Civil Procedure

Unnamed class members do not have standing to appeal from a class judgment or attorney fees award unless they intervene or move to vacate judgment. Read More

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. Read More

When parties try to force a premature appeal by dismissing some claims without prejudice, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court so it can finally resolve all claims and enter a final, appealable judgment. Read More

An order removing an executor is not a final and appealable order if the trial court, in issuing the order, states that a written statement of decision providing the findings and reasoning supporting the order will be issued later. Read More

Judicial estoppel forbids a defendant from asserting that a court lacked authority to impose monetary sanctions when, in an earlier suit, the defendant successfully argued that the court should have entered monetary sanctions rather than terminating sanctions. Read More

Appeal time limits set by congressional statute are jurisdictional; those prescribed by court rule are merely mandatory and may be waived if the opposing party does not promptly object. Read More

The invited error doctrine bars a party from appealing from an order the party submitted for the sole purpose of creating an appeal that would derail trial. Read More

An action for civil penalties under Proposition 65 must be brought in the county in which the claim arose. Read More

A party moving for limited remand while a case is on appeal need not have moved for an indicative ruling in the district court if the district court has entered an indicative ruling in response to some other proceeding. Read More

Noncompliance with a court order to disclose financial condition precludes a defendant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of a punitive damages award on appeal. Read More

A foreign defendant’s knowledge that plaintiff is located in the forum state and will suffer harm there does allow the forum to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant; instead the defendant itself must establish contacts with the forum state. Read More

A Georgia-resident husband who sent a video of a mock suicide to his California-resident wife caused exceptional and specially regulated effects in California sufficient to support specific jurisdiction to enter a Domestic Violence Protection Act injunction against the husband. Read More

By providing for entry of a stipulated $300,000 judgment if defendant failed to pay $75,000 as agreed, a settlement agreement exacted a penalty, so the $300,000 judgment was void. Read More

A party is entitled to a continuance of a summary judgment hearing, or a new trial, when without fault of his or her own, the party reasonably believed that the case had been settled Read More

The workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine is inapplicable to claims under the Fair Housing and Employment Act. Read More

For purposes of enforcing a foreign judgment, a party was afforded sufficient due process, if the foreign court followed "procedures compatible with the requirements of fundamental fairness" even if the litigants were not given the specific constitutional due process guarantees afforded litigants in U.S. courts. Read More

A party cannot manufacture a triable issue of fact with a self-serving expert opinion that lacks any basis or explanation for the opinion and that is inconsistent with its own admissible statements. Read More

Service of process and taking of a deposition in Arizona as part of Nevada litigation were insufficient minimum contacts with Arizona to create personal jurisdiction. Read More

The relation-back doctrine will not save an architect or engineer malpractice action if the certificate of merit required by Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 is filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. Read More

A previously deceived consumer has standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling, even though the consumer now knows or suspects that the advertising was false at the time of the original purchase, because the consumer may nonetheless suffer an “actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” threat of future harm. Read More