California Appellate Tracker

Questions of fact about when Greenberg's partner stopped working for plaintiff precluded summary judgment in Greenberg's favor on statute of limitations grounds. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in excluding an expert's opinion as to lost profits in ruling on a summary judgment motion.  While most of his opinion was speculative, one part dealt with lost profits using a before-and-after method based on 16 months of actual profits earned before the allegedly harmful event.  The before-and-after method is an approved way to… Read More

After a voluntary dismissal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff's claims but may still rule on ancillary matters not involving the merits, such as in this case, a motion to reconsider discovery sanctions that were issued based on the plaintiff's misleading statement of his lawyer's hourly rate without revealing that the lawyer had agreed… Read More

For specific jurisdiction is sufficient if the plaintiff's claim "arises from or is related to" the defendant's contacts with the forum state.  Arises from describes a causal relationship between the defendants contacts and the claim.  But relates to does not require causation.  Here, Ford had substantial contacts with Montana and Minnesota, selling cars of the same type as those involved… Read More

An order compelling a non-party deponent attorney to disclose the identity of an expert non-witness consultant he hired in a prior case was not an appealable collateral order because it related to the subject matter of the plaintiff's suit against that expert for disclosing confidential material without permission.  But the court treated the appeal as a writ petition since the… Read More

Under the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (Lab. Code 1060 et seq.) a successor janitorial company must hire the janitorial workers of a predecessor company at the same site for at least 60 days after taking over the site, but need not hire the predecessor's managerial, supervisory or confidential employees.  This decision affirms a decision for the successor janitorial company, holding… Read More

USC did not exceed its jurisdiction in suspending Alpha Nu for six years as a result of its misconduct in hazing pledges during the 2016 rush week even though it acted on a complaint filed 14 months later.  USC's internal disciplinary process is not governed by any statute of limitations.  Here, the complaint was just two months later than USC's… Read More

The district court's transmittal of its remand order to the state court from which the action had been removed does not deprive the Court of Appeals of appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order.  Also, 28 USC 1447(d) does not block review unless the remand is granted on one of the grounds allowed under 28 USC 1447(c)--i.e., lack of subject… Read More

The federal Fair Housing Act's provision regarding attorney fees and costs must be interpreted like 42 U.S.C. 1988.  Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) applies.  A prevailing defendant cannot recover either attorney fees or costs without showing that the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. Read More

Following Eisenberg Village, etc. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201, this decision holds that an owner's suit seeking disgorgement of compensation paid an unlicensed contractor is a suit for a statutory penalty governed by CCP 340(a)'s one-year statute of limitations.  The discovery rule and other equitable doctrines do not operate to extend that one year limitations period. Read More

The plaintiff in this employment discrimination case under FEHA adequately exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a charge with DFEH which named her managers, supervisors and coworkers as well as the fictitious business name of her employer.  The fact that the DFEH charge did not correctly identify the true corporate name of the defendant employer was no reason to bar… Read More

Gov. Code 91003 allows an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in an action seeking injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act.  This case holds that the statute does not pit impecunious plaintiffs against well-healed defendants.  So, the prevailing party standard adopted in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994) 510… Read More

Judgment may not be entered against someone who has not been made a party to the suit even if that person funded the litigation.  See Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604. Read More

Gov. Code 835, which imposes liability on governmental entities for dangerous conditions of their property, does not impose liability for injury that may be caused by conditions of the property to someone who never came in contact with it.  Here, plaintiff claimed that the unsanitary conditions of a downtown police station caused Wong, a policeman, to catch typhus.  Plaintiff, who… Read More

For purposes of unemployment insurance, the test set forth in G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 governs the determination whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, not the more employee-friendly ABC test of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.  Nevertheless, in this case, substantial… Read More

Under Probate Code 6100.5(a)(2), a person lacks testamentary capacity if at the time of making a will or trust, he or she suffers from a mental health disorder with symptoms including delusions or hallucinations, and those delusions or hallucinations lead the person to make a disposition of property he or she otherwise would not have made.  Here, the court affirms… Read More

An insurer may be liable in bad faith if it fails to settle within policy limits when given the opportunity to do so.  This decision holds that to pursue a bad faith claim on that basis, it is not necessary for the insured to show that the claimant actually make a demand for settlement at or under policy limits.  Following… Read More

Ins. Code 12414.26 does not immunize a title insurer from liability with respect to rates it has not filed with the Insurance Commissioner.  The section provides:  “No act done, action taken, or agreement made pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 5.5 [dealing with rate filing and regulation] . . . of this chapter shall constitute a violation of or… Read More

This decision affirms the trial court's reduction of punitive damages to a 2:1 ratio to actual damages in a disability employment discrimination case.  The employer's conduct was reprehensible, although not grossly so.  The large award of emotional distress damages already contained a punitive element, and particularly when combined with the 2:1 punitive damage award and with the large attorney fee… Read More

The first trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict for defendant on all seven of plaintiff's claims.  The trial court granted plaintiff a new trial on three of her claims.  The second trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff on all three of those claims.  This decision holds that the jury verdicts on the four claims that were… Read More