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.

Effective in 2019, Gov. Code 12923 "clarified" the law regarding hostile work environment sexual harassment claims.  The section states that summary judgment should rarely be granted on such claims.  In addition, it provides that even a single incident can be sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim "if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance… Read More

A district court order was immediately appealable insofar as it prohibited the defendant employer from communicating with workers about this opt-in FLSA action or soliciting them not to join the action, but not insofar as it voided the agreements that the employer had solicited from workers releasing FLSA claims or agreeing not to join the action.  The appealable portion of… Read More

Over a dissent, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations period (CCP 340.5) applies to a claim by a driver of a car injured by an EMT's negligent driving in delivering a patient to a hospital.  Delivering a patient to a hospital is a medical service which can be a matter of life and death to the patient.  The fact… Read More

Defendant operates a web-based payment processing platform offered to merchants nationwide.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated California's privacy laws by retaining customers' personal data obtained from the merchants and tracking the customers.  This decision holds that defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not target its activity to California or its consumers but operated its… Read More

Under Civ. Code, 1714.9, the firefighter rule does not apply to acts that a defendant takes after knowing a firefighter or policeman is present that increase the risk of harm to that person.  The statute does not require a showing that the defendant increased the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the firefighter's or policeman's line of work.  Hence,… Read More

Civ. Code 51.9 prohibits sexual harassment in business, service or professional relationships, carrying over FEHA's ban on workplace sex harassment into this different context.  As under FEHA, sex harassment can consist of quid pro quo harassment or hostile environment harassment.  Here, plaintiff alleged enough to allow a reasonable inference that the women's soccer coach subjected team members, including plaintiff, to… Read More

Reversing a summary judgment for defendant in this breach of contract suit, the Court of Appeal found the parties' brief signed napkin agreement to be enforceable despite some ambiguities and terms left for later determination.  It was not too indefinite to enforce or too indefinite to indicate agreement on essential terms.  Parol evidence was properly admitted to construe the ambiguous… Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment for defendant in a suit by the heirs of a driver killed in a head-on collision triggered by the presence of a deer on the highway.  Defendant was entitled to design immunity under Gov. Code 830.6.  The design of the highway was causally linked to the accident.  Caltrans approved the planned design of the… Read More

Yee owned a home in LA; Hon owned one in San Francisco.  They were romantically involved and were business partners in a company that ordered $141,000 of goods from Panrox, giving Panrox deeds of trust on both houses.  The business didn't pay Panrox which commenced an action to collect the debt.  Court records reflected it was settled in 1998, and… Read More

Distinguishing Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 173, this decision holds that plaintiff waived his right to attorney fees for opposing defendant's frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion by failing to give defendant 21-day notice before filing the motion for attorney fees.  CCP 425.16(d) provides that fees for opposing a frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion may be awarded in accordance with… Read More

The parties had been high school sweethearts.  After they broke up, defendant emailed Dartmouth, where plaintiff had enrolled for college.  The emails said various disparaging things about plaintiff including that he had been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in high school for voter fraud in a student body president election.  This decision holds that defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion was properly… Read More

Under Rule 8.108, a "valid" motion to vacate judgment extends the time for appeal until denial of the motion or 90-days after the first valid notice of such a motion is filed.  Under CCP 659(a)(1) and 663a(a), a motion to vacate may be filed after the decision is rendered and before entry of judgment.  In a court trial in which… Read More

Under the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program, employers may hire temporary foreign agricultural workers if the domestic labor market can't fill the employer's needs.  Under the program, the employer must first publicly disclosure the material terms sof employment, and then if too few domestic workers show up, the employer can hire foreigners.  This decision holds that a mandatory arbitration clause is… Read More

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply to bar this FDCPA claim against the debt collection attorneys who had filed a memorandum of costs after winning judgment in a debt collection suit.  The state court judgment was entered before the cost memo and did not rule on its propriety.  Hence, the federal court was not being asked to review any state… Read More

Agreeing with Connelly v. Bornstein (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 783 and Garcia v. Rosenberg (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, this decision holds that CCP 340.6's one-year limitations periods governs a malicious prosecution action against the attorney for the opposing party in the underlying litigation.  CCP 340.6(a)(2) tolls that one-year period during the time “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the… Read More

Plaintiff alleged a viable claim under 17200's fraudulent and unfair business practice prongs against defendant concrete company which added to its regular rates for its concrete an "energy fee" and an "environmental fee" which plaintiff alleged were unconnected with anything having to do with energy or the environment and instead were just ways to increase defendant's profits.  Mislabeling the fees… Read More

Plaintiff entered into a license agreement allowing defendant to use part of plaintiff's property to make films.  The license agreement stated expressly that it was not a lease and landlord-tenant laws did not apply.  This decision holds that the advantage of a fast unlawful detainer proceeding is a private right that a landlord can waive and that plaintiff did by… Read More

This decision affirms dismissal of a case under the 5 year statute.  It holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not tolling the 5 year statute during the 16 month period in which the court was not holding jury trials due to COVID-19 because during that period plaintiff was not ready to go to trial anyway,… Read More

Substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict for the defendant golf course in this disability discrimination suit by a golfer who suffered from pulmonary arterial hypertension which supposedly left him unable to walk any distance from the golf cart to his golf ball.  There was evidence that the golf course made a reasonable accommodation for plaintiff's disability by allowing him to… Read More

In a heavy rainstorm, plaintiff slipped and fell in a swiftly moving water current running down a sloped driveway that she tried to cross to access one entrance to her apartment building.  The danger of slipping in the water was open and obvious, so the landlord owed plaintiff no duty of care to warn her of the danger.  Also, there… Read More

1 17 18 19 20 21 185