California Appellate Tracker

A new trial was required on plaintiff's promissory fraud claim due to inconsistent special verdicts.  The jury had found that the individual defendant did not commit fraud while the corporate defendant did.  Since the corporation had made promises to plaintiff only through the individual defendant's communications with him, the two verdicts were inconsistent.  When special verdicts are inconsistent, the court… Read More

Plaintiff attorney was hired by defendant as an in-house attorney, but his compensation was dependent, in part, on the outcome of a large bit of litigation in which the defendant was engaged.  This decision holds that plaintiff's agreement was a contingency fee agreement which was unenforceable because not written and signed by both parties as required by B&P Code 6147. … Read More

This decision dismisses defendant's appeals from several trial court orders under the appellate disentitlement doctrine.  Defendant had refused to obey a long string of court orders in this long running dispute over a construction contract for defendant's casino.  Defendant refused to obey an order compelling arbitration.  Then it got an injunction against arbitration from its own newly formed tribal court,… Read More

Following Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 581, this decision holds that the district court erred in certifying a nationwide class of end purchasers of computer equipment containing Qualcomm chips under Rule 23(b)(3).  To determine the law applicable to the class' antitrust claims, the court must apply California's governmental interest analysis.  Here, the only… Read More

Following Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1296, this decision holds that Oakland failed to allege facts showing its harm was proximately caused by Wells Fargo's alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3613) by discriminating against Black and Hispanic borrowers, steering them to higher cost loans and loans with features that made… Read More

The release in this class action settlement was too broad.  Only claims that were or could have been alleged in the complaint--that arise from the facts the complaint alleges--may be released in a class action settlement.  Here, the release went beyond that boundary to any claim that related in any way to any of the facts or theories that the… Read More

Caballero was bound by the arbitration agreement he signed and initially with Premier Care upon admitting his mother to Premier Care's elder care facility.  Caballero cannot escape the agreement even though he claims not to understand, speak or read English, and the arbitration agreement was presented to him only in English.  If a party does not speak or understand English… Read More

Over a dissent, this decision holds that the trial court properly denied Dae's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike Traver's probate petition to declare that Dae had violated a no contest clause by filing an earlier petition challenging Traver's acts as trustee.  Dae's petition was protected conduct, but Traver introduced evidence sufficient to show that he had a probability of success on… Read More

Defendant violated the Unruh Act (Civ. Code 51 and 51.5 by charging female car buyers 1% higher APR than it charged men when it bought their contracts from car dealers.  The Department has standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act even if no one files a complaint with the Department.  The Department was not required to show "actual"… Read More

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

Following White v. Square, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019, this decision holds that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury and in submitting a special verdict form to them which required plaintiff to prove that she intended to use Omni Hotel's services by booking a reservation or use the website to ascertain Omni's prices and availability for… 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

An action under San Francisco's Tree Dispute Resolution Ordinance about a neighbor's tree that has grown to obstruct the plaintiff's view is an action in the nature of one for a continuing nuisance, even though obstruction of view by trees was not actionable at common law.  Accordingly, there is no statute of limitations on such an action since the harm… 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

Plaintiff held a 25% membership interest in an LLC.  She brought suit to dissolve the LLC, which was stayed while the majority members exercised their right under Corp. Code 17707.03 to have plaintiff's share appraised and to buy her interest at the appraised value.  In an appraisal under that section, the trial court is not bound by the appraisers' award. … 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