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.

With a long-tail loss, an excess insurer is not entitled to horizontal exhaustion of all underlying retention amounts for all years in which the loss is incurred; instead, vertical exhaustion applies: that is, once the retention amount for a single year is exhausted, the excess insurer for that year is liable for all sums incurred on the loss (up to… Read More

Since Oregon’s government claims statute reflected the same general policy as California’s Tort Claims Act by requiring plaintiffs to give pre-suit notice of injury within six months, California courts are required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to apply the Oregon statute. Read More

An order granting or denying a motion to disqualify counsel is immediately appealable; the appeal automatically stays the appealed order but not other proceedings in the trial court, so a disqualified attorney may continue to the representation while the appeal is pending. Read More

Civil penalties may be recovered under the Private Attorney General Act without proving that the defendant employer’s failure to provide workers accurate, itemized pay statements was knowing and intentional. Read More

Criminal defendant’s constitutional due process rights are not violated by federal statute prohibiting him from subpoenaing third party internet service provider (here, Facebook) for disclosure of non-public postings by one of its subscribers (such as, here, the defendant’s victim). Read More

Plaintiff could not state a viable employment discrimination claim based on her supervisor’s actions favoring his co-employee wife, but plaintiff could state a viable whistleblower claim based on the supervisor’s retaliation for her complaining about his favoritism. Read More

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied as the claim was based on defendant’s unprotected decision to terminate the plaintiff distributor rather than on the defendant’s later protected acts in a statutory arbitration proceeding concerning the termination. Read More

Defendant signed a settlement agreement providing that it would not contest plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees (but only the reasonableness of the fee award), so defendant could not later argue that various statutes limited or prohibited a fee award. Read More

The defendant’s attorney did not form a confidential non-client relationship with the plaintiff broker and so was not disqualified from representing the defendant; the information the attorney obtained from the broker either was necessary to the broker’s handling a property sale for defendant or was not confidential. Read More

Prior state court judgment based on collateral estoppel effect of a federal court judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect after the federal court judgment was reversed on appeal. Read More

California’s law banning foie gras and other products made from force-fed birds is not preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, since that act only prohibits states from imposing ingredient requirements, as opposed to restrictions on animal husbandry practices.    Read More

Uncertainty regarding class members’ damages does not prevent certification of a class as long as a valid method has been proposed for calculating those damages such as, here, a full refund of the purchase price based on defendant’s suggested retail price and the price the individual plaintiff paid.  Read More

While a police department could not legally discriminate against its employee police officers based on their ethnicity, it could legally take adverse employment action against them based on the race of the man they shot.   Read More

The Home Owners Loan Act does not preempt a state law breach of contract claim that the bank miscalculated adjusted interest rates on loans, since common law breach of contract claims impose no requirements other than those the bank voluntarily assumed in its own agreements.   Read More

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) preempts a Nevada law that limited deficiency judgments on foreclosure to the amount by which the price the owner paid to acquire the loan exceeded the foreclosure sale price.   Read More

Plaintiff’s suit for physical injuries suffered when she tripped over a scale as she left a community health facility is governed by the two-year limitations period for ordinary negligence, not the shorter limitations period for claims against a health care provider’s negligent delivery of professional services.   Read More

A fully trained service dog must be accommodated under federal law and Civil Code § 51; a service dog in training must also be accommodated under Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, but only if accompanied by the disabled person, or a person licensed or otherwise qualified to train the dog.   Read More

Trial court abused its discretion in declining to consider time records that had been filed with a previous attorney fee motion in the case and were incorporated by reference in a later attorney fee motion in the same case, since parties are permitted to incorporate by reference any paper previously filed in the action.   Read More

1 143 144 145 146 147 185