The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . , broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property." (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).) In this case, an injured motorist brought a common law negligence action against a transportation broker for negligently selecting… Read More
This decision holds that a bank or other non-savings and loan that acquired a loan originated by a savings and loan before the Dodd-Frank Act, is entitled to assert the same Home Owners Loan Act field preemption of state law as the originating savings institution could have. To hold otherwise would impair an essential feature of how savings institutions worked… Read More
This decision affirms a summary judgment in favor of defendant police officers and their employer, the city, against plaintiff's complaint based on injuries she suffered while escaping from a car used by bank robbers, holding plaintiff and other hostages, to escape from the scene of the robbery. Police must use act reasonably in all the circumstances in employing deadly force. … Read More
A lawsuit against a public entity may allege additional facts and new causes of action not stated in the plaintiff's government claim so long as they are based on the same fundamental facts supporting liability on the same legal theory or theories raised in the tort claim. Here, the plaintiff's government claim alleged torts arising from the police response to… Read More
No matter what its title, an order assigning a case (or here, a habeas corpus petition) to a particular judge is an all purpose assignment that requires a party to file a 170.6 motion within ten days of the assignment or of the party's appearance, whichever is later if (a) the order instantly pinpoints the judge whom the parties can… Read More
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
Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer. Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds. The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement. Held: The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene. The motion was… Read More
Under CCP 170.6, a party may peremptorily challenge a judge who presided at a prior trial of the action if the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. However, as Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245 held, a new trial is “a reexamination of an issue of fact in the same court after… Read More
Disabled residents of New Orleans had Article III standing to sue Uber for refusing to make uberWAV (wheelchair accessable rides) available in New Orleans. The residents didn't have to sign up to use Uber's app (and thus agree to its arbitration clause) to have Article III standing since doing so would have been a futile gesture. As there was no… Read More
The district court correctly dismissed this copyright infringement suit against the Polish owner of a Polish porn website for lack of personal jurisdiction. To establish specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum or purposefully directed his activities to the forum,… Read More
Brembo, an Italian corporation, was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California in a suit by its distributor TAW, which though originally a California entity, had moved its principal place of business to North Carolina before entering into the distributorship agreement that was the subject of this suit. The agreement authorized TAW to distribute Brembo products throughout the United States,… Read More
