Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Summary Judgment

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 Ninth Circuit applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to review a summary judgment in a trademark infringement case if the summary judgment is granted on equitable grounds such as unclean hands, laches or acquiescence. Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered against plaintiff on his FEHA retaliation claims.  The employer introduced evidence showing it promptly investigated plaintiff's complaint about his supervisor's discriminatory conduct and moved plaintiff to a different part of the company under a different supervisor.  When plaintiff was later fired, it was for poor performance, as determined by three supervisory employees who were unaware… Read More

Summary judgment was properly granted the employer on plaintiff's California Family Rights Act claims.  Plaintiff introduced no evidence that he had requested medical leave.  Instead, when he complained about suffering migraine headaches, and the employer asked who could replace plaintiff in supervising his staff, plaintiff said medication would cure the headache in a few hours.  The employer also produced unrebutted… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on the issue of duty of care when defendant moved for summary judgment, and its statement of undisputed facts related, only to the different issue of causation.  A court may grant a summary judgment motion on an issue not raised by the moving party, but only if the moving party's statement… Read More

CCP 2019.210 provides that in a trade secret  misappropriation case under Civ. Code 3426, before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.  This decision holds that the plaintiff cannot wait to raise a new alleged trade secret in opposition to a summary judgment motion directed towards its… Read More

Under the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701, 2707) creates a private right of action against a person who intentionally accesses, without authorization, an electronic communication system, thereby obtaining an electronic communication in the system's electronic storage.  For this purpose, electronic storage includes storage by the system for the purpose of backup.  This decision holds that wife raised triable issues,… Read More

Summary judgment was improperly entered against plaintiff on claims for negligence and intentional tort arising from a violent collision between plaintiff and defendant during an adult "no check" ice hockey league game.  Plaintiff produced evidence that, if believed, showed that defendant had not only violated league rules but had intentionally injured plaintiff or engaged in conduct so reckless as to… Read More

A trial court has discretion to consider new evidence in reply papers supporting a summary judgment motion as long as the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to respond.  Evidence which is used to fill gaps in the original evidence created by the opposition is particularly appropriate to consider in a reply. Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment in favor of defendant police officers and their employer, the city, against plaintiff's complaint based on injuries she suffered while escaping from a car used by bank robbers, holding plaintiff and other hostages, to escape from the scene of the robbery.  Police must use act reasonably in all the circumstances in employing deadly force. … 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

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

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

In this wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted Kaiser summary judgment based on the going and coming rule.  Kaiser's volunteer had finished providing dog therapy to one of Kaiser's patients and was returning home when the volunteer struch and killed plaintiffs' decedant.  The required-vehicle exception to the going and coming rule did not apply because there was no… Read More

Eminent domain actions are special proceedings governed by the Eminent Domain Law, CCP 1230.10 et seq.  In eminent domain proceedings, a party may bring a pretrial motion for a ruling on “an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation" under CCP 1260.040(a).  Inverse condemnation actions, however, a common law suits that are not governed by the Eminent… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.  It holds that the defendant did not satisfy its initial summary judgment burden because the expert witness declaration which was the centerpiece of its motion failed to state reasons and a factual basis for the conclusion that the defendant had conformed to the applicable professional standard… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered for the employer in this wage and hour case.  The employer's expert showed that the employer's time rounding of clock in and out times to the nearest 15 minutes was facially neutral and neutral in practice as well.  Also, the employer disproved the employee's claim that he was denied meal and rest breaks.  Each weekly… Read More

A job applicant who would not have been hired even if inaccuracies in his credit report were corrected lacked Article III standing to bring a claim against the employer for failure to give him pre-adverse action notice as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Read More

1 4 5 6 7