California Appellate Tracker

Two-tier pricing based on the customer’s age violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act unless public policy embodied in statutes favors the price-advantaged age group. Read More

Homeowners associations may sue a public entity in inverse condemnation for damage caused to common areas. Read More

Before considering an expert’s opinion on a class certification motion, the court must determine whether the opinion is admissible under the Sargon test. Read More

Unnamed class members do not have standing to appeal from a class judgment or attorney fees award unless they intervene or move to vacate judgment. Read More

If the forum state's choice-of-law rules require the application of only one state's laws to the entire class, then the representation of multiple states within the class does not pose a barrier to class certification, but if class claims require adjudication under the laws of multiple states, then the court must determine whether common questions will predominate over individual issues. Read More

A premarital agreement that contains a recital that seven days time was given between the date first presented and the date signed is unenforceable under Family Code section 1615 if evidence shows that less time intervened between presentation and execution. Read More

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. Read More

A party that takes an assignment of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust may sue the title company under Civil Code section 2941 for wrongfully recording a release of the deed of trust even if the recordation occurred before the assignment. Read More

As a general rule in California, where an attorney is disqualified from representation, the entire law firm is vicariously disqualified as well. However, the general presumption is a rebuttable one, which can be refuted by evidence that an ethical wall or other circumstances has prevented the sharing of confidences in a particular case. Read More

When parties try to force a premature appeal by dismissing some claims without prejudice, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court so it can finally resolve all claims and enter a final, appealable judgment. Read More

Generally, a defendant owes no duty of care to avoid negligent conduct that results in solely economic injury; so a gas utility owed no duty of care to avoid a gas leak that caused neighborhood businesses to lose profits. Read More

A successful suit invalidating a public contract due to an awarding official’s conflict of interest is a suit “on the contract” for purposes of an attorney fee award under Civil Code 1717. Read More

There is no right to a jury trial in a suit for a public nuisance seeking only abatement of the nuisance. Read More

A standard form additional insured endorsement to a commercial general liability insurance policy provides coverage for claims first raised after completion of the principal insured’s work which arise from damage that began while that work was on-going. Read More

A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is sufficient evidence of a favorable termination for purposes of a later malicious prosecution suit. Read More

A landowner who constructs a parking lot across a public street may increase his or her invitees’ exposure to harm, but that alone does not warrant the imposition of a duty of care because landowners generally have little or no control over a public street’s safety precautions, which are typically maintained by state and local government. Read More

An internet website may assert the First Amendment rights of its anonymous posters when opposing a subpoena requiring it to reveal a poster’s identity, but the poster has no right to remain anonymous if the party issuing the subpoena demonstrates that the posted information was defamatory. Read More

An order removing an executor is not a final and appealable order if the trial court, in issuing the order, states that a written statement of decision providing the findings and reasoning supporting the order will be issued later. Read More

Judicial estoppel forbids a defendant from asserting that a court lacked authority to impose monetary sanctions when, in an earlier suit, the defendant successfully argued that the court should have entered monetary sanctions rather than terminating sanctions. Read More

Appeal time limits set by congressional statute are jurisdictional; those prescribed by court rule are merely mandatory and may be waived if the opposing party does not promptly object. Read More