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.

Following Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, LP (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, this decision holds that an arbitration agreement does not clearly and unambiguously delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrator if the otherwise clear, broad delegation clause is contradicted by a severance provision that recognizes the possibility that a court may determine the arbitration clause or a part of it to be unenforceable. … Read More

CCP 2023.030(f) provides that "absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system."  This decision holds that this provision does not shield… Read More

A post-trial motion under Rule 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.  By contrast, a post-trial motion is required if the summary judgment motion was denied on sufficiency of the evidence grounds since the evidentiary record may be (and usually is) different at trial. Read More

The county's sale of plaintiff's condo at a tax sale to collect delinquent taxes plaintiff owed.  The sale netted a sum greater than the taxes owed.  The county kept the surplus sale proceeds.  That was a taking of plaintiff's property that violated the Fifth Amendment even though state law allowed the county to keep the surplus.  To determine the scope… Read More

Plaintiff appealed adverse judgment claiming the trial court erred in refusing a jury instruction regarding an adverse inference from the opposing party's concealing evidence during discovery.  This decision holds that the plaintiff forfeited the issue on appeal by misstating the record in her brief--asserting that the trial court had found that the defendant improperly concealed documents, when the trial court… Read More

A special needs trust is one established for a severely disabled person.  The trust is designed to supplement public assistance the beneficiary receives without rendering the beneficiary ineligible for that public assistance.  This decision holds that the trustee has discretion under a special needs trust to pay for goods and services for the beneficiary that are not supplied by public… Read More

An administrative agency’s discretionary order may be upheld only on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself.  If a court finds the agency's articulated basis to be legally erroneous, it must reverse and remand to the administrative agency for further proceedings, not affirm the agency's order on other grounds. Read More

California's statute forbidding retaliation against employee whistleblowers protects an employee who discloses to supervisors or public prosecutors or regulators information about what he believes are his employer's violations of law--even if the recipient of the information is already aware of the reported violations.  Section 1102.5 protects "disclosures," a term broad enough to encompass emphasizing already known facts.  The term “disclosure”… Read More

Following Balistreri v. Balistreri (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 511, this decision holds that if a trust provides a procedure or method for amending the trust, whether phrased as exclusive or optional, any amendment must conform to that procedure or method; otherwise it is invalid.  Prob. Code 15402’s “qualification ‘[u]nless the trust instrument provides otherwise’ indicates that if any modification method is… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered against plaintiff on her FEHA disability discrimination claim.  She was fired when she refused to take a flu vaccine which her employer required as a condition of employment.  Plaintiff had undergone chemotherapy for colon cancer, but had survived with the cancer in remission.  Lingering side effects of the chemotherapy were not contraindications for taking a… Read More

28 USC 1367(d) provides that when a case is brought within the federal courts' original jurisdiction and state law claims are also asserted, invoking the federal court's supplemental jurisdiction, any applicable statute of limitations is tolled for a period of 30 days following dismissal of the state law claims if the federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.  This… Read More

Plaintiff's use of Andy Warhol's silkscreen prints of defendant's photograph of Prince is not exempt from copyright infringement under the fair use doctrine.  While Andy Warhol transformed the photograph somewhat, the proposed use of his silkscreen as a magazine cover directly competed with defendant's initial use of the photograph for the same purpose.  The direct competition brought the use outside… Read More

Reversing Gonzalez v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2021) 2 F.4th 871, the Supreme Court holds that the Justice Against Sponsors of International Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA; 18 USC 2333) which amended the ATA to include secondary civil liability for aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit, acts of international terrorism requires proof of knowing assistance in criminal activity according… Read More

Kinder was a patient at defendant's residential skilled nursing facility.  The trial court correctly denied a motion to compel arbitration of Kinder's personal injury claim because she did not sign the facility's arbitration agreement.  Instead, her adult child signed for her.  The facility produced no evidence to show that the signer had actual or ostensible authority to sign for Kinder. … Read More

The trial court improperly entered summary judgment for defendant on class claims that it violated H&S Code 1374.72, which requires parity of treatment for mental illness as for physical illness, and Civ. Code 51 by treating persons with mental disabilities less well than those with physical disabilities.  Plaintiffs' evidence raised triable issues of fact as to whether Kaiser's reimbursement and… Read More

1 40 41 42 43 44 195