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.

It is the substance of a post-trial motion, not its title, that controls its effect on the appeal period; so a motion for stay disguised as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment does not toll the appeal period though a true Rule 59 motion would do so.   Read More

The trial court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to submit a proper statement of undisputed facts even after having been warned and given a second chance to file a proper statement.   Read More

Trial court properly excluded defense expert’s proposed testimony that plaintiff was under the influence of marijuana at the time of auto accident at issue, since hospital tests did not indicate an active concentration of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in plaintiff’s blood when he was hospitalized after the accident.   Read More

Under Spanish law, the prescriptive period for claims to possession of a Pisarro painting stolen from a German Jewish citizen by the Nazis and later sold to a Spanish museum, may not have expired if the museum had acquired the painting knowing all along that it was stolen.  Read More

By choosing arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules, the parties clearly delegated to the arbitrator questions regarding the scope of the arbitration clause including whether it allowed impleader of a claim against a surety that was not a party to the arbitration clause.  Read More

Disabled plaintiff stated a viable claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act against a used car dealership, based on its refusal to accommodate his need for the temporary installation of hand controls for the brake and accelerator so plaintiff could test-drive a car he was considering buying.  Read More

Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds affirmed in suit by Florida corporation against to residents of Mexico over contract to raise crops in Mexico; neither party was a California resident and Mexico had a greater interest in adjudicating the dispute.  Read More

A district court may abstain under the Colorado River doctrine only in extraordinary circumstances, not in an ordinary diversity action seeking damages and rescission under settled principles of state law.  Read More

Relators stated an actionable False Claims Act claim for fraud against defendant drug manufacturer, claiming that defendant had obtained a key active ingredient for HIV antiretroviral drugs it sold to the U.S. government from unapproved Chinese factories and that the improperly sourced ingredient was adulterated.  Read More

Plaintiff's medical malpractice suit was untimely, having been filed more than a year after discovery of the malpractice; formal CCP 364 pre-suit notice from her attorney did not extend the limitations period since plaintiff had already sent her own letter which operated as a pre-suit notice despite not being intended as such.  Read More

In the trademark context, “reverse confusion” is a legal theory, not a separate claim, and so it can be raised in opposition to summary judgment even though it was not separately alleged in the complaint.  Read More

Newspaper home delivery carriers were properly found to be employees, covered by Labor Code wage, hour, and expense reimbursement provisions, not independent contractors.  Read More

Gas station’s insurance policy, which insured against collapse but not settling, cracking, shrinkage or expansion, did not cover needed repairs after the outer shell of the insured’s underground gas storage tank split open but inner steel lining remained intact.  Read More

An employer owed no duty of care to an employee’s steady, non-live-in girlfriend to protect against transmission of asbestos dust on employee’s clothing; gas station, which did occasional car repairs, was not sufficiently in the stream of asbestos-containing products so as to incur strict liability for those products.  Read More

Plaintiff’s asbestos-caused mesothelioma claim accrued when she received that diagnosis; her government claim, filed 10 months later, was untimely, so her suit was dismissed.  Read More

An insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission defense based on false answers to its insurance application questions, since the questions were ambiguously worded and the answers were arguably accurate under one reasonable interpretation of the questions; also, a defendant gives sufficient notice of its intent to rescind a contract on which the plaintiff sues by alleging… Read More

1 154 155 156 157 158 190