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.
Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim was pre-empted by FDA regulations governing how the defendant should calculate the protein content of its product, but plaintiff’s similar false advertising claim was not preempted because it accused the defendant of misrepresenting the source of the protein in the product. Read More
Student accused of sexual assault was denied basic due process by university disciplinary board by withholding evidence of antidepressant drugs being taken by the victim until the last minute and barring accused student’s attorney from participating in the proceedings while allowing university’s own counsel to act in a prosecutorial role. Read More
Substantial evidence supported finding by the university that a student had cheated on a biology exam, and since this determination was moreover made by a fair procedure, the trial court incorrectly granted the student’s administrative mandamus petition. Read More
Blind plaintiff alleged a viable claim for disability discrimination when he claimed that defendants’ aggressive unleashed guard dog attacked his seeing-eye dog on a public sidewalk outside their business establishment. Read More
While FDA regulations governing nutrition facts panels preempt state law as to facts stated within the panel, the regulations do not govern or preempt state law as to the rest of the product label; so a state may require that packaging on the remainder of the product meet stricter standards than is required for the facts listed in the nutrition… Read More
Defendant’s method of compensating its technicians—by giving each technician a base salary rate that was above the minimum wage but allowed the technician to increase his hourly rate by performing more production work that customers paid for during the workweek—did not violate California’s wage and hour laws, since each technician received an above-minimum wage rate for each hour worked. Read More
In calculating value of class action coupon settlement for purposes of awarding attorney fees, only the value of the coupon credits actually used by class members should have been counted; the district court erred by performing its fee calculation based on the full value of all the credits available to class members. Read More
Homeowners association could not invoke the Davis-Stirling Act to pursue claims in its own name without joining its individual owners since that Act only applies if the homeowners have mutual or reciprocal easements appurtenant to their separate interests (which was not true in this case). Read More
In a criminal prosecution for theft from an elder, defendant stipulated to a restitution amount of $700,000, so she was estopped from denying that damage amount in a later action for double damages under the Probate Code. Read More
For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider all required factors under the Rule of Court governing minors’ compromise, which permits the reduction of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ contingency fees under certain circumstances. Read More
Plaintiff employees’ law firm was not entitled to attorney fees it sought separately and independently of court approval of class action settlement. Read More
Law firm’s investigative due diligence report, completed prior to an acquisition to determine whether target company was in possession of another’s protected trade secrets, is not protected from discovery by any attorney-client privilege because it was jointly directed by and shared with opposing parties in the acquisition negotiations; and it was not protected by the work product privilege because it… Read More
Blind plaintiff alleged a viable claim for disability discrimination when he claimed that defendants’ aggressive unleashed guard dog attacked his seeing-eye dog on a public sidewalk outside their business establishment. Read More
While FDA regulations governing nutrition facts panels preempt state law as to facts stated within the panel, the regulations do not govern or preempt state law as to the rest of the product label; so a state may require that packaging on the remainder of the product meet stricter standards than is required for the facts listed in the nutrition… Read More
Defendant’s method of compensating its technicians—by giving each technician a base salary rate that was above the minimum wage but allowed the technician to increase his hourly rate by performing more production work that customers paid for during the workweek—did not violate California’s wage and hour laws, since each technician received an above-minimum wage rate for each hour worked. Read More
In calculating value of class action coupon settlement for purposes of awarding attorney fees, only the value of the coupon credits actually used by class members should have been counted; the district court erred by performing its fee calculation based on the full value of all the credits available to class members. Read More
Homeowners association could not invoke the Davis-Stirling Act to pursue claims in its own name without joining its individual owners since that Act only applies if the homeowners have mutual or reciprocal easements appurtenant to their separate interests (which was not true in this case). Read More
In a criminal prosecution for theft from an elder, defendant stipulated to a restitution amount of $700,000, so she was estopped from denying that damage amount in a later action for double damages under the Probate Code. Read More
For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More
