Civil Procedure

A district attorney may, without violating due process, hire private counsel on contingency to prosecute unfair competition claims in the name of the People. Read More

California refuses to decide a case with no connection to this state other than that the parties chose it as a neutral forum for resolution of any dispute arising from their contract. Read More

A local governmental agency may require the pre-suit filing of an administrative claim for childhood sexual abuse, barring a suit if no claim is filed first. Read More

In evaluating whether a person is an “insider” of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination of whether a transaction was arm’s length using the clear error standard of review. Read More

A medical malpractice plaintiff provides adequate notice of a potential medical malpractice claim, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 364, by mailing a notice of intent to file an action to a physician’s address of record with the Medical Board of California. Read More

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, a taxpayer has the standing to sue to enjoin a government agency from conducting administrative proceedings in a manner that allegedly violates due process. Read More

The National Bank Act does not preempt California’s statute requiring lenders to pay interest on home loan escrow accounts. Read More

International service of process by Federal Express and e-mail fails for lack of an acknowledgment of receipt; Doe defendants not served within three years must be dismissed. Read More

Handing a plaintiff a credit card receipt bearing the credit card’s expiration date does not create a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) Read More

A judgment holder seeking to take advantage of the exception to the general immunity granted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) must identify a basis under one of § 1610's express immunity-abrogating provisions to attach and execute against a relevant property. Read More

San Francisco’s ordinance banning eviction of families with school-age children during the school year is not preempted by state law as it creates a substantive defense to eviction and does not interfere with state law unlawful detainer procedure. Read More

An unlawful detainer judgment does not bar the landlord’s civil action to collect past-due rent since the landlord can collect only limited amounts of rent in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Read More

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) does not preempt California law to the extent it allows a district attorney to bring an Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) action based on the defendant's unlawful practice of failing to meet CalOSHA workplace safety standards even though the state plan did not provide for enforcement by that means. Read More

California minimum wage and overtime pay laws are not inconsistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and so apply to workers on oil rigs on the outer continental shelf off the California coast. Read More

Demurring in state court does not waive the right to remove the case to federal court, at least when the complaint does not reveal on its face that the case is removable. Also, waiver of the right to remove is not a jurisdictional defect so the district court cannot remand sua sponte on that ground. Read More

A joint offer by two plaintiffs was effective to allow enhanced cost recovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 when one plaintiff recovered more than the joint offer, thus establishing with certainty that the recovery was more favorable than the rejected joint offer. Read More

A motion for sanctions filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 must comply with the 21-day safe harbor requirement. Read More

A third party’s payment to a plaintiff in the same amount of a judgment, but for something collaterally related to the judgment, does not constitute a satisfaction of the judgment. Read More

Code of Civil Procedure section 369(a)(3) permits a party to file a lawsuit without joining a party for whose benefit the suit is brought, but the party filing the suit must be acting solely for the benefit of another rather than his or her self-interest. Read More

A suit alleging that Uber misappropriated passengers and income from licensed taxicab drivers are barred under Public Util. Code section 1759 because a finding of liability against Uber would require factual findings that could hinder or interfere with the Public Utility Commission’s ongoing rulemaking pertaining to third-party carriers. Read More