District court did not abuse its discretion in allowing dismissal without prejudice of lawsuit when plaintiff died, after his widow filed a new lawsuit in state court rather than timely substituting in her husband’s place. Read More
Juror was discharged and replaced too hastily without adequate investigation, after two fellow jurors complained that she did not participate in the first 90 minutes of deliberations. Read More
Defendant's 170.6 challenge was timely, even though it was filed after the challenged judge had heard and granted a temporary order removing minor from defendant’s custody. Read More
A case is not placed automatically in the superior court’s limited jurisdiction based on the sum in controversy; so in this case since no party acted to have the case referred to limited jurisdiction, it remained in the court’s unlimited jurisdiction, and the longer period for seeking fees in an unlimited jurisdiction case applied. Read More
A California state court cannot compel a party to undergo a vocational rehabilitation examination by the opposing party’s expert. Read More
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law cross-claim between nondiverse parties so long as the cross-claim remains part of an action commenced by a complaint that properly invokes diversity or federal question jurisdiction, but if the cross-claim is severed, the district court loses jurisdiction over it. Read More
Plaintiff could not rely on the delayed discovery rule to toll the limitations period on his fraud claim, because memoranda dating to the time of the alleged fraud—which were presented as part of plaintiff’s own evidence—disclosed the very facts which gave rise to the claim. Read More
One wrongly decided California Court of Appeal opinion is not sufficient grounds for avoiding the res judicata impact of a prior judgment on “change of applicable law” grounds since no other appellate court need follow that errant decision. Read More
Trial court erred in awarding nearly $8000 in contempt sanctions against plaintiff/deponent for failure to appear at her deposition, since court had not actually ordered plaintiff to appear at the deposition. Read More
A contractual jury trial waiver is unenforceable in California state court despite the contract’s choice of New York law which allows such waivers. Read More
A garnishment proceeding against a third party not involved in the original state court proceeding is a separate action which the garnishee can remove to federal court, and after removal, the action is governed by the federal rules of procedure, not state garnishment procedure. Read More
So long as the notice of intention to move for a new trial is timely filed, the trial court may, in its discretion, consider late-filed affidavits supporting the motion. Read More
After an Indiana-based bus manufacturer was dismissed from the case, California law governed Chinese bus passengers’ claims against a California-based bus distributor for injuries sustained when the bus overturned in Arizona; only California had a governmental interest in application of its law. Read More
For purposes of the five-year deadline for bringing a civil case to trial, trial “commences” when a jury is impaneled and sworn—even if the voir dire is not concluded within the five-year period. Read More
The sue-and-be-sued provision in Fannie Mae's statutory charter does not confer federal jurisdiction over suits against Fannie Mae or allow it to remove those suits to federal court absent some other basis for federal jurisdiction. Read More
A California state court judgment must be given issue preclusive effect on any issue it decides even if it is affirmed by the state Court of Appeal only on other issues. Read More
The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over a non-final order denying motion to compel arbitration because the motion was brought under California’s Arbitration Act, not the Federal Arbitration Act. Read More
District court properly denied equitable relief to plaintiff whose attorney filed a claim challenging a forfeiture one day late, since this error was the result of ordinary negligence rather than an extraordinary circumstance that would warrant relief. Read More
Plaintiffs who purchased applications from Apple's App Store are direct purchasers from Apple and can sue it for monopolizing the market for distribution of applications that run on the iPhone. Read More
A Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction over a order remanding a case that was removed based on federal question jurisdictional grounds, rather than on diversity grounds under CAFA. Read More
