In cases seeking a writ of mandate, where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the [petitioner] need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the… Read More
Generally, an employee must bring a claim under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act within two years of the violation. ” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). This limitation is extended to three years for a “willful violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2). This decision holds that a violation is willful only if the employer “either knew or showed reckless disregard for… Read More
After plaintiff sustained a loss that its insurer contended was excluded from coverage, plaintiff and insurer entered into a loan receipt agreement under which the insurer lent plaintiff the funds needed to repair the damage to its property. The plaintiff was not personally liable to repay the loan but agreed to repay out of any proceeds it received from suing… Read More
Plaintiff, a Coptic church, bought a residence to serve as the Coptic pope's western US residence and a residence for visiting bishops. Its insurance broker arranged for it to obtain a commercial property insurance policy which had an exclusion for loss due to water damage if the property had been vacant for 60 days or more before the loss. This… Read More
To amend a judgment to name an alter ego, the plaintiff must show that the alter ego controled the litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding, that there is a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of entities and owners no longer exists, and that an inequitable result would result if the entity's separate existence… Read More
An order amending judgment to name an alter ego is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815. Read More
A minor who signs a contract may disaffirm the contract after reaching 18 years of age. Fam. Code 6710. Plaintiff in this case signed an employment agreement with an arbitration clause to work as a waitress at a Del Taco restaurant when she was 16 years old. This decision holds that she retained the right to disaffirm the contract after… Read More
Ohio attorneys were admitted pro hac vice to represent Big Lots in this suit challenging Big Lots' classification of store managers as exempt managerial employees. The Ohio attorneys then appeared for and represented several former Big Lots store managers at their depositions in the case. When the plaintiffs brought this fact to the trial court's attention, it revoked the Ohio… Read More
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt California's ABC test for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees, and so that test as adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and codified in Lab. Code 2775 and 2776 governs in determining whether a federally licensed interstate motor carrier has correctly classified its truck… Read More
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this overtime pay case, finding plaintiff had not shown that common issues predominated. Though there was a common question about whether defendant violated California labor law in calculating the amount of overtime pay (because in computing base pay it divided the flat bonus for weekend worked by… Read More
Under the rule announced in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, the statute of limitations does not start to run on a quiet title action so long as the plaintiff remains in possession of the premises, even if plaintiff is aware of conflicting claims against the property, so long as the conflicting claims are not pressed against him. In … Read More
When a partner dissociates himself from a partnership, the partnership is required buy out the interest of the dissociating partner. Corp. Code 16701(i) provides that the trial court may, in its discretion, award attorney's and expert's fees to the prevailing party and against a party that the court finds acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith. This decision holds… Read More
A trial court has discretion to consider new evidence in reply papers supporting a summary judgment motion as long as the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to respond. Evidence which is used to fill gaps in the original evidence created by the opposition is particularly appropriate to consider in a reply. Read More
To preserve its affirmative defenses, a defendant need not file a new answer to an amended complaint that does not change the cause of action to which those defenses pertain. When an amended complaint does not add new parties, new claims, or significant new factual allegations, the answer to the previously filed complaint suffices. Read More
The trial court held a party's attorney guilty of four counts of indirect contempt for obnoxious behavior (constantly interrupting, calling the opposition lawyer a liar, etc.) that cratered a mandatory settlement conference before a temporary judge. This decision affirms the contempt order on only one of the four counts. The last count (preventing the temporary judge from revealing what had… Read More
This decision affirms an order remanding this wage and hour case on the ground that the employer failed to sustain its burden of proving--in response to a factual challenge to its removal notice--that potential damages exceeded $5 million. A plaintiff may raise a factual challenge by attacking the removing defendant's assumptions, even without providing any contrary assumptions or any evidence… Read More
A school district is not a "business establishment" for purposes of the Unruh Act (Civ. Code 51) and so cannot be sued under that act for discrimination, including discrimination forbidden by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the Unruh Act incorporates by reference. Read More
This decision reverses a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The arbitrator exceeded his powers by issuing an award that enforced an employment contract's provision that violated the employee's unwaivable statutory rights. The employment agreement's confidentiality clause was so broadly written that it prohibited the employee from using any information not generally known to the securities industry for the benefit of… Read More
The district court erred in enhancing an attorney fee award after settlement of a class action. It should not have enhanced the fee simply because the plaintiff's attorney spent many hours on the case, particularly as much of that time was spent on discovery. Since the defendant usually cannot retaliate, there is an incentive for class counsel to run up… Read More
This case holds that when a settling defendant in a class action agrees to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the plaintiff's attorney separately from the amount paid in settlement of class members' claims, City of Burlington v. Dague (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2638 applies, and the court may not enhance the fee award to compensate for contingency risk. Read More
