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.

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this qui tam insurance fraud action against a doctor for preparing fraudulent patient medical reports and billing statements in support of insurance claims.  The billing statements and medical reports were prepared in the ordinary course of the doctor's business and not in serious contemplation of lawsuits, so they were not protected… Read More

Though the filming and exhibition of a public television reality show regarding persons aspiring to be models was entitled to protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)), the plaintiff, a real, well-known model, presented enough evidence to show a probability of success on her claims for invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriation of her… Read More

This decision states that an arbitrator may not consider an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, but it finds that the arbitrator's error in granting such a motion was harmless.  At the second stage of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, the arbitrator had to consider the merits of the defendant's cross-complaint.  The arbitrator found that the litigation privilege (Civ. Code 47(b)) barred the cross-complaint. … Read More

Hockey is a model whose authorized agent contracted for her to perform a 10-hour day's modeling for Brighton for $3,000 payable on receipt of the agent's invoice.  After modeling as agreed, Hockey sued Brighton, claiming it was her employer and that it violated Lab. Code 201 by not paying her the full amount due at the time her employment ended… Read More

This decision affirms an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in this malicious prosecution case as to the plaintiff in the underlying case, but reverses as to that party's attorneys.  The prior action, a CEQA challenge to a project to build a school on property adjoining the underlying plaintiff's horse ranch, lacked probable cause insofar as it alleged noise from the… Read More

Plaintiffs sued claiming they had been sexually molested while minors by a Roman Catholic priest.  They sought to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable for ratifying the molestation and directly liable for its own negligence in failing to supervise the priest.  The trial court correctly denied the Archdiocese's Anti-SLAPP motion.  The gravamen of the complaint was the priest's sexual molestation and… Read More

The gist of a teacher's FEHA claim for retaliation for filing a complaint with the DFEH was the defendant's adverse employment action, not the protected activity of the investigation it conducted leading up to that action or its later protected action of defending the adverse employment action before a review commission.  Accordingly, the case did not arise from conduct protected… Read More

After firing Towner, an investigator in the County's District Attorney's office, the County sought a writ of mandate to enjoin the County's Civil Service Commission from reviewing the termination.  In support of its writ petition, the County publicly filed confidential reports of its investigation of Towner's conduct, in violation of Gov. Code 832.7, part of the Police Officer's Bill of… Read More

The trial court erred in denying defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff's complaint was based on allegedly false statements made in reports posted by plaintiff on the Internet, accusing a Chinese company of defrauding investors by claiming inflated sales based on purchases by intermediaries like plaintiff who then resold the product.  Public postings on the Internet are a public forum for purposes… 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

1 2 3 10