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.

A collective bargaining agreement will not be interpreted to require arbitration of statutory wage and hour claims unless the agreement clearly and unmistakably requires arbitration of those claims.  Here, the CBA did not meet that standard.  It required arbitration of only those issues that the union and employer later agreed to arbitrate.  Also, litigation of the statutory wage and hour… Read More

Following SEIU Local 121RN v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (9th Cir. 2020) 976 F.3d 849, this decision holds that, at least with respect to delegation of arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements are to be interpreted just like arbitration clauses in other types of contracts.  Arbitrability questions are determined by the court unless the… Read More

In a proceeding under 9 USC 7 to enforce a subpoena that an arbitrator has issued to a non-party witness, when no federal claim is at stake, a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter only if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (including the amount in controversy requirement) are satisfied.  The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, if the value of… 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

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

An arbitration clause that stated both parties waived the right to bring a class action, act as a private attorney general or join claims of other persons in arbitration or in court did not offend McGill.  At least given the 9th Circuit's view that the FAA preempts Broughton and Cruz, the arbitrator could award public injunctive relief since McGill makes… Read More

Under CCP 1281.91(b), a party has an absolute right to disqualify a neutral arbitrator (once) without cause if done within 15 days of the arbitrator's providing the parties the disclosures required by CCP 1281.9.  This decision holds that the right to peremptorily disqualify a neutral arbitrator under section 1281.91 is not waivable in advance so that defendant could disqualify the… Read More

The Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act (15 USC 1226) creates a narrow exception to the Federal Arbitration Act, banning arbitration (without both parties' post-dispute consent) of claims arising from a motor vehicle franchise contract, which it defines to mean a contract under which the franchisee both sells and services motor vehicles.  Vehicle Code 11713.,3(g) contains the same terms… Read More

Following Mejia v. DACM, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 691, this decision affirms an order denying a motion to compel arbitration.  As in Mejia, this decision distinguishes Clifford v. Quest Software Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 745, saying it involved only the defendant's employees, not the broader public which this suit sought to benefit by an injunction against defendant's allegedly unfair practices… Read More

Reversing an order denying arbitration, this decision holds that the arbitration clause had only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability due to the employer's greater economic power and only one clause that was substantively unconscionable but severable.  The employer was not required to give plaintiff a Spanish translation since plaintiff did not show she lacked English language skills, just that… Read More

1 2 3 16