California Appellate Tracker

Under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, a new car manufacturer that is unable to repair the plaintiff's new car after a reasonable number of attempts must replace it or make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer of the car plus incidental damages.  (Civ. Code 1793.2(b)(2).)  When the plaintiff has leased rather than… Read More

The Administrative Procedure Act allows only three remedies for discovery abuse in the course of an administrative proceeding.  First, the requesting party may file a motion before the ALJ conducting the proceeding to compel the discovery.  (Gov. Code, 11507.7(a).)  Second, that party may request monetary sanctions from the supervisor ALJ, managing the regional ALJ office.  (Gov. Code, 11455.30(a).)  Third, the… Read More

Plaintiff sued for a violation of the Brown Open Meeting Act.  The suit was timely filed, but plaintiff delayed in seeking a ruling on whether the defendant had improperly conducted a non-public meeting which might have invalidated the dissolution resolution it adopted at the meeting.  Based on the resolution, defendant proceeded through the formal steps to dissolve, including holding a… Read More

Following Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal..App.5th 543 and distinguishing Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, this decision holds that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Canadian resident defendant.  He published defamatory internet postings about plaintiff, a California resident, on an internet site run by another California resident as well as on plaintiff's internet site.  The… Read More

Following Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 274, this decision holds that workers for a company 90% of whose business was providing "last mile" transportation of goods from Amazon warehouses to Amazon customers were employees in interstate commerce and thus exempt from the FAA.  Though the workers themselves did not cross state lines, they represented the final… Read More

Plaintiff obtained an arbitration award against Adamstos which it sought to collect from Vigorous and Blue Wall as successor corporations or alter egos of Vigorous.  Since the claim arose in admiralty, the court applied federal common law.  Summary judgment was affirmed.  Plaintiff failed to allege that Vigorous or Blue Wall received a transfer of all or substantially all Vigorous' assets… Read More

Employees of a private firm who, under the firm's contract with the district, sorted recyclables from a conveyor belt at a county sanitary district-owned facility were employed to perform "public work" to which the prevailing wage law applied.  Lab. Code 1720(a)(2) defines public work to include work done for irrigation, utility and other similar districts.  This work for the sanitary… Read More

In a transactional legal malpractice case arising from the defendant lawyer's advising plaintiff to enter into two marketing contracts that conflicted with each other, the plaintiff had to show only that the lawyer's negligent advice was a substantial factor in causing her loss.  This she did at least sufficiently to overcome summary judgment by showing that she was considering not… Read More

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