Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

California Appellate Tracker

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.

Agreeing with Moritz v. Universal City Studios LLC (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 238, this decision holds that even when a contract's arbitration clause clearly and expressly delegates arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, the court must decide whether the plaintiff's claim is made under a different contract that lacks an arbitration clause.  Here, the bank sued to enforce a loan agreement in… Read More

A government tort claim must be signed by the claimant (or someone acting on his or her behalf) and be sent by the claimant to the government entity.  This decision holds that though plaintiff signed a government claim form at a chiropractor's office where she received treatment for injuries from the traffic accident that was the basis for the government… Read More

Neither an insurance agent nor an insurance company owes an insured or prospective insured a duty to tell the insured he needs other or additional insurance coverage unless (1) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided; (2) there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent… Read More

Deciding an issue left open in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, this decision holds that a plaintiff who is an attorney but represents only himself cannot recover attorney fees under a common fund theory of attorney fee recovery since he does not pay or incur liability for any attorney fees.  However, such a plaintiff is entitled to recover… Read More

Plaintiff sued to dissolve several LLCs and close corporations.  Defendants invoked their right to buy plaintiff's interests in the companies at appraised value.  The parties stipulated to add five additional LLCs to the group of companies being appraised for buyout purposes even though plaintiff had not sued to dissolve them.  After the trial court entered a judgment setting the appraised… Read More

Explaining the California Supreme Court's relatively recent decisions dealing with the admissibility of expert testimony based on hearsay sources, this opinion explains that expert opinion is properly admissible if based on hearsay about background facts or principles of science and the like.  (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665; People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16; People v. Valencia… Read More

This decision affirms dismissal of plaintiff's complaint on judicial estoppel grounds.  In prior litigation over the same award of rights to assign .africa URLs, plaintiff took the position before an international arbitration panel that plaintiff could not sue in court over the award.  That position was completely inconsistent with its current assertion of the right to sue in court over… Read More

The insureds were not entitled to Cumis counsel in the underlying personal injury case.  The insurer settled the case within policy limits and had reserved its rights only with respect to damages in excess of policy limits and punitive damages, both of which were clearly not covered--and nothing in the underlying action concerning those damages placed insurance defense counsel in… Read More

Ordinarily, when a complaint alleges a stand-alone claim for declaratory relief and properly alleges the existence of an existing controversy, the trial court should not grant a demurrer because the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights even if unfavorable.  However, the error is not prejudicial if the declaration would be in the defendant's favor.  The appellate opinion affirming… Read More

While the ABC test of employee v. independent contractor status applies retroactively, Prop. 22's classification of some gig workers as independent contractors applies only prospectively.  So GrubHub drivers, if employees under the ABC test adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, are entitled to back wages for the period before Prop. 22's adoption.  The… Read More

Following O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018) 904 F.3d 1087, this decision affirms the district court's denial of class certification in a wage and hour case.  Plaintiff and one other worker did not, but all the other putative class members did, sign an arbitration agreement with defendant containing a class action waiver.  As a result, plaintiff was not… Read More

Following Rent-A-Center West Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2772 and Brennan v. Opus Bank (9th Cir. 2015) 796 F.3d 1125, this decision holds that when an arbitration agreement delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, a court's first task is to determine whether the delegation clause itself (rather than the entire arbitration agreement) is enforceable.  If the delegation clause… Read More

CCP 1161.3 provides that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy for (among other things) domestic violence committed against the tenant or a member of the tenant's household so long as the domestic violence is documented by, among other alternatives, a police report.  Over a dissent, this opinion holds that the statute provides a defense to an unlawful detainer action… Read More

Before and during his decade-long divorce proceedings, Piterman made monthly payments on two promissory notes to his friend Korchemny, who then with Piterman's encouragement and aid sued Piterman, his former wife and her trust to collect on the notes.  This opinion affirms a judgment against Korchemny on the complaint.  The first promissory note charged interest in excess of 10% and… Read More

Plaintiff adequately exhausted her administrative remedies under the FEHA by filing a complaint with the DFEH that nearly correctly named her employer's dba Hooman Chevrolet (instead of Hooman Chevrolet of Culver City) but got the corporate name of the employer wrong Hooman Enterprises, Inc. (instead of NBA Automotive, Inc.).  The administrative complaint also correctly named the plaintiff's supervisor and other… Read More

AB 51 (Stats. 2019 ch. 711) enacted Lab. Code 432.6 which prohibits employers from requiring employees to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment, and states that it is a condition of employment if the employer requires the employee to opt out or take any affirmative step to avoid agreeing to arbitration.  Over a strong dissent, the majority opinion… Read More

1 68 69 70 71 72 179