California Appellate Tracker

Threatening or filing suit on a time-barred debt is a misleading and unfair debt collection practice violating 15 USC 1692e and 1692f.  To allege and prove a violation of those sections, the debtor need not allege or prove that the debt collector knew the debt was time-barred.  However, the debt collector may be able to establish an affirmative defense of… Read More

It is not per se a breach of the insurer's duty of good faith for it to fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits.  Accordingly, to support a bad faith judgment against the insurer, the jury must find that the insurer acted unreasonably in rejecting (or failing to accept) even a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. … Read More

A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.  For the purpose of Article III standing, nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a past, completed violation of a legal right. Read More

Ordinarily, a judgment dismissing a case on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over is not a judgment on the merits and does not operate as res judicata.  However, in the unique context of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the complaint plausibly alleges all six elements of an FTCA… Read More

This decision holds that a California governmnetal entity may be liable under PAGA for statutory penalties for violation of Labor Code sections that themselves prescribe penalties for their violation, but not for the default statutory penalties allowed under Lab. Code 2699(f).  That is because Lab. Code 2699(a) allows a private plaintiff to recover any statutory penalty authorized by other Labor… Read More

A proper 998 settlement offer must include a provision that allows the opposing party to accept the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted.  A purported 998 offer lacking that provision cannot be used to shift costs if it is not accepted.  (Puerta v. Torres (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1267.)  This decision holds that the deficient offer also… Read More

The district court wrongly dismissed this suit under SLUSA because plaintiffs did not allege a claim cognizable under federal securities laws.  They claimed that the defendant broker had switched their accounts from commission-based to fee-based without first performing a suitability analysis to see whether plaintiffs, who were buy-and-hold investors, would benefit from the change in fee structure.  That omission was… Read More

Judgment for defendant is reversed.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant sold plaintiff his membership interest in the LLC, which held a business tax registration certificate for selling marijuana in L.A., but after doing so secretly converted the LLC into a corporation of which he was the sole owner.  The individual plaintiff had standing to sue for loss of her membership interest… Read More

This decision affirms dismissal of a complaint attacking three provisions of PayPal's standard contract.  First, the complaint alleged no breach of contract or the implied covenant by PayPal's placing 21-day holds on payments to plaintiff-sellers' accounts.  The agreement gave PayPal sole discretion in imposing holds.  And PayPal didn't breach the implied covenant of good faith because the complaint disclosed reasonable… Read More

Following Lippitt v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (C.D.Cal. 2020) 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 122881, this decision holds that Civ. Code 2954.8 does not apply to (or require payment of interest on) hazard insurance proceeds that a lender or loan servicer holds pending the borrower/insured's rebulding or repairing the premises that secures his loan.  Section 2954.8 “applies to common escrows maintained to… Read More

In this PAGA suit, the trial court erred in ordering to arbitration the preliminary/gateway issue of whether the plaintiffs were employees of the defendant rather than independent contractors.  The state is the real party in interest in a PAGA suit and cannot be forced to arbitrate any portion of its claim--including whether the individual plaintiff is an employee with standing… Read More

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that a manufacturer remained liable on its limited new car warranty well after the mileage or temporal limits had expired so long as the defect had been reported during the warranty's duration and had not been "fixed."  Instead, CACI 3231 correctly summarizes Civ. Code 1795.6, which extends the warranty period only if… Read More

An employer violates Lab. Code 512 and Wage Order No. 4 if it rounds actual clock in and out times for workers to the nearest 10th or 4th of an hour in calculating their meal and rest break periods--this is true even if (a question that the Supreme Court has not resolved) a similar policy of rounding hours for beginning… Read More

The dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit California from applying its labor laws to airline employees who reside or are employed predominantly in California.  The airline's block time method of computing pay was similar to the pay scheme approved in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, and so did not offend California Labor Code guarantees of… Read More

After sending plaintiff a 998 offer to settle the entire case for $250,000, defendant sent plaintiff another offer, not under 998, to pay $191,000 on the contract claim, plus attorney fees, leaving the Civ. Code 3344 claim for trial.  Plaintiff accepted the second offer and later dismissed the Civ. Code 3344 claim.  Held, the second offer revoked the 998 offer,… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the defendant was not the prevailing party entitled to an attorney fee award under Civ. Code 3344 when the plaintiff dismissed its section 3344 claim without prejudice so that it could refile that claim (which it did) in Tennessee, whose law the trial court had held applied.  Civ. Code… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution case.  The evidence adduced on the motion showed that plaintiff had a probability of success in establishing the elements of the malicious prosecution claim.  The dismissal of the underlying action for lack of prosecution was potentially a favorable termination on the merits.  The original plaintiff was… Read More

A defendant can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation on two disparate theories.  First, under Rest.2d Torts section 311, a defendant may be liable for negligent misrepresentation in endorsing a product that physically harms the plaintiff.  (See Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 680.)  Here, plaintiff suffered no physical injury and so couldn't rely on that theory to pursue… Read More

The federal Poultry and Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq.) expressly preempts state laws that impose different or additional labeling requirements to the labels approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under the PPIA.  (21 U.S.C. 467e.)  This decision holds that the federal statute preempts any state law claim that the federally approved label for a poultry… Read More

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits discrimination in the form of “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.  Here, a disabled person was a month-to-month tenant.  The landlord offered him a… Read More