California has jurisdiction over the mother, her brother, and her daughters, all of whom now live in other states, in a suit filed by the son challenging actions taken by the others in connection with the family trust. Mother and trust had deep California roots. She lived in Santa Monica until 2016 and formed the trust there. In 2016, the… Read More
Generally, an order denying summary judgment is not reviewable on an appeal from a judgment entered after trial. Ortiz v. Jordan (2011) 562 U.S. 180, 184-185. However, at least in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals may review an order denying summary judgment on a post-trial appeal if the denial was based on a purely legal issue, such as… Read More
Summary judgment for defendant in an age and racial association FEHA discrimination case is affirmed. The employer provided evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact that the stated reason was pretextual. The few alleged comments about plaintiff's age--mostly that she looked much younger than her age--were harmless and… Read More
A private citizen group of taxpayers had taxpayer standing under CCP 526a to sue the District Attorney seeking an injunction to stop his office's confidential informant program, the principal aim of which was to secure confessions from criminal defendants in violation of their constitutional rights. The suit was brought by taxpayers to enjoin waste of public funds on an illegal… Read More
The trial court wrongly granted a health insurer summary judgment on the insured's bad faith and UCL claims. The insured's son was autistic and, before he turned 7 was given 157 hours a month of insured treatments. When he turned 7, Magellan reduced the monthly allotment to 57 hours. On the insured's appeal to the Department of Managed Health Care,… Read More
Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period. Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade. When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued. … Read More
Agreeing with Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1105, the Supreme Court holds that an intentional tortfeasor is not entitled to the benefits of Proposition 51 and CIvil Code 1431.2. An intentional tortfeasor is fully liable for all of the plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages. Whereas, under secction 1431.2, a negligent tortfeasor is liable for the amount… Read More
An order denying a reconsideration motion under FRCivP 59(e) brought a year after an order denying summary judgment was not appealable. The time to appeal the denial of summary judgment had long since expired. A delayed motion for reconsideration under FRCivP 59(e) cannot be used to resurrect the case for appeal. The denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is appealable… Read More
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding, an appellate court must make an appropriate adjustment to its analysis when the clear and convincing standard of proof applied before the trial court. In general, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could… Read More
In computing the three-year time within which summons and complaint must be served, CCP 583.240(b) excludes any time in which the prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service. This case holds that if litigation between plaintiff and defendant 1 is stayed (as it was here while those parties engaged in a… Read More
Following the en banc decision in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig. (Espinoza v. Ahearn) (9th Cir. 2019) 926 F.3d 539, this decision holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in avoiding a detailed analysis of varying applicable state laws in certifying a setlttement-only class in this case. That was particularly true as one of… Read More
California does not allow recovery of damages for the shortened life expectancy caused by plaintiff's contracting a disease from the defendant's product. And, in awarding damages for pain and suffering, the jury may only award such damages during the period the plaintiff is actually expected to live due the contracted disease. Read More
In this wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted Kaiser summary judgment based on the going and coming rule. Kaiser's volunteer had finished providing dog therapy to one of Kaiser's patients and was returning home when the volunteer struch and killed plaintiffs' decedant. The required-vehicle exception to the going and coming rule did not apply because there was no… Read More
Eminent domain actions are special proceedings governed by the Eminent Domain Law, CCP 1230.10 et seq. In eminent domain proceedings, a party may bring a pretrial motion for a ruling on “an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation" under CCP 1260.040(a). Inverse condemnation actions, however, a common law suits that are not governed by the Eminent… Read More
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
