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.

Choice of Law

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.

This decision affirms the CFPB's judgment against CashCall under 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B) which prohibits unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in consumer finance.  CashCall made loans to consumers at rates that were usurious under the laws of the states where they resided, attempting to circumvent those laws by a choice of Indian tribal law in its loan agreements. … Read More

Despite CCP 1710.40'sopen-ended list of potential defenses to a sister state judgment, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the statute does not and cannot create an opportunity to raise defenses to the merits of the underlying claims resolved in the sister state judgment. Thus, defenses based on a contract's arbitration, forum selection and choice of law clause could not… Read More

The California Arbitration Act governs procedure in state court in compelling arbitration even when the FAA governs the substantive rules regarding arbitration.  Under CCP 1281.2(c), a trial court has discretion to deny arbitration if a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action with a third party, "arising out of the same transaction or… Read More

The trial court prejudicially erred in this asbestosis case in giving a causation instruction based on California law.  In an earlier writ proceeding, the Court of Appeal had held that Michigan law applies to this case, at least as against Marley-Wylain because the plaintiff worked in Michigan while employed by Marley-Wylain and was exposed to asbestos in Michigan during that… Read More

Distinguishing Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 940 F.3d 1130 as interpreting federal, not California law, and involving a one-time litigant against a repeat player, this decision holds that in a commercial, non-consumer, arbitration, California law does not require an arbitrator to disclose his 0.1 percent interest in JAMS.  Arbitrators are required to disclose their relationship… Read More

Under the Rest.2d Conflicts of Law's most significant relationship test, the law of the state of incorporation governs a directors and officers liability policy rather than the law of the state where the corporate headquarters are located.  The state of incorporation's law governs the directors' and officers' duties to the corporation, so it is logical that the same state's law… Read More

Plaintiff was a licensed solicitor in London and the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the independent regulatory body that governs solicitors and barristers in the UK.  He traveled to California and then claimed he was too ill to return to the UK, so an adjournment of the disciplinary proceedings should be continued.  Defendant, a doctor, was appointed as a neutral… Read More

Federal common law governs the effect of a federal court's judgment on federal law claims (Taylor v. Sturgell (2008) 553 U.S. 880, 891) whereas state law governs the res judicata effect of a federal court's judgment on state law claims when exercising diversity jurisdiction (Semtek Internat. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2001) 531 U.S. 497, 507).  It is unclear which… Read More

1 2