Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

California Appellate Tracker

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

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.

To have standing to move to disqualify another party's attorney, the movant must generally be a present or former client of the challenged attorney, or at least a person who shared confidential information with that attorney in the course of a confidential or fiduciary relationship.  Otherwise, the movant is generally not affected by any breach of the attorney's duties of… Read More

The plaintiff insurer did not void its claim for equitable contribution by other insurers allegedly covering the loss by alleging that after paying for the insured's defense, it discovered facts that it claimed showed it owed the insured no coverage.  The duty to defend attaches immediately and is not undermined by later discovery of facts that show coverage was not… Read More

This opinion affirms the trial court's denial of attorney fees sought by plaintiff in long-running litigation between the two parties.  Plaintiff recovered $38,0000 in the original proceeding.  It waited more than a year after the remittitur issued ending the appeal from that judgment before filing a separate action to enforce the judgment against the supersedeas bond that defendant had posted… Read More

Hoffman's recordation of an abstract of judgment against Weeden's property was protected activity under CCP 425.16(e), satisfying his Anti-SLAPP motion's first prong.  The litigation privilege also shielded Hoffman from liability on Weeden's claim for slander of title, and that cause of action was properly stricken.  However, the litigation privilege did not apply to or bar Weeden's claims to quiet title… Read More

Following Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, this decision holds that it is not an unfair or unlawful business practice for a hospital not to affirmatively disclose, prior to treatment, that it will charge an emergency room charge to patients using the emergency room.  Extensive state and federal statutes and regulations require specific sorts of disclosures of… Read More

Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to establish a probability of success on his defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims to overcome defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff is a world record holder in a number of computer arcade games.  Defendant facilitates video game competitions and runs a website with leaderboards showing top scorers on the games.  After receiving a complaint from… Read More

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

The trial court properly granted defendant a partial nonsuit on its affirmative defense of settlement following plaintiff's opening statement that conceded plaintiff's husband and guardian ad litem had authorized plaintiff's attorney to offer to settle her catastrophic injury claim for the $15,000 limit of defendant's auto insurance policy.  Nonsuit can be granted on an issue that is less than an… Read More

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

The trial court properly granted defendant a partial nonsuit on its affirmative defense of settlement following plaintiff's opening statement that conceded plaintiff's husband and guardian ad litem had authorized plaintiff's attorney to offer to settle her catastrophic injury claim for the $15,000 limit of defendant's auto insurance policy.  Nonsuit can be granted on an issue that is less than an… Read More

AB 5 and its amended version Lab. Code 2778 et seq. does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments in its application to freelance journalists and others who supply creative content to newspapers, films and other media.  The regulation does not single out those engaged in speech for harsher treatment.  The exemption for some freelancers may not be as broad… Read More

Contrary to 40 years of appellate authority, this decision holds that when a trial court must exercise its independent judgment in ruling on an administrative mandamus petition under CCP 1094.5 and the administrative agency was required to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in the administrative proceeding, the trial court cannot affirm based on a preponderance of the evidence… Read More

Newspaper delivery carriers sued to recover their mileage expenses under Lab. Code 2082, claiming that defendant had misclassified them as independent contractors, rather than as employees.  On that claim, the control plus test set out in G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 governs whether a worker is an employee.  Newspaper carriers were… Read More

In a quiet title action, if summons is served by publication, the published notice must describe the property at issue, giving either or both of its street address or legal description.  (CCP 763.,020.)  Here, the published notice gave only the assessor's parcel number.  As the notice did not comply with the statute, it was insufficient; so the default of the… Read More

An order quashing service of summons is an appealable order under CCP 904.1(a)(3).  The statute does not draw any distinction between orders quashing service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction (which are final orders ending the case) and orders quashing service because it was inadequately performed (which are interlocutory since summons can be served again by proper means).  Hence,… Read More

1 78 79 80 81 82 190