Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Appeals

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 properly granted defendant landlord's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's claim that the landlord violated Santa Monica's anti-harassment ordinance by filing an unlawful detainer complaint against the plaintiff which supposedly lacked sufficient factual and legal support. Read More

Though no separate judgment was entered, the jury’s special verdict resolved all issues in the case, so the losing party’s 30-day time to appeal began to run out 150 days after entry of the verdict. Read More

When parties try to force a premature appeal by dismissing some claims without prejudice, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court so it can finally resolve all claims and enter a final, appealable judgment. Read More

An order removing an executor is not a final and appealable order if the trial court, in issuing the order, states that a written statement of decision providing the findings and reasoning supporting the order will be issued later. Read More

A party moving for limited remand while a case is on appeal need not have moved for an indicative ruling in the district court if the district court has entered an indicative ruling in response to some other proceeding. Read More

An order granting or denying a motion to disqualify counsel is immediately appealable; the appeal automatically stays the appealed order but not other proceedings in the trial court, so a disqualified attorney may continue to the representation while the appeal is pending. Read More

It is the substance of a post-trial motion, not its title, that controls its effect on the appeal period; so a motion for stay disguised as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment does not toll the appeal period though a true Rule 59 motion would do so.   Read More

An order denying a motion to vacate judgment is a separately appealable order, even if the issues raised on appeal overlap issues that the appellant could have or did raise on an appeal from the underlying judgment.  Read More

A Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a district court order denying class certification or striking class allegations after the named plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his individual claims.  Read More

A superior court's order granting a writ of administrative mandate and remanding the proceeding to the administrative agency for a new hearing and determination may be an appealable order depending on the particular circumstances of the case; here a remand order contained conclusive findings construing the appellant’s by-laws, so appellate review is justified.  Read More

Resolution of the underlying lawsuit (here by a settlement) does not automatically moot an appeal by a person who unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action, so long as effective relief may still potentially be awarded the would-be intervenor. Read More

A federal appellate court reviews a district court’s decision to enforce or quash an administrative subpoena for abuse of discretion.  Read More

A federal appellate court has jurisdiction over claims against an appellee not named in the notice of appeal if the opening brief shows the appellant challenges portions of the judgment affecting that appellee.  Read More

1 3 4 5 6