California Appellate Tracker

Although procedural fairness does not prohibit the combination of the advocacy and adjudicatory functions within a single administrative agency, tasking the same individual with both roles violates the minimum constitutional standards of due process. The irreconcilable conflict between advocating for the agency on one hand, and being an impartial decisionmaker on the other, presents a particular combination of circumstances creating… Read More

In this case, plaintiff sued defendant under the CLRA for not disclosing the amount of its potential or likely emergency room evaluation and management services fee.  The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that defendant owed a duty to disclose the charge as that information was within its sole knowledge and not readily available to its patients.  The complaint… Read More

A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a class action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act unless the complaint names 100 class members.  (Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co. (9th Cir, 2020) 966 F.3d 1027.)  Similarly, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA case unless no claim in the amount in controversy on each claim exceeds $25… Read More

The trial court correctly denied this lawyer-defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion, finding that this suit to collect the agreed price for its services was not based on protected speech.  The fraud and concealment claim brought against the lawyer was for misrepresentations and concealments about the client-buyer's financial condition which induced plaintiff to enter into the services contract.  Communications at the pre-contract stage… Read More

Relying heavily on Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, this decision holds that a South Korean parent corporation is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California based on activities its California subsidiary took in California in what the complaint charged was an antitrust conspiracy to fix spot market prices of fuel in California.  For personal… Read More

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

This decision affirms all but $42 million of a $344 million judgment against Johnson under the UCL and FAL for misleading advertising and concealment of the serious risks entailed in using its pelvic mesh product to cure certain conditions in women.  The trial court applied the proper test in determining whether Johnson's instructions for use and other advertising would mislead… Read More

Statistical evidence is admissible to establish predominance under FRCivP 23(b)(3) if that evidence would be admissible in an individual action on the same claim, the statistical evidence is linked to the plaintiffs' theory of liability and the use of averaging assumptions does not conceal the variations that otherwise would defeat class certification.  Here, plaintiffs' statistical evidence satisfied those three tests. … Read More

Following Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170 and E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1140, this decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant attorneys in this malpractice action based on the allegation that the attorneys failed to warn plaintiff of the disadvantages of bringing the underlying suit in California where the defendant could… Read More

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 28(b)(5) grants crime victims the right to “refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.”  This decision holds that this provision which was… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs Americans with Disabilities Act claim.  The summary judgment was granted on the ground that the defendant had fewer than 15 employees, the minimum threshold for application of the ADA.  However, the decision holds that there was a triable issue of fact whether the defendant, a Nevada law limited partnership, was… Read More

Mendoza was president of a local union.  The international ATU imposed a trusteeship on that local union ousting Mendoza and the local union's executive board members having discovered suspected financial malfeasance.  Mendoza filed an action against the ATU on his own behalf.  The ATU removed it to federal court, claiming NRLA preemption.  While the first suit was pending Mendoza filed… Read More

Defendant's website didn't adequately disclose the nature of the terms of service, and didn't point out either the arbitration clause or the hyperlink to the agreement.  As a form of sign-in wrap, the website failed adequately to show agreement to the defendant's terms when the customer simply hit the "continue" button. Read More

The district attorneys of several counties served Alorica with an investigative subpoena to produce records regarding it debt collection practices and in particular with respect to its collections for a national bank.  Held, the subpoena was properly enforced.  That Alorica claims not to be a debt collector within the meaning of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is no… Read More

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 USC 41713) preempted plaintiff's tort claims arising from defendant's decision not to use plaintiff's software that offered certain in flight deals to airline passengers.  Refusing to follow the Ninth Circuit's minority view (Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 160 F.3d 1259), this decision holds that in flight deals are part… Read More

While the scope of a student's right to a fair hearing before discipline is uncertain and evolving, one thing is clear:  the school must follow its own published procedures in determining whether to discipline a student.  Here, the defendant school's procedure said that students would have the right to cross-examine witnesses.  The school misinterpreted this as granting cross-examination only if… Read More

Following Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations on medical malpractice claims and $250,000 limit on non-economic damages did not apply to this elderly woman who was sexually assaulted by the defendant elder care facility's male attendant, based on a jury's finding that the defendant was not only guilty not only of general… Read More

Plaintiff sued defendant for stalking her and firing crossbow bolts and bullets at her office.  The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence an audio recording of a telephone call plaintiff made to defendant at the request of the police.  The recording was adequately authenticated.  Plaintiff testified she recognizes the voices on the tape as hers and defendant's. … Read More

In Vaden v. Discover Bank (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1262, the Court held that under 9 USC 4, to determine whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration, the court should "look through" the arbitration issue and determine whether the court would have jurisdiction of the underlying dispute in the absence of an arbitration agreement.  This decision… Read More

Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident caused by defendant's employee who was returning home after an 8 hour shift as a security guard.  The decision holds that the going and coming rule applies and the employer therefore is not liable for the employee's tort.  There was nothing special about employment as a security guard that created an unusual risk… Read More