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.

Defendant, a broker who arranged for asbestos-containing insulation products to be delivered to Naval shipyards for insulation of submarine pipes, may successfully invoke the defense contractor immunity doctrine, since the Navy’s detailed specifications could only be satisfied with asbestos-containing insulation, and the Navy had specifically studied and approved the aspect of the product—its asbestos—which was alleged to be a health… Read More

Employers and landowners owe a duty of care to members of an asbestos worker's household, who habitually live with the worker and thus are exposed to the asbestos he or she brings home from work.  Read More

Civil harassment injunction which barred defendant from writing defamatory letters about plaintiff did not violate defendant’s First Amendment rights, but the trial court’s order needed to clarify that defendant was allowed to conduct bona fide petitioning activity in letters to governmental officials about plaintiff.  Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a local governmental entity to pay a $17 million judgment against it in up to 10 annual installments, since the entity presented evidence that paying the judgment in a lump sum would constitute an "unreasonable hardship."  Read More

An execution sale following a judgment is absolute and cannot be set aside for any reason, not even on grounds of extrinsic fraud.  Read More

A defendant may tender the amount it estimates the plaintiff is entitled to under the Automobile Sales Finance Act without admitting liability, and may recover the tendered sum plus costs and attorney fees if the plaintiff recovers less at trial.  Read More

Debtor who failed to appeal within the 14-day bankruptcy appeal deadline from an order denying his third motion to reconsider denial of motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay, could not cure the untimeliness of the appeal by use of a petition for writ of mandate.  Read More

In an insurance bad faith case, the trial court properly remitted punitive damages from the $19 million awarded by the jury to $475,000, which was ten times the actual damages awarded.  Read More

Trial court correctly refused to compel arbitration of this suit which the plaintiff employee brought solely under PAGA (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), since even if a PAGA claim may be brought on an individual basis, it is still a claim by the state, not by the private attorney general, and so cannot be governed by a private… Read More

The three-month deadline for filing a motion to vacate an arbitration award may be tolled by delayed discovery of an arbitrator’s deliberate and material deception as to his credentials.  Read More

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

1 165 166 167 168 169 185