California Appellate Tracker

The district court correctly compelled arbitration in this wage-and-hour misclassification suit by a Massachusetts Uber driver.  Even assuming Massachusetts would follow McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, plaintiff did not seek a public injunction with McGill's meaning.  Instead, plaintiff sought only an injunction that would benefit himself and other Uber drivers, but not the general public, by requiring… Read More

The trial court correctly compelled arbitration of this Massachusetts Uber driver's wage and hour class action, based on alleged misclassification of Uber drivers as independent contractors.  For purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was a worker in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA under 9 USC 2, the court properly considered the class of all Uber drivers nationwide, not just… Read More

Google settled part of a class action, paying some class members $65 million and agreeing to separately pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees as awarded by the court.  Plaintiffs' attorneys appealed from the district court's fee award, claiming the district court should have awarded them more based on the common fund theory of fee awards rather than the lower sum it calculated… Read More

The trial court properly denied plaintiff prejudgment interest as the basis for computation of its damages was disputed.  It sought to hold defendants jointly and severally liable for defense costs in an underlying lawsuit.  It recovered much smaller several damages limited to costs of defending against claims arising from each defendant's own work. Read More

A subcontractor that agrees to indemnify the developer for claims arising from the subcontractor's own work is not jointly and severally liable for defense costs that cannot be specifically attributed to claims against particular subcontractors, such as status conferences and the like. Read More

Disagreeing with Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 216, this decision holds that while an insurer's right to proceed on its insured's claim under the doctrine of equitable subrogation is an equitable claim as to which there is no right to a jury trial, if the claim to which the insurer successfully becomes subrogated is a… Read More

Though noting a split of authority on the issue, this decision follows Lossing v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 635 in holding that a civil contempt proceeding brought to enforce discovery orders (in this case, post-judgment discovery orders) cannot form the basis of a later malicious prosecution action. Read More

A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must file a petition to vacate or a response (to a petition to confirm) seeking vacation of the award within the shorter of 10 days after service of the petition to confirm or 100 days after service of the arbitration award.  (CCP 1288.2, 1290.6.)  Here, even though defendant filed a response to… Read More

Noting the split of authorities on this issue, this decision follows Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246 in holding that a party who seeks a continuance under section 437c(h), must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication could not have been completed sooner, and accordingly requires the court to grant the… Read More

A statement of economic interests (Form 700) that California public officials must file is a "political work" for purposes of CCP 425.17(d)(2), and thus any claim arising from its creation, dissemination, exhibition, advertisement, or other similar promotion is not subject to CCP 425.17(b) which exempts from CCP 425.16 suits brought in the public interest.  This means that a claim based… Read More

A hospital peer review proceeding to discipline a staff physician is an official proceeding.  Statements made at the peer review proceeding are protected speech under CCP 425.16(e).  If the plaintiff doctor cannot show a probability of success on the merits of claims based on those statements, the claims must be stricken, but the doctor can still introduce the statements as… Read More

An easement to grow crops on and use land for pasturage was broad enough to permit the dominant tenant to grow grass and ornamental shrubs and plants in the easement.  The easement also allowed construction, maintenance and use of roads across but not along the easement.  This decision holds that that part of the easement allowed construction of three paved… Read More

Following Ankenbrandt v. Richards (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2206, this decision states that the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction is narrow, applying only to claims that seek issuance or modification of a divorce, alimony or child custody decree.  However, this case fell within that narrow exception.  Ex-wife's complaint alleged that ex-husband had concealed his interest in a corporation so… Read More

The trial court properly found MoneyGram's arbitration clause unconscionable and denied its motion to compel arbitration.  The clause was procedurally unconscionable as it appeared in nearly illegible 6 pt type on the back of a money transfer order form.  It was also an adhesion contract.  To prove procedural unconscionability, plaintiff didn't have to show a lack of alternatives in the… Read More

After the Court of Appeal decided in Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 927 that the trial court, having first acquired jurisdiction, should decide whether the Workers Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over this worker's injury suit--a question that turned on whether the employer had workers compensation insurance coverage at the time plaintiff was injured.  The plaintiff had… Read More

Huy Fong bought peppers from Underwood to manufacture Srirache sauce.  As Huy Fong's sale grew, it repeatedly urged Underwood to increase its acreage devoted to peppers, promising that Huy Fong would buy all the peppers Underwood produced while concealing its plan to start a competing business from which it would buy all its peppers.  Substantial evidence supported the jury verdict… Read More

It is misconduct for counsel to argue to the jury that there is no evidence on an issue when he knows that such evidence exists but was excluded at his request.  Here counsel exacerbated that misconduct by telling the jury that the court's admonition to ignore the arresting officer's statement about defendnat's intoxication showed the testimony was nothing but a… Read More

In an FEHA case, a prevailing defendant is entitled to ordinary court costs, as well as attorney fees, only in the trial court's discretion which must be exercised under the Christiansburg standard, allowing a fee or cost award to the defendant only when the plaintiff's suit is found to be objectively meritless, frivolous or without foundation.  That standard applies to… Read More

The statute of limitations on a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment starts running only when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer's decision not to promote him or her.  Any period of time during which the employer's decision is not disclosed or otherwise made known to the employee does not count against the limitations period. Read More

Under the PSLRA, the district court must select the plaintiff (and attorney) to represent the plaintiff investor class.  At step one notice of the action is posted so class members can move to be named the representative plaintiff.  Groups of class members may join to pool their purchases and make a joint bid to be the representative plaintiffs.  At step… Read More