action on the contract for purposes of Civil Code 1717.  Section 1717 is not limited to actions for breach of contract or seeking to enforce the contract.  A party is entitled to attorney fees under section 1717 even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable… Read More

Choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable as a matter of federal admiralty law just as forum selection clauses in those contracts are generally enforceable.  Choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are unenforceable only when they contravene a federal statute or conflict with established federal maritime policy or when the parties cannot furnish a reasonable basis… Read More

46 U.S.C. § 30527(a) provides that a owner "of a vessel transporting passengers between ports in the United States" cannot contract for a release of liability for negligently caused injiury or death due to the owner's or its employees' negligence.  This decision holds that the statute does not apply to forbid enforcement of a release obtained by the owner of… Read More

Following Mejia v. DACM, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 691 and Maldonado v. Fast Auto Loans (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 710 and rejecting Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 535, this decision holds that a suit alleging UCL and CLRA claims and seeking an injunction against allegedly false advertising which would benefit both existing and future customers… Read More

The trial court correctly denied enforcement of the employer's arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable both because it was an adhesion contract in the employment context and because the way it was presented to the prospective employee for electronic signature made it difficult for her to read before signing.  The agreement was substantively unconscionable in containing a confidentiality… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration despite the agreement's delegation clause because plaintiff, a minor, disaffirmed all agreements with defendant pursuant to Family Code 6710.  The disaffirmance voided not only the underlying agreement and its arbitration clause but also its delegation provision.  Plaintiff's disaffirmance of any agreement with defendant was sufficient to disaffirm the delegation clause… Read More

Civil Code 1566, 1567, and 1570 establish a right to rescission in cases in which a person’s consent to a transaction was obtained by “menace”:  threats of confinement, of unlawful violence to the person or his or her property, or of injury to a person’s character.  This is effectively the civil version of extortion.  So, Tran could state a claim… Read More

This decision affirms a trial court's denial of defendant elder care facility's motion to compel arbitration.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the arbitration clause was buried in a lengthy document about other matters, not presented as a separate agreement or marked in any manner to draw attention to it.  Also, the plaintiff was under extreme time pressure to… Read More

Health Net's arbitration clause did not satisfy H&S Code 1363.1's requirements.  The enrollment form did not clearly that the plan required arbitration of disputes because it said that the arbitration clause didn't apply if the plan was governed by ERISA--and the enrolling employee would have no way to determine whether ERISA applied.  Also, because of intervening text about ERISA plans,… Read More

Reversing a summary judgment for defendant in this breach of contract suit, the Court of Appeal found the parties' brief signed napkin agreement to be enforceable despite some ambiguities and terms left for later determination.  It was not too indefinite to enforce or too indefinite to indicate agreement on essential terms.  Parol evidence was properly admitted to construe the ambiguous… Read More

The trial court correctly denied Mattson's motion to compel arbitration of Applied's suit against it for violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Mattson had hired Lai away from Applied.  Lai's employment agreement with Applied contained an arbitration clause.  Mattson was not a party to that contract and could not enforce it on a equitable estoppel basis since Applied's claim… Read More

In a nice mirror image of Chelios v. Kaye (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 75, 80, this decision holds that since a contract is merged into the judgment on a breach of contract claim, a provision of the contract limiting attorney fee awards to $1,000 does not limit the fees that may be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff under CCP 685.040 as… Read More

This decision affirms a prejudgment attachment order.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the parties had not amended a fully integrated written contract which provided that all amendments had to be signed and in writing.  Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (CC 1633.1 et seq.), it is not enough to show that a document was… Read More

Following Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 93 and EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. (2002) 122 S.Ct. 754, this decision holds that the People of the State of California (as represented by the Attorney General and two District Attorneys) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement cannot be required to arbitrate claims that… Read More

COVID-19 closure orders did not excuse Fitness' nonperformance of its lease obligations.  The closure orders allowed commercial construction and so did not justify its stopping renovation of the leased premises as required by the lease.  The force majeure clause of the lease didn't excuse either stopping construction or failing to pay rent as neither of those "acts" were prevented by… Read More

1 2 3 4 13