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.
This decision holds that Trustees v. Greenough (1882) 105 U.S. 527, and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus (1885) 113 U.S. 116 prohibit routine awards of incentive payments to named plaintiffs from a common fund class recovery. Greenough upheld an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses but rejected as without legal basis an award for the lead plaintiff's… Read More
A 998 offer made jointly to a defendant surgeon and his putative employer was invalid because it required both to agree to the offer. Consent of a single defendant would be insufficient to accept the offer as presented. The case illustrates why 998 offers are invalid when made to multiple defendants requiring all to consent. The putative employer had defenses… Read More
Though the defendant did not appear and defaulted, it did not thereby waive any objection to personal jurisdiction. A trial court may and should determine its own subject matter and personal jurisdiction before entering a default judgment to assure that it is not a void decree. Here, the trial court properly gave plaintiff notice of its doubt that it had… Read More
This decision dismisses an appeal as untimely. The appealed orders were issued before the COVID-19 court closures. The trial court's emergency rules treated dates during the closure as holidays, so under CCP 12a, the notice of appeal was due the next day which was not a holiday, namely, June 1, when the trial court reopened. The Court of Appeal's emergency… Read More
When the complaint does not allege facts disclosing the amount in controversy, a defendant removing the case under CAFA need only allege facts that plausibly show that the case satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, including the amount in controversy. The notice of removal need not cite evidence supporting the allegations of those jurisdictional facts. The plaintiff can challenge the notice of… Read More
CCSF wrongly terminated Morgado's employment as a police officer. While he was no longer working for CCSF, Morgado was engaged as a broker, earning $181,000 in gross income. This decision holds that Morgado's earnings as a broker must be offset agaisnt the damages he is awarded against CCSF whether for front or back pay. Morgado is entitled only to be… Read More
Defendant sold goods through its Internet website. It had no physical presence in California but 8 to 10 per cent of its sales were to California residents. That was sufficient availment of the benefits and protections of California law to satisfy due process, even though the defendant did not target California residents any more than residents of other states. Making… Read More
Following Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, this decision holds that the district court erred in judging specific personal jurisdiction on the particular transaction that gave rise to the lawsuit rather than on the whole business relationship between the parties, of which the particular transaction was a part. Defendant was a Honduran company that imported into… Read More
Under the FRCivP 58(e), a judgment is final and appealable when entered, even though the district court retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion to tax costs or award attorney fees, unless the district court orders that the judgment is not final until the motion is ruled upon. A notice of appeal filed within 30 days of entry of the… Read More
Since Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) 121 S.Ct. 1511, federal courts do not imply private causes of action unless a federal statute evinces an intent to create one. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) does not show any intent to create a private right of action. It is a simple criminal statute, outlawing use of robbery, extortion or threats of… Read More
