This decision vacates dismissal of the mandate petition and remands to the trial court to determine in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Boermeester v. Carry (2023) 15 Cal.5th 72 whether the common law doctrine of fair procedure applies to this private vocational school and if so whether the school gave plaintiff a fair procedure including the right… Read More
B&P Code 6128(a) makes it a misdemeanor for an attorney to engage in deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or a party. In this case, the LA and San Francisco district attorneys sued the Potter law firm claiming it engaged in an unlawful business practice in violation of B&P Code 6128(a) and 17200 by filing shakedown ADA… Read More
Echoing Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, this decision states that a separate statement should contain only the facts material to the challenged element(s) of a claim or defense. Other background facts need not and should not be set out in the separate statement. The decision also states that the nonmoving party… Read More
Effective in 2019, Gov. Code 12923 "clarified" the law regarding hostile work environment sexual harassment claims. The section states that summary judgment should rarely be granted on such claims. In addition, it provides that even a single incident can be sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim "if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance… Read More
A district court order was immediately appealable insofar as it prohibited the defendant employer from communicating with workers about this opt-in FLSA action or soliciting them not to join the action, but not insofar as it voided the agreements that the employer had solicited from workers releasing FLSA claims or agreeing not to join the action. The appealable portion of… Read More
Over a dissent, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations period (CCP 340.5) applies to a claim by a driver of a car injured by an EMT's negligent driving in delivering a patient to a hospital. Delivering a patient to a hospital is a medical service which can be a matter of life and death to the patient. The fact… Read More
Defendant operates a web-based payment processing platform offered to merchants nationwide. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated California's privacy laws by retaining customers' personal data obtained from the merchants and tracking the customers. This decision holds that defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not target its activity to California or its consumers but operated its… Read More
Reversing a summary judgment for defendant in this breach of contract suit, the Court of Appeal found the parties' brief signed napkin agreement to be enforceable despite some ambiguities and terms left for later determination. It was not too indefinite to enforce or too indefinite to indicate agreement on essential terms. Parol evidence was properly admitted to construe the ambiguous… Read More
This decision affirms a summary judgment for defendant in a suit by the heirs of a driver killed in a head-on collision triggered by the presence of a deer on the highway. Defendant was entitled to design immunity under Gov. Code 830.6. The design of the highway was causally linked to the accident. Caltrans approved the planned design of the… Read More
Under Rule 8.108, a "valid" motion to vacate judgment extends the time for appeal until denial of the motion or 90-days after the first valid notice of such a motion is filed. Under CCP 659(a)(1) and 663a(a), a motion to vacate may be filed after the decision is rendered and before entry of judgment. In a court trial in which… Read More
Agreeing with Connelly v. Bornstein (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 783 and Garcia v. Rosenberg (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, this decision holds that CCP 340.6's one-year limitations periods governs a malicious prosecution action against the attorney for the opposing party in the underlying litigation. CCP 340.6(a)(2) tolls that one-year period during the time “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the… Read More
This decision affirms dismissal of a case under the 5 year statute. It holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not tolling the 5 year statute during the 16 month period in which the court was not holding jury trials due to COVID-19 because during that period plaintiff was not ready to go to trial anyway,… Read More
A motion for relief from default and default judgment under CCP 473(b)'s mandatory attorney fault provision must be brought within six months (and a motion under the section's discretionary provision must be brought diligently and in no case more than six months). This decision holds that "six months" means either six calendar months or 182 days, whichever is longer. Though… Read More
Plaintiffs obtained a loan from defendant while it was an illegally unlicensed lender in California. This decision holds that plaintiffs lack standing to sue defendant for violating the UCL in making the loan while unlicensed since plaintiffs suffered no loss of money or property due to the defendant's unlicensed status. They received the exact loan terms for which they had… Read More
The Government Claims Statute (Gov. Code 905) requires plaintiffs to file a government claim with the prospective government entity defendant before filing a suit for damages. However, the statute does not apply to actions for injunctive, specific, or declaratory relief--even if the declaration might be used in a later suit for damages. Here, a contractor sued for a declaration regarding… Read More
The trial court correctly denied Mattson's motion to compel arbitration of Applied's suit against it for violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Mattson had hired Lai away from Applied. Lai's employment agreement with Applied contained an arbitration clause. Mattson was not a party to that contract and could not enforce it on a equitable estoppel basis since Applied's claim… Read More
A defendant may raise unpleaded affirmative defenses in opposition to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion so long as the plaintiff is given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. See Cruey v. Gannett Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 356, 367; Wang v. Nibbelink (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1, 11. The court may consider unpleaded affirmative defenses, if the complaint alleges facts supporting… Read More
Following Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, this decision holds that the 100-day limit on petitioning to vacate a Mandatory Attorney Fee Arbitration award is subject to equitable estoppel and equitable tolling. It also holds that unless there is already an action pending between the parties, the petition must be served in same manner as a… Read More
Water Code 13330(b) requires any appeal from a regional board's decision to be filed within 30 days and expressly prohibits judicial review except in accord with section 13330. This decision holds that an untimely filed appeal from the regional board's decision must be dismissed even if the appellant claims the regional board lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it rendered its… Read More
The district court erred in remanded this suit to state court after defendant removed it under 28 USC 1442, the federal officer removal statute. To invoke federal jurisdiction under that section, the defendant must show (a) it is a “person” within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal… Read More
