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.

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

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

1 2 3 41