California Appellate Tracker

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

This decision affirms an order denying class certification on a claim that See's did not give its employees a second meal break when they worked for 10 hours or more a day.  See's had a written policy requiring a second meal break in those circumstances, but plaintiff claimed that See's routinely failed to follow that policy in practice.  Time records… Read More

This decision reverses a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Plaintiff represneted herself in the arbitration of her complex medical malpractice claim.  Toward the end of the arbitration, the arbitrator had a private conversation with defendant's counsel in which he expressed amazement that a pro per would try to bring such a claim and commiserated with… Read More

The district court erred in dismissing the complaint in this case on the ground that defendant, which owns SnapChat, was immunized by the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230).  Under Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), a defendant enjoys CDA immunity only if it is “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2)… Read More

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment awarding it the $100,000 he had lent defendant, plus a $100,000 "earn-out" fee, plus 10% interest on both of those sums.  Defendant moved to set the judgment aside under CCP 473(d) and appealed from denial of his motion.  Held, the judgment was in excess of jurisdiction in the sense that it was beyond the trial… Read More

Reconciling Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 and Borsuk v. Appellate Division (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, this decision holds that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to quash the special 5-day unlawful detainer summons on the ground that the complaint either alleges a claim entirely different from an unlawful detainer claim… Read More

While a landlord can give the tenant more than the 3 days' notice that CCP 1161(2) requires (and must do so if the lease so requires), if the eviction is for non-payment of rent, the notice (for however long a period) must state the amount of the rent due, and the name and address of the person to whom it… Read More

Plaintiff successfully sued defendant for violating a conservation easement on his property.  The trial court awarded plaintiff $2.9 million in attorney fees for five years of hard-fought litigation and a 19-day trial.  This decision affirms the award.  Plaintiff could recover fees for all hours spent by its attorneys though the first $500,000 in fees was paid for by its insurance. … Read More

The triall court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for an award of fees under CCP 2033.420(a) for proving facts stated in requests for admission that the defendant had wrongly denied.  None of the grounds the trial court stated were supported by the evidence.  Nor was the plaintiff required to allocate its fees to specific requests that defendant had… Read More

For an association to have standing to sue for its members, it must show that (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. … Read More

Disagreeing with Villacorta v. Cemex Cement, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1425, this decision holds that income a wrongfully terminated employee earns from another job after termination must be subtracted from her past economic damages for the wrongful termination whether or not the subsequent employment was not comparable or substantially similar to the job that was wrongfully terminated.  The comparable or… Read More

When an appellate court’s reversal is accompanied by directions requiring specific proceedings on remand, those directions are binding on the trial court and must be followed.  Here, the disposition language of the prior appellate decision directed a new trial of damages, which the trial court properly held.  The opinion also contained advice on how the trial court should frame special… Read More