Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

California Appellate Tracker

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.

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

Plaintiffs bought some real property from Guillermo Guerrero.  LBS had recorded an abstract of judgment against the same person but under the name Wilbert G. Guerrero.  This decision holds that plaintiffs, who had no actual knowledge of LBS' judgment lien also had no constructive knowledge of the lien since a regular search of the grantor-grantee indices for the name under… Read More

Defendant was a signatory as an employer to a collective bargaining agreement with the union which supplied lighting technicians for the TV commercials that defendant produced or that were produced by non-signatory production companies that rented defendant's services and its signatory status to hire the technicians.  This decision reverses a summary judgment in defendant's favor on wage claims by technicians… Read More

The amount in controversy under CAFA is the defendant's possible liability, not likely or probable liability.  When the complaint prays for an unspecified amount of punitive damages, a removing defendant can meet its burden of showing its possible liability for an amount of punitive damages by presenting evidence of the compensatory to punitive damage ratio(s) awarded in other cases alleging… Read More

The district court erred in entering a nationwide injunction against the Trump Administration's unlawful restrictions on federal grants to localities, requiring them to forego the grants or foreswear their "sanctuary" statutes or ordinances.  The only plaintiffs in this case were San Francisco and California.  They suffered injury only within California, and they could be restored to their rightful position by… Read More

Following the Supreme Court's interpretation of excess insurance policies' other insurance clauses in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215, this decision holds that in a case involving coverage for injuries occurring over multiple coverage periods, the insured can reach an excess policy after "vertically" exhausting any primary insurance policies for the same period, but need not… Read More

Applying Singapore law in accordance with a stock purchase agreement's choice of law clause, this decision holds that the employer did not breach that agreement when it bought back the employee's stock after having fired him.  The agreement provided for an employer buy back at market value of the stock if the employee left employment voluntarily or involuntarily for any… Read More

The trial court erred in granting a temporary restraining order on an ex parte basis in this case.  The declaration supporting the request for the TRO did not present admissible evidence of any impending emergency that required relief on an ex parte basis, as opposed to a noticed motion.  The case challenged the Governor's emergency order regarding voting by mail… Read More

Following Baumann v. Chase Investment Serv. Corp. (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1117, this decision holds that a PAGA suit is not a "class action" that can be removed under CAFA because a PAGA suit lacks the characteristics of a class action under FRCivP 23.  That conclusion not weakened by more recent decisions, but is instead by the Cal. Supreme… Read More

Following Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 726 F.3d 1118, this decision holds that statutory penalties cannot be aggregated in a PAGA suit to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold for traditional diversity jurisdiction purposes.  Instead, the statutory penalties and attorrney fees attributable solely to the named plaintiff must exceed $75,000 for there to be… Read More

Under Gov. Code 66498.1,  a local agency’s approval of a vesting tentative map confers upon a developer the right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vested tentative map is approved.  Here, the city approved the developer's vesting tentative map before its citizens passed an initiative measure that… Read More

The trial court erred in compelling arbitration of plaintiff's individual wage and hour claims while retaining jurisdiction over his PAGA claims.  The employer's arbitration clause contained a waiver of "representative" claims--a word broad enough to encompass PAGA claims.  Since PAGA claims cannot be waived, the purported waiver was invalid.  But the arbitration clause also said that the waiver provision was… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $654,000 in attorney fees despite the fact that the plaintiff individually recovered only $2,300.  Plaintiff's success benefitted 130 other owners in a homeowners association.  In any event, attorney fee awards need not be proportional to the damage award.  Though fee awards may be reduced for partial success, a high fee-to-damage… Read More

Corporate directors acting under a conflict of interest cannot obtain the benefit of the business judgment rule. A director who votes on a measure when he has a conflict of interest bears the burden of showing that the measure or the transaction it approve was just and reasonable to the corporation, considering only the corporation's interests.  Here, some directors of… Read More

Though not called "ministers" and though lacking as rigorous a religious education, teachers at a Catholic or other religious school, whose duties include educating students in the tenets of their religious faith fall within the "ministerial exception," based on the First Amendment, which prevents courts from adjudicating wrongful termination or employment discrimination claims brought by employees of religious institutions whose… Read More

Both employer and employee signed a three-page standalone arbitration agreement, but both failed to put their initials by the bolded provision that said both waived the right to a jury trial.  This decision holds that the parties are bound by the arbitration agreement.  Their signatures showed their assent to its terms which unequivocally bound them to arbitrate.  The employee's uncommunicated… 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

The portion of 47 U.S.C. 227(b) added in 2015 to exempt calls to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government from the TCPA's ban on robocalls to cellphones is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.  The exception is content-based as it draws distinctions based on the message conveyed in the telephone call.  The exception may be invalidated… Read More

Two years after this case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, the parties discovered that one of the properties at issue in the case was partly owned by a trust of which one trustee was a non-diverse California resident.  The plaintiff moved to join the non-diverse trustee as a defendant.  The district court granted the joinder, severed the… Read More

Distinguishing Andrews v. Foster Wheeler (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96 and following Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884 instead, this decision holds that no logical inference that the plaintiff possesses no facts to support his claim can be drawn from the plaintiff's improper use of the procedure under CCP 2030.230 (pointing to documents from which an answer can be drawn)… Read More

1 115 116 117 118 119 189