On behalf of a putative class of prescription drug buyers, plaintiff alleged that Rite Aid reported inflated "usual and customary" drug prices to the pharmacy benefits managers which transmitted the inflated figures to plaintiffs' health insurers, causing the plaintiffs to pay higher than proper deductibles for the drugs. This decision affirms an order denying Rite Aid's motion to compel arbitration. … Read More
Following Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782 as a correct statement of California law on a non-signatory's use of equitable estoppel to compel arbitration against a signatory plaintiff, this decision affirms an order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff's wage and hour claims against defendant hospital. Plaintiff was directly hired by a staffing agency that paid her wages and… Read More
As in Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 743, the CC&Rs for a condominium tower required a majority vote of member owners in favor before the association could bring suit against the developer (which of course wrote the CC&Rs). This decision holds that Civ. Code 5386, which renders such provisions null and void and which expressly… Read More
Under California's Securities Act (Corp. Code, 25400 and 25500, as under federal securities laws, the plaintiff must allege and prove loss causation--that is, that the alleged misstatement caused the rise or decline in stock price over which the plaintiff sues. When the suit is brought in federal court, the loss causation element, like the rest of the fraud-based claim, must… Read More
Under 11580.2(f), insured and insurer must arbitrate any dispute about whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist and the amount of those damages. While the insured is not required to arbitrate a bad faith claim arising from the same accident, the fact that the insured has alleged such a claim is not grounds for avoiding… Read More
Under CCP 526a, as amended in 2018, to have standing to bring a taxpayer suit, the plaintiff must show that it or one of its members (a) resided within the jurisdiction of the governmental entity at suit and (b) within a year before the challenged governmental action paid a tax that funds that entity which is a property tax, an… Read More
Following EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. (2002) 122 S.Ct. 754, this decision holds that the Secretary of Labor cannot be compelled to arbitrate his enforcement action under the Fair :Labor Standards Act even if the employees had agreed to arbitrate their claims against their employer. The FLSA expressly allows the Secretary to sue to obtain monetary relief for aggrieved employees… Read More
Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that defendant agreed to an extension of the 3-year period in which to bring a case to trial after a reversal on appeal by orally agreeing in court to have the trial set on a specific date more than three years after the case was remanded to the trial court. (See CCP 583.330.) Read More
A new trial motion based on excessive damages must be made on the "minutes of the court." Unlike a new trial motion for juror misconduct, the excessive damage new trial motion may not be based on, and the trial court may not consider, evidence not admitted before the jury during the trial--such as in this case, the defendant's chart of… Read More
The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of comparative fault, both who else wrongfully caused plaintiff harm and how much. In an asbestosis case, this means that the defendant bears “the burden to establish concurrent or alternate causes by proving: that [the plaintiff] was exposed to defective asbestos containing products of other companies; that the defective designs… Read More
Under 28 USC 1447(d) an order remanding a case to state court is reviewable on appeal if the case was removed pursuant to 28 USC 1442 (federal officer) or 1443 (civil rights). This decision holds that on such an appeal, the appellate court may review all grounds on which the remand order was based. Review isn't limited to determining whether… Read More
This decision holds that the Anti-Injunction Act (28 USC 2283) does not bar a suit to enjoin the IRS from enforcing its regulation which requires tax payers and their material advisors from filing an informational notice about micro-captive insurance programs which the IRS thinks are often used to dodge taxes without actually providing insurance. The informational notice is not a… Read More
Borrower's fourth mortgage foreclosure delay suit was properly dismissed as barred by the res judicata effect of the prior three judgments against her, two of which had been affirmed on appeal. All the actions involved the same cause of action as they all asserted a violation of borrower's ownership interest in the property that was subject to her deed of… Read More
The district court did not err in reducing punitive damages against Monsanto for failure to warn of cancer risks from Roundup to a ratio of 3.8 to 1 to actual damages, though that ratio was on the borderline of being excessive. The harm caused was physical, yet the jury awarded plaintiff $5 million in actual damages, 96% of which was… Read More
Following Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (2005) 125 S.Ct. 1788, this decision holds that a state law claim for failure to warn of the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not expressly or impliedly preempted by FIFRA. The warning that plaintiff claimed Monsanto should have put on Roundup labels was not in addition to or different from FIFRA's… Read More
The trial court properly entered a directed verdict against plaintiff in this legal malpractice action. Although plaintiff alleged the defendant divorce lawyer was negligent in other ways, he presented expert testimony only with respect to the failure to hire a forensic accountant to counter the wife's claim for spousal support payments. The other alleged acts of negligence were not so… Read More
This decision holds that for three reasons an employee failed to state a Tameny claim for wrongful termination in volation of public policy as embodied in Santa Monica's ordinance requiring employers to rehire workers laid off due to economic downturns. First, the employee could not establish a violation of the ordinance since he had not been employed for six months… Read More
Santa Monica adopted an ordinance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks requiring employers to offer to rehire workers who had six months or more of prior employment with the employer and whose most recent employment was terminated due to lack of business, a reduction in force or other, economic, non-disciplinary reason. This decision holds that the plaintiff could not… Read More
This decision affirms an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in this malicious prosecution case as to the plaintiff in the underlying case, but reverses as to that party's attorneys. The prior action, a CEQA challenge to a project to build a school on property adjoining the underlying plaintiff's horse ranch, lacked probable cause insofar as it alleged noise from the… Read More
Smith was employed by Jiffy Lube. Fifty Jiffy Lube employees including Smith and his supervisors attended a meeting at which Pumerol, a BP representative, provided information on the company's new product and how it should be used in Jiffy Lube's work. During the meeting Pumerol made three derogatory comments about Smith, an African-American, including a reference to his "Banana Hands/" … Read More
