California Appellate Tracker

The Congress did not show any error in the trial court's conclusion that Center did not improperly seize the Congress' corporate opportunity by running pharmaceutical symposia for the Center's own benefit.  Substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings that the Congress was not interested in drugs but rather was devoted solely to reconstructive joint surgery.  That the Center wrongly… Read More

One owed a fiduciary duty can choose his remedy against the fiduciary for breach of that duty.  If the one owed the duty sues at law, it may recover damages and must show that it was harmed.  If the one owed the duty sues in equity, however, it may recover disgorgement of the fiduciary's secret profits without showing it was… Read More

In this proceeding under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and International Child Abduction Remedies Act (22 USC 9001 et seq.) the father was entitled to an attorney fee award as he had successfully obtained an order requiring the divorced mother to return the child to him.  However, the father served his attorney fee motion only four days before the… Read More

This decision holds that Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank (9th Cir. 2002) 276 F.3d 502 does not apply to or bar an FDCPA claim against a debt collector for trying to collect a debt that was fully repaid under the debtor's Chapter 13 plan before the debtor received a discharge.  That is because in these circumstances whether an unfair debt… Read More

Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.516, in a coordinated proceeding, a 170.6 challenge to the coordination trial judge must be filed within 20 days after that judge has been assigned to the coordinated cases.  The rule also specifies that all plaintiffs in all the coordinated cases are deemed "one side" and all defendants another "side" for purposes of the… Read More

Plaintiff failed to state a disparate impact claim against the County based on its policy of requiring every applicant for CalWorks welfare benefits to accept a home visit from a licensed county peace officer, which plaintiff claimed was traumatizing and stigmatizing.  To plead a disparate impact claim, plaintiff must allege that the defendant has adopted a facially neutral policy that… Read More

Applying the objective standard outlined in Taggart v. Lorenzen (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1795, this decision holds that the debtor's creditors cannot be held in civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction.  They had a reasonable believe that Taggart had "returned to the fray" and thus was liable for attorney fees the creditors incurred in defeating his state court suit. Read More

Following Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, this decision holds that filing an amended charge with the EEOC does not exhaust administrative remedies under California's FEHA.  Nor did plaintiff properly exhaust his state law administrative remedies by amending his FEHA complaint long after the FEHA had closed its file on the matter.  Moreover, the amended… Read More

Plaintiff, the tenant in a commercial building, was injured when his head struck a low beam at the entrance to an upstairs door and as a result he fell down the stairs.  This decision affirms a summary judgment for the landlord based on an exculpatory clause in the lease which absolved the landlord of liability for personal injuries suffered as… Read More

In cases seeking a writ of mandate, where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the [petitioner] need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the… Read More

Generally, an employee must bring a claim under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act within two years of the violation.  ” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). This limitation is extended to three years for a “willful violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2).  This decision holds that a violation is willful only if the employer “either knew or showed reckless disregard for… Read More

After plaintiff sustained a loss that its insurer contended was excluded from coverage, plaintiff and insurer entered into a loan receipt agreement under which the insurer lent plaintiff the funds needed to repair the damage to its property.  The plaintiff was not personally liable to repay the loan but agreed to repay out of any proceeds it received from suing… Read More

Plaintiff, a Coptic church, bought a residence to serve as the Coptic pope's western US residence and a residence for visiting bishops.  Its insurance broker arranged for it to obtain a commercial property insurance policy which had an exclusion for loss due to water damage if the property had been vacant for 60 days or more before the loss.  This… Read More

To amend a judgment to name an alter ego, the plaintiff must show that the alter ego controled the litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding, that there is a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of entities and owners no longer exists, and that an inequitable result would result if the entity's separate existence… Read More

An order amending judgment to name an alter ego is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815. Read More

A minor who signs a contract may disaffirm the contract after reaching 18 years of age. Fam. Code 6710.  Plaintiff in this case signed an employment agreement with an arbitration clause to work as a waitress at a Del Taco restaurant when she was 16 years old.  This decision holds that she retained the right to disaffirm the contract after… Read More

Ohio attorneys were admitted pro hac vice to represent Big Lots in this suit challenging Big Lots' classification of store managers as exempt managerial employees.  The Ohio attorneys then appeared for and represented several former Big Lots store managers at their depositions in the case.  When the plaintiffs brought this fact to the trial court's attention, it revoked the Ohio… Read More

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt California's ABC test for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees, and so that test as adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and codified in Lab. Code 2775 and 2776 governs in determining whether a federally licensed interstate motor carrier has correctly classified its truck… Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this overtime pay case, finding plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated.  Though there was a common question about whether defendant violated California labor law in calculating the amount of overtime pay (because in computing base pay it divided the flat bonus for weekend worked by… Read More

Under the rule announced in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, the statute of limitations does not start to run on a quiet title action so long as the plaintiff remains in possession of the premises, even if plaintiff is aware of conflicting claims against the property, so long as the conflicting claims are not pressed against him.  In … Read More