California Appellate Tracker

Under the Supreme Court's modern contracts, the court must first decide whether a challenged enactment substantially impairs contracts, considering the extent to which the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party’s reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights.  If contracts are substantially impaired, the court next considers whether the law is drawn in… Read More

Applying Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 regarding the definition of employer under IWC orders, this decision affirms a summary judgment finding that a bail bond surety company is not the employer of bail bondsmen's fugitive recovery personnel.  The surety company did not hire, fire or exercise control over those personnel.  The surety company's contracts with the bail bondsmen… Read More

To establish a claim under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was denied a reasonable accommodation that he needs in order to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of public services; and (3) the program providing the benefit receives federal financial assistance.  In addition, the plaintiff… Read More

A fiduciary owes a duty to disclose material facts to the beneficiary.  The beneficiary is under no duty to investigate whether the fiduciary has told the truth or disclosed all the material facts.  Hence, when a conservatee moves to set aside an order approving the conservator's accounting on the ground of misrepresentations in the conservator's accounting and petition for approval,… Read More

An order settling the account of a fiduciary is appealable.  (Prob. Code 1300(b).)  Ordinarily, an order denying a motion to vacate an order settling the fiduciary's account is not appealable so as to avoid giving a party two appeals from the same order.  However, here, the conservator's misrepresentations in the accounting prevented the conservatee from fully litigating the accounting and… Read More

Plaintiff runs two bakery stores in Los Angeles.  It baked a birthday cake for defendant's child.  Defendant, who is a celebrity, objected to some of the icing on the cake, saying it looked like pills.  He published scathing reviews of plaintiff's bakeries on the Internet, leading to plaintiff's losing customers and business profits.  Plaintiff sued for defamation.  This decision holds… Read More

Under the Department of Justice's Accessible Stadium's guidance document section 4.33.3, a stadium must all spectators in wheelchairs to see (a) between the heads and over the shoulders of standing spectators in the row immediately in front of the wheelchair spectators, and (b) over the heads of standing spectators in the second row from the wheelchair spectators.  The district court… Read More

In Law v. Siegel (2014) 571 U.S. 415, the US Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not use its equitable powers under 11 USC 105 to contravene express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  Applying that reasoning, this decision departs from prior Ninth Circuit precedent, In re Rosson (9th Cir. 2008) 545 F.3d 764, and holds that a bankruptcy… Read More

This decision affirms a $2.7 million judgment in favor of two tenants against new landlords that harassed the tenants and then wrongfully evicted them in a fake owner move-in all in violation of San Francisco's rent control ordinance.  The ordinance provides for treble damages for violations like these, but the trial court properly exercised its discretion to reduce the trebled… Read More

Wife executed will that purported to sever joint tenancy ownership of real property held in the name of wife and husband.  The will directed that wife's estate be distributed equally to her five children.  Husband never probated wife's will after her death, and his will and trust distributed his estate to three of wife's five children who were his biological… Read More

Employment, Race/Ethnicity Discrimination, Unconscious Discrimination, Aversive Racism, 2, 8 This decision holds that race discrimination need not be consciously motivated by race in order to violate Title VII.  Unconscious application of racial stereotypes is enough to violate the statute.  However, expert testimony regarding such unconscious application of racial stereotypes does not prove race discrimination as a matter of law.  The… Read More

The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on superseding cause in this case.  Plaintiff's theory was that the defendant drug detox center was negligent in failing to prevent the foreseeable and successful suicide attempt by plaintiff's son.  A superseding cause must be one which a reasonable person would not foresee.  So, in order to find… Read More

Labor Code 206 and 206.5 require an employer to pay an employee all wages the employer concedes are due without condition and without any release of the employee's disputed claims, if any, to other wages.  Here, the employer conceded it owed plaintiff a bonus, but before paying it sent the plaintiff a 998 offer to settle all wage claims.  Held,… Read More

While CCP 1033.5(b)(3) generally disallows an award of costs for the expense of photocopying, section 1033.5(a)(13) allows an award of costs for preparation of exhibits "if reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact."  This decision holds that "trier of fact" refers to any resolution by judge or jury of facts, whether on motion or at trial.  So the cost… Read More

A provision in an attorney's contingency fee agreement that purported to allow the attorney to consent on the client's behalf (and over the client's objection) to any settlement offer that the attorney thought was reasonable and in the client's best interest violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and was void.  Such a provision creates an immediate, direct conflict of interest… Read More

Gov. Code 53069.4 allows local governments to enforce their ordinances through an administrative process for imposing and collecting fines.  Unlike most administrative proceedings that may be reviewed only by a writ of administrative mandamus under CCP 1094.5, a citizen can appeal to the superior court from a decision by that administrative process within 20 days after the decision. (Gov. Code… Read More

Defendant was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California though he was not an officer of dmarcian USA and demarcian EU, for which he worked, was a separate entity.  By publicly presenting himself as a leader of dmarcian, a company headquartered in California, having dmarcian EU’s web address automatically route to dmarcian’s Web site, administered in California, and receiving prospective… Read More

Chico is immune from liability for injuries plaintiff suffered when a limb of a 130-year-old oak tree fell on her while she was jogging in a city park.  While the park as a whole was improved property--with roads, running paths and picnic areas, the tree was unimproved.  Under Gov. Code 831.2, a governmental entity is immune from liability for an… Read More

While the presumption against retroactive application of new statutes is strong, figuring out what constitutes retroactive application may be difficult.  Here, the statute required a grace period and notice before terminating a life insurance policy for nonpayment of the premium.  Though it changed the terms of the policy, it governed only the insurer's actions after the effective date of the… Read More

Ins. Code 10113.71 and 10113.72 became effective on January 1, 2013.  They require life insurance companies to grant the insured a 60 day grace period after the due date of a premium payment in which to make up the payment and reinstate the policy.  The statutes also require the insurance company to notify the insured of an impending lapse or… Read More