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.

Civil Procedure

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.

An insurer may waive the insured's forfeiture of the policy through non-payment of the premium even though a loss has occurred during the period between lapse of the policy due to non-payment and reinstatement upon late payment of the premium.  The loss-in-progress rule (Ins. Code 22, 250) does not prevent the insurer from waiving the forfeiture in this situation because… Read More

Following  Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115 and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, this decision holds that the Court of Appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a voluntary dismissal entered for the purpose of trying to appeal from an order compelling arbitration in a putative class action.  It does… 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

Over a vigorous dissent, the majority holds that the adult daughter of the insureds under this homeowner's insurance policy does not have standing to sue the insurer for bad faith in regard to coverage for damage to the daughter's personal property that was damaged while in the insured premises.  Only the parents were named insureds under the policy, which expressly… Read More

California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device.  A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More

BPI was a subcontractor on a public works project.  The department found that BPI had not been paying its workers at the prevailing wage rate and issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment for the underpaid wages plus a statutory penalty.  BPI claimed the general contractor was at fault for misinforming it about the prevailing wage rate.  After BPI filed a… Read More

Plaintiff sued City in federal court, alleging both federal and state law claims arising from her arrest and strip search by City police officers.  The federal jury rendered a verdict in the City's favor on the federal law claims.  The federal court dismissed the state law negligence claims without prejudice.  Plaintiff refiled those claims in state court.  Following Hernandez v.… Read More

To establish organizational standing, the plaintiff associations  needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organizational missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct.  Diversion of resources happens when the plaintiffs alter their resource allocation to combat the challenged practices, but not when they go about their business as usual.  Here, the evidence on defendant's Rule 12(b)(1)… 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 Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal..App.5th 543 and distinguishing Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, this decision holds that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Canadian resident defendant.  He published defamatory internet postings about plaintiff, a California resident, on an internet site run by another California resident as well as on plaintiff's internet site.  The… Read More

1 2 3 52