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.

Applying Singapore law in accordance with a stock purchase agreement's choice of law clause, this decision holds that the employer did not breach that agreement when it bought back the employee's stock after having fired him.  The agreement provided for an employer buy back at market value of the stock if the employee left employment voluntarily or involuntarily for any… Read More

Following Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 726 F.3d 1118, this decision holds that statutory penalties cannot be aggregated in a PAGA suit to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold for traditional diversity jurisdiction purposes.  Instead, the statutory penalties and attorrney fees attributable solely to the named plaintiff must exceed $75,000 for there to be… Read More

Both employer and employee signed a three-page standalone arbitration agreement, but both failed to put their initials by the bolded provision that said both waived the right to a jury trial.  This decision holds that the parties are bound by the arbitration agreement.  Their signatures showed their assent to its terms which unequivocally bound them to arbitrate.  The employee's uncommunicated… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.  It holds that the defendant did not satisfy its initial summary judgment burden because the expert witness declaration which was the centerpiece of its motion failed to state reasons and a factual basis for the conclusion that the defendant had conformed to the applicable professional standard… Read More

Two years after this case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, the parties discovered that one of the properties at issue in the case was partly owned by a trust of which one trustee was a non-diverse California resident.  The plaintiff moved to join the non-diverse trustee as a defendant.  The district court granted the joinder, severed the… Read More

In reviewing an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case, the appellate court applies the norrmal standard of review, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Those inferences will not affect the case when it proceeds to trial.  And the appellate court's affirmance of the order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion will only preclude a summary… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered for the employer in this wage and hour case.  The employer's expert showed that the employer's time rounding of clock in and out times to the nearest 15 minutes was facially neutral and neutral in practice as well.  Also, the employer disproved the employee's claim that he was denied meal and rest breaks.  Each weekly… Read More

An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence must be supported by a specification of reasons that does more than just recite ultimate facts.  The specification must point to the evidence which convinced the trial court that there was insufficient evidence on a particular issue.  Here, the specification of reasons did not do so. … Read More

An action for an accounting upon dissolution of a corporation is not a special proceeding or an action for declaratory relief and thus is an action that triggers the compulsory cross-complaint rule under CCP 426.10 et seq. Read More

While a plaintiff may raise new legal theories on appeal from a dismissal on a general demurrer attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint's factual allegations, that rule does not apply to an appeal from a dismissal on the ground that the claims alleged in the complaint are barred by the compulsory cross-complaint rule codified in CCP 426.10.  An appellate… Read More

1 2 3 38