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.

Costs incurred in connection with setting up depositions that were eventually not taken may still be recoverable court costs under CCP 1033.5 if reasonably necessary to the prosecution or defense of the case.  Here, on dismissal of the case, defendant was entitled to fees a deposition reporter charged for late cancellation of one deposition and for preparing a notice of… Read More

This decision affirms an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration.  The arbitration provision purported to require arbitration of all disputes, but prohibit any form of representative action.  Following Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, such a clause is unenforceable as to PAGA claims involving Labor Code violations not suffered by the individual plaintiff.  Because the… Read More

Following Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 324, this decision holds that the absolute litigation privilege generally does not apply to Rosenthal FDCPA claims, even to claims that the defendant debt collector manufactured false evidence to support its debt collection lawsuits. Read More

Defendant is a student loan debt collector which sued plaintiff on a student loan debt.  Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that defendant manufactured false substitute rosters to show which entities owned the student loans it sued to collect.  The complaints alleged protected activity in the course of petitioning courts.  The case did not fit within the Flatley v.… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendant's in limine motions to exclude plaintiff's expert's testimony that his employment-related exposure to diesel fuel fumes and particulate matter was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkins lymphoma.  To testify regarding causation, the experts did not have to rely on published epidemiological studies liking diesel fuel exposure to lymphoma.  There are many reasons… Read More

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), the federal courts could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Czech companies that hosted child porn videos in violaiton of federal criminal statutes that gave the porn victims private rights of action against those profiting from the child porn.  Under the Calder test, there was sufficient evidence that the companies targeted the US and profited… Read More

A staffing company is not itself a "laborer" under Civ. Code 9100 and so is not entitled to claim a mechanic's lien or payment under a payment bond on a public project.  The statutory definition of those entitled to claim changed after Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152 was decided and the statute no… Read More

Pep Boys extended their multiple-layer products liability insurance policies from one year to 17 months to align their insurance policies with their fiscal year.  Several of the extended policies stated that the policy was subject to a limit of” $x million in the aggregate for each annual period during the policy period.  This decision holds that the policy language cannot… Read More

When a trust becomes irrevocable, the trustee must send a notice to all beneficiaries warning them that they have 120 days to bring any action to contest the trust.  (Prob. Code 16061.7.)  The 120-day limitation period for bringing an action to contest the trust is codified in Prob. Code 16061.8, which applies to any action challenging the validity of the… Read More

The contamination exclusion in the Sharks business interruption insurance policy prevented the Sharks from showing any covered  physical loss or damage to property due to COVID-19.  If COVID stuck to surfaces making the premises unsafe, the alteration was an excluded contamination of the premises. Read More

In this case, independent wholesalers of 5-Hour Energy sued the caffeinated drinks manufacturer for selling the product to Costco at lower price than it charged the independents.  The manufacturer also reimbursed Costco for its promoting the product every other month or so by offering it to Costco members at a reduced rate.  The district court did not abuse its discretion… Read More

Under Probate Code 21380, a dependent adult's donative transfer to his or her  "care custodian" is presumed to have been the product of fraud or undue influence if the transfer is made in an instrument during the period the care custodian is serving in that capacity or 90 days before or after that period.  The statutory presumption of fraud or… Read More

Under CCP 527.6(j), an anti-harrassment injunction may be extended only once for a period of 5 years or less without evidence of further harassment since the original anti-harassment injunction was issued.  To obtain an additional extension of the injunction, post-order harassment must be shown. Read More

ERISA did not preempt an ERISA plan's suit against Bayer, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective pregnancy prevention device.  The Plan's claims for negligence, products liability, failure to warn (of defects in the device), etc. did not act immediately and exclusively on ERISA plans.  The ERISA plan was relevant to the claims only insofar as it granted the plan a… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  The absolute litigation privilege did not protect her from liability for her web blog and Yelp! postings that allegedly defamed the plaintiff construction contractor that she said had botched repairs on her house.  Though defendant had filed a complaint with the Contractor's Licensing Board which had awarded her compensation from the plaintiff,… Read More

A civil suit for child pornography under 18 USC 2255 is governed by a 10 year statute of limitations.  However, the limitations period runs from each republication of the pornography since republication can cause a new personal injury.  Here, the complaint alleged a republication of the record album containing a nude picture of plaintiff's naked body in a swimming pool. … Read More

In a case of first impression in California, this decision holds that a party to one of several cases that the Judicial Council has ordered to be coordinated is not entitled to mandatory intervention in other of the coordinated cases than the one in which it already is a party because the would-be intervenor cannot show that it is so… Read More

Civil Code 1566, 1567, and 1570 establish a right to rescission in cases in which a person’s consent to a transaction was obtained by “menace”:  threats of confinement, of unlawful violence to the person or his or her property, or of injury to a person’s character.  This is effectively the civil version of extortion.  So, Tran could state a claim… Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend to bring in a new defendant and allege a new theory of liability when the motion was filed 8 months after the scheduling order's deadline for amending the pleadings.  The plaintiff was not diligent having waited several months after learning of the new defendant's identity and… Read More

1 15 16 17 18 19 185