Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Arizona ex rel. Horne v. Geo Group, Inc.

The EEOC is not required to conciliate with an employer on behalf of individual employees before bringing suit on behalf of a class of employees, but may conciliate on behalf of the class and then join to the suit particular individuals who fall within the specified class.  Read More

Ontiveros v. Constable

The same attorney cannot represent both a corporation and those of its officers or shareholders who are sued by a minority shareholder in a derivative action.  Read More

Costello v. Buckley

Attorney was disqualified from defending his brother against suit by brother’s former lover whom attorney had previously represented, when the lover produced direct evidence of she had shared relevant confidential information with attorney. Attorney represented Costello in a suit about an easement over property she owned. At the time Costello was romantically involved with Attorney's brother, Buckley. Later, that romantic… Read More

In re Marriage of Murchison

Ordinarily, a movant has no standing to seek disqualification of another party's attorney unless the movant had a prior attorney-client, confidential, or fiduciary relationship with that attorney.  Husband does not have standing to seek disqualification of wife's counsel in a marital dissolution proceeding. Husband sought disqualification on the ground that counsel had purchased the couple's former residence from wife to… Read More

Salazar v. Matejcek

To preserve a statute of limitations defense, the answer must (1) allege facts showing that the action is time-barred and showing that the defense of the statute of limitations is being raised, or (2) plead the specific section and subdivision of the CCP which is applicable and bars the suit; catch-all references to a range of statutes are insufficient to… Read More

United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co.

If a qui tam False Claims Act suit rests on genuinely new and material information not publicly disclosed by a government audit, report, hearing or investigation, the suit may proceed though it arises from the same transactions as the prior public disclosure. Read More

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

Plaintiffs injured by a another manufacturer’s generic version of a brand name drug may recover from the brand name drug’s manufacturer on claims for negligent failure to warn of and negligent misrepresentation about potential adverse side effects of the drug. Read More

V.L. v. E.L.

Alabama violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause by refusing to give binding effect to a Georgia court’s adoption decree in favor of a female partner of the children's mother. Read More

Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Though it bears the label "trust," a real estate investment trust is a separate legal entity which can sue and be sued; so for diversity purposes, it is a citizen of every state of which any of its members is a citizen. Read More

Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels

An unfair competition action is governed by the UCL's four-year limitations period, even when it alleges unlawful conduct under another statute that is governed by a shorter limitations period; this rule applies even when the predicate statute is federal, rather than state. Read More

1 … 187 188 189