California Appellate Tracker

A golf course owes a duty of care to its patrons to take reasonable steps to protect them from swarms of ground-nesting yellow jackets.  Read More

The payment of money for a product that the plaintiff would not have purchased but for the false advertising—here, presenting products with a fake list price crossed out and an invented “discount” alongside—is sufficient economic injury to confer standing to sue under the unfair competition law, false advertising law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Read More

Plaintiff is estopped from arguing defendant waived untimeliness of her government claim because she misrepresented in the claim when she learned of her claim, making it seem timely when it was not. Read More

An employer-hired safety consultant owes employees a duty of care even if he does not assume all of the employer’s safety obligations to employees. Read More

The act of state doctrine barred heir of Dutch citizen from reclaiming from a museum a painting the citizen had been forced to sell to the Nazis, as the Dutch government had previously denied the heir’s claims. Read More

The district court properly dismissed this antitrust action because plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the conclusion that the advertising on bibs worn by golf caddies on professional golf tours constituted a separate market or submarket.  Read More

The petitioner for a writ of administrative mandamus was correctly charged half the cost of the defendant agency’s preparation of the administrative record since petitioner had unreasonably delayed in preparing the record itself. Read More

The catch-all federal four-year statute of limitations applies to violations of the foreclosure prohibitions in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Read More

California labor laws do not recognize the federal de minimis doctrine; hence, Starbucks's practice of requiring store managers to work without pay several minutes a day after clocking out was illegal. Read More

When a government agency agrees to produce requested documents but its former officer files a mandamus action against it seeking to bar that disclosure (in this case on attorney-client privilege grounds) and names the record requester as a real party in interest, the mandamus suit is not itself considered a suit to enforce the Public Records Act, and hence attorney… Read More

When the lawyer with a conflict of interest left the firm while its appeal from the order disqualifying it was pending, the appellate court remands for the trial court to consider whether disqualification is still required. Read More

Employee’s claim that employer had breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA in managing an employee benefit plan was not subject to arbitration since the benefit plan was not a party to the relevant arbitration agreement. Read More

Reverse passing off of a physical product (here, car tires) violates the Lanham Act even if that product embodies the plaintiff’s intellectual property. Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees to the plaintiff, who owned the copyright in a film that defendant illegally downloaded and shared online, since the fact that plaintiff settled for only $750 in statutory damages didn't show limited success but did emphasize the need for an attorney fee award.  Read More

A settlement agreement between the parties to this case was unenforceable because it imposed a substantial restriction on Golden's practice of his profession as a doctor by trying to prevent him from working with any hospital with which CEPMG had a contract, which amounted to 30% of the market. Read More

There is no private right of action for violation of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, which prohibits air carriers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of a physical or mental impairment, although the Department of Transportation has authority to enforce the Act. Read More

The ERISA benefit fund cannot collect unpaid contributions from the employer corporation's officers and directors. Read More

The Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule limits a creditor’s liability for claims by restricting the debtor’s total recovery (including attorney fees) to the amount paid by the debtor under the assigned contract. Read More

Taco Bell’s policy allowing employees to buy discounted meals to eat during their meal breaks—but only if they ate the discounted meal on the premises—did not violate California rule that employees be relieved of all work duties and employer control during meal breaks. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification to two consolidated cases seeking tax refunds on behalf of LLCs which had paid tax under a statute later determined to be unconstitutional, since the proposed class was ascertainable, and presented a predominant common issue. Read More