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.

Manufacturer of auto brake forming tools is strictly liable for worker’s injury caused by breathing asbestos dust while using the tools in the intended manner on asbestos-laced auto brakes, even though manufacturer did not make the brakes.  Read More

Conservator and attorney fees are not considered “support and maintenance” for purposes of Probate Code 3089, which allows community property to be divided for the support and maintenance of an incompetent spouse if the competent spouse refuses to pay for it voluntarily.  Read More

While Congress may elevate intangible injuries to allow standing to sue, it cannot, by granting a right to statutory damages, create Article III standing when the plaintiff has suffered no actual injury, as can be the case when the defendant violates a statute’s purely procedural requirements.  Read More

“Actual fraud” for purposes of the 11 USC 523(a)(2)(A) exemption is construed broadly to encompass fraudulent transfers of property designed to hinder or delay creditors.  Read More

The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not ban as false or misleading conduct collection letters sent by special counsel employed by the Attorney General to collect debts owed the state, using Attorney General stationery at the Attorney General’s direction.  Read More

Under Federal Securities Exchange Act section 27 (15 USC 78aa(a)), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction if either (a) plaintiff’s claim is created by the Exchange Act, or rules or regulations adopted under it, or (b) if the suit necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal securities law issue.  Read More

A district judge’s order slashing class counsel’s compensation by 70% in wake of a common fund settlement is overturned for failure to explain adequately the basis for the reduction.  Read More

A suit for pre-natal injuries caused by exposure to toxic chemicals is governed by CCP 340.4 (providing for a 6-year from birth limitations period not tolled during minority) rather than CCP 340.8 (providing for a two-year from discovery limitations period for suits for injuries from toxic chemicals, subject to tolling for minority).  Read More

Today the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, -- S.Ct. --, No. 13-1339, 2016 WL 2842447, at *6 (U.S. May 16, 2016).  In a victory for defendant Spokeo, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on grounds that the lower court—in finding Robins had Article III standing to sue—had erroneously focused only… Read More

Service of process after amendment naming defendant in place of a fictitious defendant is properly quashed when the plaintiff knew facts giving rise to his claim against defendant when the original complaint was filed. Read More

Borrower’s pre-foreclosure securitization suit was properly dismissed because judicially noticeable documents show that the challenged loan transfer was valid, not void as the borrower alleged.  Read More

The defendant’s jury demand in the bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding did not deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to decide a non-merits issue, such as whether to compel arbitration, and arbitration was properly denied since, in claiming a fraudulent transfer, the trustee stepped into the shoes of a judgment creditor, not the debtor, which had signed the arbitration clause.  Read More

A vexatious litigant pre-filing order under CCP 391.7 prevents appeals by plaintiffs, but not by defendants. Read More

The local controversy exception to federal CAFA jurisdiction applied in this pollution class action because the plaintiffs sought significant relief from and based their suit in significant part on a nondiverse defendant’s negligence in performing its contract to remediate the diverse defendant’s pollution. Read More

Independent contractors hired by a governmental entity for purposes of letting public contracts are subject to the same anti-corruption prohibitions that apply to government officers and employees, who are forbidden from having any interest in public contracts that they let.  Read More

CCP 340.5’s one-year-from-discovery limitations period applies to a patient’s claim she was injured by a hospital negligent maintenance of its equipment or furniture if the particular equipment or furniture (here, guard rails on a hospital bed) are integrally related to medical diagnosis or treatment of the patient.  Read More

The actual facts, not the claimant’s allegations, determine whether an action arose from conduct in the course of employment for purposes of determining whether a governmental entity must reimburse its employee for cost incurred in defending the claimant’s suit.  Read More

Plaintiff suing a federal official in her individual capacity for violation of constitutional rights may recover only damages, not injunctive or declaratory relief.  Read More

A motion to compel arbitration was properly denied because current suit challenged a corporate acquisition while the arbitration clause covered only exclusive marketing arrangements. Read More

1 178 179 180 181 182 185