California Appellate Tracker

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

The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for reconsideration of its order granting the judgment creditor the right to execute on defendants' IRA and ERISA plan interest because the motion failed to cite new facts or law.  However, the trial court then properly exercised its inherent authority to reconsider its order because the reconsideration motion brought to its attention the… Read More

In a case with facts closely similar to Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, the court follows that decision in holding that Daimler was subject to personal jurisdiction in California even though Daimler had not sold the truck involved in the accident in this state nor did the accident occur here.  Daimler purposefully… Read More

Following County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. (9th Cir. 2022) 32 F.4th 733, this decision affirms an order remanding this climate change public nuisance suit against major oil companies to state court. Read More

Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this 10b-5 suit that came after a dramatic decline in Align's stock price following an abrupt decrease in its sales growth in China.  The abrupt decline in sale growth which came only three months after positive remarks by Align's management and was unexplained by other external events was sufficient to give rise… Read More