California Appellate Tracker

Plaintiff, a jewelry store, stated a viable breach of contract action against Sotheby's.  Plaintiff owned $4 million in diamonds which it had obtained from Rechnitz as security for his debt.  Plaintiff and Rechnitz met with a Sotheby's agent, giving him the diamonds to have appraised for possible auction at Sotheby's.  Sotheby's form contract referred to only a single consignor, but… Read More

Plaintiff sued insurer #1, claiming it owed a duty to defend him against a suit by a conservation land trust that he had violated the trust's conservation easement over his land by various development activities he undertook on the property.  That suit resulted in a judgment for the insurer, affirmed on appeal, denying coverage on the ground that the suit… Read More

Plaintiff leased a commercial property from defendant.  The lease gave plaintiff an option to buy the property at its fair market value.  Plaintiff exercised the option but the parties disagreed about the fair market value.  After much litigation, the trial court set the price and ordered the parties to perform, but before they could  do so, the Department of Transportation… Read More

On remand after reversal of an order dismissing the complaint (Sicre De Fontbrune v. Wolfsy (9th Cir. 2016) 838 F.3d 992), this decision reverses a summary judgment in defendant's favor refusing to enforce a French judgment for "astreinte" damages for using photos of Picasso paintings infringing plaintiff's copyright in the photos.  The French judgment that plaintiff sought to enforce was… Read More

In international diversity cases, enforceability of judgments of courts of other countries is generally governed by the law of the state in which enforcement is sought. Read More

Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to challenge the FTC's opinion letter which took the position that use of soundboard technology on collection calls involved use of prerecorded messages that violated the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule.  The complaint did not allege that plaintiff had any concrete plans to violate the FTC's new interpretation of its Telemarketing Sales Rule. Read More

The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, acknowledging that amendment might not be futile.  Nevertheless, the district court did not grant leave to amend and entered judgment the same day against plaintiff.  This decision holds that, viewing the record as a whole, the district court intended to end the case, making its dismissal order final and appealable even though… Read More

Bucking the trend and disagreeing with United Talent Agency v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 821, this decision holds that the trial court erred in sustaining the insurer's motion to dismiss this suit seeking coverage under a CGL policy's business interruption coverage for losses sustained by reason of COVID-19.  It reasons that however improbable it may now seem, on… Read More

Plaintiff, who was not a licensed real estate agent or broker, adequately alleged facts that could give rise to an estoppel to plead the statute of frauds as a defense to her claim for breach of an oral contract to pay her a finder's fee in connection with the sale of real property.  Plaintiff alleged that in reliance on the… Read More

Recognizing a divergence of opinions on this point, this decision follows Rice v. Crow (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 725 and Le Parc Community Assn. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1161 in holding that the bare voluntary pre-trial dismissal of a lawsuit (pursant to settlement with less than all defendants) with prejudice does not result in the “actual litigation”… Read More

A person who was not named as a defendant in the prior action, who did not formally intervene as a defendant in that action, and who was not treated as a defendant by the court or the plaintiff, has no standing to sue for malicious prosecution in filing or pursuing the prior action, even if he filed an answer in… Read More

Distinguishing United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S.Ct. 945 and Carpenter v. United States (2018) 138 S. Ct. 2206, this decision holds that LADOT's collection of location data from rented escooters doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment or state law because escooters are not essential to modern life and information about their location doesn't follow a single user throughout his ordinary… Read More

Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that the complaint in this case alleged a true sale by plaintiff rather than a disguised financing arrangement and thus stated a claim against the distributor's transferees under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Read More

Following Gray v. Dignity Health (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225, this decision holds that a hospital does not violate the CLRA if it discloses its emergency room evaluation and management services fee in its on-line chargemaster list of fees.  No additional signage or disclosure of the EMS fee is required.  Any requirement of the sort would impair the Legislature's and Congress'… Read More

Distinguishing United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S.Ct. 945 and Carpenter v. United States (2018) 138 S. Ct. 2206, this decision holds that LADOT's collection of location data from rented escooters doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment or state law because escooters are not essential to modern life and information about their location doesn't follow a single user throughout his ordinary… Read More

Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that the complaint in this case alleged a true sale by plaintiff rather than a disguised financing arrangement and thus stated a claim against the distributor's transferees under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Read More

Following Gray v. Dignity Health (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225, this decision holds that a hospital does not violate the CLRA if it discloses its emergency room evaluation and management services fee in its on-line chargemaster list of fees.  No additional signage or disclosure of the EMS fee is required.  Any requirement of the sort would impair the Legislature's and Congress'… Read More

The district court erred in certifying a plaintiff class in this case challenging defendant's classification of its property preservation workers as independent contractors and asserting claims for overtime pay and expense reimbursement.  Plaintiffs could not prove fact of damage--not just amount of damage--by common evidence since some class members had not worked overtime or incurred reimbursable business expenses.  The district… Read More

This decision reverses a punitive damage award against a supplier of talc to the manufacturer of Old Spice talcum powder.  Defendant did not contest the jury's verdicts finding that plaintiff contracted mesothelioma from the asbestos in the talcum powder and that defendant was negligent in failing to detect and warn consumers about its presence in the product.  However, there was… Read More

A judgment debtor's interest in an ERISA-compliant profit-sharing or pension plan is automatically exempt from execution to enforce a money judgment.  ERISA provides that qualified pension plan interest are not assignable.  29 USC 1056(d).  Under CCP 695.030, property that is not assignable is not subject to enforcement of a money judgment. That section prevails over CCP 704.115, which allows a… Read More