The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations. So, in this case where plaintiff alleged that the seller's disclosures regarding real property sold to plaintiff were inaccurate or incomplete, the action was governed by the 3-year limitations period for fraud even though the… Read More
The trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant in this invasion of privacy suit which alleged that the defendant neighbor invaded plaintiff's privacy by audio and video recordings made by defendant's security cameras and recorders of goings on in plaintiff's backyard. The opinion states that defendant had a legitimate need for the security equipment as she was a media… Read More
Though the filming and exhibition of a public television reality show regarding persons aspiring to be models was entitled to protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)), the plaintiff, a real, well-known model, presented enough evidence to show a probability of success on her claims for invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriation of her… Read More
The Justice Against Sponsors of International Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA; 18 USC 2333) amended the ATA to include secondary civil liability for aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit, acts of international terrorism. To recover under that section on an aiding and abetting claim, the plaintiff must show (1) the party the defendant aided committed an act of international… Read More
To invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance under Basic, Inc. v. Levinson (1988) 108 S.Ct. 978, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the alleged misrepresentation was publicly known; (2) that it was material; (3) that the stock traded in an efficient market; and (4) that the plaintiff traded the stock between the time the misrepresentation was made and when the… Read More
An independent insurance agent that transacts business with many insurance companies is an agent of the insured, not any of the insurance companies, more akin to an insurance broker than a true insurance agent. The insurer owes no duty of care to supervise such an agent and is not liable for the agent's torts. In determining whether an applicant meets… Read More
An indigent prisoner filed this medical malpractice case, claiming that the defendant doctor had failed to tighten a screw in the artificial elbow he implanted in plaintiff's right arm, with the result that the screw came loose, causing serious injury to plaintiff's arm. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of a lawyer and a medical expert. This opinion… Read More
Plaintiff's faithless manager embezzled $154,000 by taking checks payable to plaintiff, endorsing them with a squiggle that might have approximated his name, and depositing them in his own account at JPMorgan. Because the deposits were by ATM and each check was for less than $1,500, no human inspected them. Held, the trial court erred in granting JPMorgan summary judgment. JPMorgan… Read More
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). " Exceeds authorized access” is defined to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the… Read More
The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of comparative fault, both who else wrongfully caused plaintiff harm and how much. In an asbestosis case, this means that the defendant bears “the burden to establish concurrent or alternate causes by proving: that [the plaintiff] was exposed to defective asbestos containing products of other companies; that the defective designs… Read More
The district court did not err in reducing punitive damages against Monsanto for failure to warn of cancer risks from Roundup to a ratio of 3.8 to 1 to actual damages, though that ratio was on the borderline of being excessive. The harm caused was physical, yet the jury awarded plaintiff $5 million in actual damages, 96% of which was… Read More
Following Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (2005) 125 S.Ct. 1788, this decision holds that a state law claim for failure to warn of the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not expressly or impliedly preempted by FIFRA. The warning that plaintiff claimed Monsanto should have put on Roundup labels was not in addition to or different from FIFRA's… Read More
The district court erred in dismissing the complaint in this case on the ground that defendant, which owns SnapChat, was immunized by the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230). Under Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), a defendant enjoys CDA immunity only if it is “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2)… Read More
A landowner does not owe invitees a duty to provide adequate onsite parking so that the invitee won't be exposed to risks from traffic on adjoining streets that the invitee must cross to access the landowner's property from available offsite parking. Both precedent (Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1077) ad the Rowland factors weigh against such a… Read More
In determining whether a defendant's tortious conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damage, the court must view the general set of circumstances not the particular facts of the case. So, here, the defendant escrow company's negligence in closing an escrow for the sale of a house led foreseeably to the seller's incurring damages in the form of attorney fees… Read More
Following Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, this decision holds that Amazon.com is strictly liable in tort for defective products sold through its website even if Amazon does not manufacture or sell the products itself. Read More
The trial court erred in denying class certification in this action arising from allegedly terrible conditions at an apartment complex which the defendant owner had advertised as a luxury apartment building with many fancy amenities, but which was instead plagued with trashed common areas and other defects. Reliance is not an element of the claim for false advertising under B&P… Read More
California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device. A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More
As a general rule, a defendant owes no duty to protect another against harm that the defendant's own act or omission has not caused. In particular, a defendant generally owes no duty of care to protect another from a third party's wrongful acts. In deciding whether an exception to that general rule applies to a particular case, the court should… Read More
Under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, a new car manufacturer that is unable to repair the plaintiff's new car after a reasonable number of attempts must replace it or make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer of the car plus incidental damages. (Civ. Code 1793.2(b)(2).) When the plaintiff has leased rather than… Read More
