During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In reaction to San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, the Legisalture amended CCP 128.5 to require in subdivision (f) that the court first find a motion, complaint or other filing to be frvolous under subdivision (a) and then not award sanctions until after a 21-day safe harbor as under CCP 128.7.  This… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider defendant's reply declarations on its Anti-SLAPP motion.  The reply declarations addressed an issue that had been raised in the original moving papers--good faith in recording tje mechanics liens in issue, but addressed a particular unanticipated argument that the plaintiff raised in opposition to the motion--that litigation could not have been… Read More

Recording a mechanics lien is protected activity under CCP 425.16(e) (the Anti-SLAPP statute) even if the lien was improperly filed.  The lawfulness of the lien is taken into consideration only during the second step of Anti-SLAPP analysis--that is in considering whether the plaintiff has shown probability of success on the merits.  So the fact that this litigation arose from defendant's… Read More

One dentist brought a defamation action against his former partner, another dentist, for statements the defendant made to various other persons impugning the quality of the plaintiff's dentistry work.  The defendant filed an Anti-SLAPP motion which was granted, and plaintiff appealed.  Held:  Statements about the competency of a professional, like a dentist, concern a matter of public importance and so… Read More

This decision affirms the trial court's denial of the City's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike several allegations of allegedly protected activity from a complaint otherwise alleging contract and tort claims based on the City's obstruction of plaintiff's contract rights to process coal shipments through the Port of Oakland.  The decision ends with a lengthy and insistent call for reform of the… Read More

A signed, filed-endorsed minute order granting an Anti-SLAPP motion as to the entire complaint was a final appealable order.  Plaintiff had 60 days from the date the clerk mailed a copy of the order in which to appeal.  The appeal time was not extended when the trial court thereafter needlessly entered a one-page formal order granting the motion.  Plaintiff's motion… Read More

Shloss was Cohen's attorney in a disability discrimination suit Cohen brought against Golden State when one of its delivery drivers parked in a disabled persons parking spot to make a delivery.  Cohen claimed the delivery truck kept him from parking the disabled spot and thus blocked his access to nearby business A.  At trial, Cohen had no evidence to show… Read More

In reviewing an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case, the appellate court applies the norrmal standard of review, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Those inferences will not affect the case when it proceeds to trial.  And the appellate court's affirmance of the order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion will only preclude a summary… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this bad faith case by an insured against its insurer.  The insured claimed the insurer had breached its duty of good faith by retaining conflicted counsel, failing to pay amounts owed, and misleading Trilogy regarding obligations under the policies.  The insured alleged that the insurer urged or compelled defense counsel to… Read More

A candidate for public office petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the opposing candidate's ballot statements as misleading.  The petition was dismissed on the merits; then the real party's (opposing candidate's) AntiSLAPP motion was denied as moot and his separate motion for a private attorney general fee award was denied on the ground he had not shown his defense… Read More

1 2 3 8