California Appellate Tracker

An order unconditionally granting or denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy is final and appealable.  The 14-day window for filing an appeal from the order opens when the order is filed.  Stay relief is a proceeding separate from, and precedes, claim resolution. Read More

The Court of Appeal initially reversed a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, finding that the insurance agent who fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter into unsuitable annuities rather than the life insurance he had requested was an insurance broker, not a true agent, and that the insurer defendant therefore was not liable for the agent's fraud.  The Supreme Court granted review… Read More

A musician's use of an eight note sequence at a steady rhythm involved only common musical elements and was not copyrightable.  Hence, the district court correctly granted JMOL against the musician's claim that the defendant infringed his copyright by copying the first six of his eight note repeated musical figure in her song. Read More

The operator of a residential care facility owed its severely retarded resident a duty of care s to take cost-effective measures to protect the resident from foreseeable harm from people like the handyman who sexually assaulted her and who the facility knew posed a foreseeable risk of harm to its female residents.) Read More

A severely retarded resident of a care facility sued it for damages suffered in a sexual assault by a handyman on the facility's premises.  The decision holds that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding portions of a police report which the plaintiff relied on in opposition to the facility's summary judgment motion.  The police report was excepted from… Read More

An "order" that dismisses or denies a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus is a final, appealable judgment if it leaves nothing to be resolved other than compliance with the order--even though the order is labeled "order," not "judgment."  The deadline for appealing the decision runs from service of notice of entry of such an order, not from the… Read More

Unlike disqualification under CCP 170.1 or 170.3, peremptory disqualification under CCP 170.6 does not void orders that the disqualified judge entered before the 170.6 affidavit was filed. Read More

Under W&I Code 15657.03, a court may issue a restraining order to prevent a defendant from committing threatened or repeated physical or financial elder abuse. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering such an order against a step child who, along with her mother, tried to unduly influence the mother's elderly husband to change his estate… Read More

The trial court instructed the jury to award plaintiff defendant's profits from the false advertising the jury found only if it found that the defendant acted wilfully.  This instruction was contrary to the Supreme Court's later holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (2020) 140 S.Ct. 1492.  So the jury verdict was reversed and remanded.  However, disgorgement of… Read More

Plaintiffs alleging parallel conduct among competitors as a Sherman Act section 1 conspiracy must allege additional facts (plus factors) that place that parallel conduct in a context suggesting a preceding agreement.  Here, only one of the eight plus factors plaintiffs alleged weighed slightly in favor of conspiracy, which was insufficient to cross the threshold from possible to plausible.  The three… Read More

Largely affirming Walgren v. Coleco Industries, Inc. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543, this decision holds that, in general, testimony given in a discovery deposition in a prior case cannot be introduced at trial under Evid. Code 1291(a)(2) in another against a party present at the deposition because the motives and interest of a party at a deposition generally is dissimilar from… Read More

The Supreme Court holds that lenders and loan servicers do not owe borrowers a duty of care in handling their loan modification applications.  Lender and borrower are in privity of contract, and the economic loss rule prevents recovery for purely economic loss based on negligence between contracting parties.  The Biakanja factors apply only to parties not in privity of contract. … Read More

The trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that defendant attorneys lacked probable cause to file and to continue prosecuting an action by a mobilehome park resident against the park owner for interference with the resident's contract to sell her mobilehome to a third party.  The Mobilehome Residency Law at the time allowed park owners to require would-be… Read More

The trial court properly denied a residential care facility's motion to compel arbitration.  The facility's arbitration agreement was signed by the admitted resident's son, not the resident.  The resident was not mentally incompetent at the time of admission, and he had not designated his son his attorney in fact, or agent.  The resident didn't ratify the arbitration agreement by not… Read More

Under Prob. Code 1003, a court may, but is not required to, appoint a guardian ad litem for minors named as parties in the action. If the court doesn't appoint a guardian, it must itself protect the minor's interests.  Here, a guardian ad litem was appointed for the minors in related litigation, but not in this proceeding.  The guardian ad… Read More

This decision rejects Christine Chui's argument that she should not be bound by a settlement of a suit brought against her by other children of the same deceased parents, claiming that she had committed elder abuse against the parents and had, as trustee of their inter vivos trust, misappropriated the trust's funds.  The settlement agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.  The… Read More

Corso obtained a default judgment against Rejuvi in a district court in South Australia.  Corso filed a proof of claim in Rejuvi's bankruptcy proceeding.  Rejuvi appealed from a bankruptcy court order allowing Corso's claim based on the South Australia default judgment.  Held, the claim was properly allowed.  Under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (CCP 1713 et seq.), Rejuvi… Read More

A group representing the residents in the project area sued under the federal Fair Housing Act and California FEHA, claiming that the City's redevelopment plan for the area had a disparate impact on the mostly minority group residents because redevelopment would lead to gentrification, a rise in rents and the displacement of residents from the area.  This decision holds that… Read More

Distinguishing and disagreeing with Henriksen v. City of Rialto (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1612, this decision holds that the City is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for the negligence of one of its police officers in fail to secure a Police Department-approved, secondary firearm upon returning home from work.  The policeman left the gun, unlocked, in his car when he returned… Read More

Lab Code 925 prohibits employment contracts from containing provisions requiring an employee to litigate or arbitrate a claim in another state if the claim arises in California or depriving the employee of the substantive protection of California law in a suit arising in California.  A provision that violates the section is voidable by the employee, after which the matter shall… Read More