Former city parks employee claimed he was fired for opposing discriminatory practices against disabled citizens who used the parks, but he could not state a cause of action based on the California Fair Housing & Employment Act since that statute does not protect employees against retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices against non-employee customers or clients. Read More
Triable issues of fact existed on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim after she was fired for tardiness due to recurrent doctor appointments and medical problems which resulted from what turned out to be a benign tumor. Read More
Despite denial of an attorney at initial investigation interview for excessive force complaint, police officer could not state a claim based on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act since he retained his prior employment at his same salary and thus suffered no adverse employment action. Read More
A plaintiff cannot state claims against a payroll processor for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or Labor Code sections requiring payment of minimum wages since the payroll processor is not actually the plaintiff's employer. Read More
The Workers Compensation Act did not preempt plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by her co-workers who staged a mock robbery at her cashier's window, since the Act does not preempt intentional torts that are not part of the compensation bargain. Read More
Even before completing the internal peer review process under Business & Professions Code 805-809.7, a doctor may bring a whistleblower action under Health & Safety Code 1278.5, which protects whistleblowers who report to authorities suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. Read More
When a claim alleges no conduct by the moving defendant, it cannot arise from that defendant's protected conduct and so cannot be attacked by an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Read More
Trial court properly concluded that decedent’s action in quit-claiming a one-third interest in a parcel of real property to defendant prior to her death could be construed consistently with her will, which disposed of all property owned by her probate estate at the time of her death. Read More
An initial motion for relief from default due to attorney fault is not considered a motion for reconsideration, so it need not show new law or facts which are ordinarily needed to support a motion for reconsideration. Read More
If all existing named parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge may rule on a motion to intervene even if the prospective intervenor does not consent. Read More
In a suit by a California resident against a Texas company that refurbished cellphones, the state of California lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because, although the Texas company was owned by a California corporation with overlapping executive personnel, there was insufficient evidence that the Texas company was the California parent's agent or that it purposefully directed its injurious activities… Read More
The filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for claims that the defendant pleads in a cross-complaint in the same action, regardless whether the cross-complaint is compulsory or permissive. Read More
Plaintiff states lacked parens patriae standing to challenge California’s law about conditions under which hens may be kept if their eggs are to be sold in California, since the law’s financial burden falls on individual egg producers, not the plaintiff states’ citizens in general. Read More
A general denial to an interpleader complaint is insufficient to raise any issue for trial as to defendant's claimed interest in the interpleaded funds; rather, a factually pleaded cross-complaint is required instead. Read More
Prisoner may use peremptory challenge on judge who initially reviews a habeas corpus petition to decide whether to issue order to show cause. Read More
A bankruptcy debtor's acknowledgement in his schedules that he owes a debt to a creditor does not act as a substitute for that creditor’s timely proof of claim. Read More
In lawsuit by a subcontractor’s worker who was injured on the job, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant general contractor, because a general is not responsible for injuries to a sub’s workers unless the general either contributed to the injury or breached a non-delegable duty it owed to the worker, and neither of those exceptions applied here. Read More
Defendant could not support his adverse possession claim with respect to a retaining wall he built on adjoining property that belonged to plaintiff homeowners’ association. Read More
In employee’s lawsuit against union alleging breach of duty of fair representation, district court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of union, when the evidence showed that the union failed to pursue Rollins' special rights under a seniority agreement and the evidence conflicted as to whether its stated reasons for doing so were actually reasonable. Read More
The Department of Industrial Relations may penalize any employer who lacks worker’s compensation coverage for more than one week during the calendar year preceding the determination, and Labor Code 3722(b)’s reference to “calendar year” is interpreted to mean the 12 months immediately preceding the determination of lack of insurance rather than a Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 calendar year. Read More
