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.

Interpreting a nondisclosure agreement under English law, this decision holds that a clause stating that "this agreement shall terminate on a date 2 years from the date hereof" ended the entire agreement after two years, including the defendant's obligation not to disclose the trade secret information it had learned from plaintiff during the existence of the agreement.  This interpretation was… Read More

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), when the plaintiff sues on a federal cause of action and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction, the federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it has minimum contacts with the United States as a whole under the same generally applicable tests… Read More

A court may abstain from adjudicating a suit that seeks equitable remedies if granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency.  Here, plaintiff sought injunctive relief against a local water service district to prevent a particular employee from operating its water… Read More

California could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a Virginia law firm and its lawyers.  The lawyers had done nothing to avail themselves of California's benefits.  They had a website with minimum interactivity not directed to California residents in particular but rather to veterans throughout the country.  The lawyers had Virginia bar licenses, not California ones.  Though plaintiff (their client)… Read More

Under the federal recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, including documentary evidence, the court “may summarily order his confinement . . . until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information.”  This decision holds that section 1826 applies to post-judgment as well… Read More

Under Civil Code 4740(a), an amendment to CC&Rs prohibiting the leasing or rental of units within a common interest development are not effective against those who acquired  their ownership of property within the development before the amendment was adopted.  This decision holds that the section applies to an amendment banning short-term rentals or leases, not just provisions that ban all… Read More

Defendant instituted a policy requiring public housing tenants to post a $180 deposit to commence water service whereas all others needed only a $55 deposit.  Plaintiff sued, claiming disparate impact discrimination in housing.  To make a prima facie case on that claim, plaintiffs had to (1) the existence of a policy, not a one-time decision, that is outwardly neutral; (2)… Read More

An employer that gives preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner does not thereby discriminate on the basis of sex against other employees of the same sex as the paramour because it doesn't satisfy Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731's test--would employer have acted differently if employee was of the opposite sex.  As used in… Read More

Romero drove a truck for defendant employer entirely within the boundaries of California, but he delivered goods that had been shipped by interstate transportation.  Therefore, was a worker engaged in interstate commerce to whose contract of employment the FAA does not apply.  9 U.S.C. 1.  The FAA's exemption of employment contracts of workers in interstate commerce is not waivable.  So… Read More

Both parties supply temporary nurses to hospitals.  Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to supply nurses when defendant couldn't fill orders from its own supply of nurses.  The contract contained a clause prohibiting plaintiff from soliciting defendant's employee-nurses to work for plaintiff rather than defendant.  This decision holds that the non-solicitation clause is an ancillary restraint to be analyzed… Read More

Ordinarily, a person who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries suffered by the contractor's employees on the job.  Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.  In Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, the court held that a landowner who hires an independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to workers caused by latent… Read More

This decision affirms a district court order dismissing a defamation suit under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16.  Maddow was a TV personality and host of a program espousing liberal political views.  In one program she expressed glee over a report by another news organization that one of Herring's ultra-conservative commentators was being paid by the Kremlin for propaganda.  The speech… Read More

Class action settlements reached before class certification face a high hurdle to approval.  Here, the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement of claims that Tinder violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code 52) by charging those over 29 more to use its premium services than younger users.  The district court undervalued the worth of the claims… Read More

A director of a nonprofit public benefit corporation who brings an action on behalf of that corporation loses standing to pursue its claims if the director is not reelected to the office of director at any point during the litigation.  Here, plaintiff was not re-elected, lost standing, and his suit was properly dismissed. Read More

1 82 83 84 85 86 190