During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In a transactional legal malpractice case arising from the defendant lawyer's advising plaintiff to enter into two marketing contracts that conflicted with each other, the plaintiff had to show only that the lawyer's negligent advice was a substantial factor in causing her loss.  This she did at least sufficiently to overcome summary judgment by showing that she was considering not… Read More

In a construction dispute that originally was over $22,096, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff only $90,000 in attorney fees out of the $292,140 requested.  The case was relatively simple, ultimately turning on the contractor's lack of a license and proper insurance.  It involved only money, so it was reasonable to compare fees against recovery… Read More

A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.  For the purpose of Article III standing, nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a past, completed violation of a legal right. Read More

Following n Hill v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1281 and Kerley v. Weber (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1187, and disagreeing with Levin v. Winston-Levin (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1025, this decision holds that double damages may be awarded under Probate Code 859 without a finding of bad faith if the defendant has taken or concealed property of a dependent adult, a… Read More

Plaintiff contracted mesothelioma, allegedly from asbestos-concrete pipe manufactured by defendant, a successor to Johns Manville's asbestos-concrete business.  A $15 million punitive damage award is reversed for lack of evidence that an officer, director or managing agent of defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud or authorized or ratified any conduct.  Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115 doesn't… Read More

In building a house on his own property, defendant severed roots of a large pine tree that was partly on defendant's property and partly on plaintiff's.  Following Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1094, this decision holds that plaintiff can recover only single damages for killing the pine tree.  The injury to the tree occurred from severing roots… Read More

Jury verdict that car did not have "a window defect that rendered it unfit for the ordinary purpose of providing transportation" should have ended the jury's task on the plaintiff's claim for breach of implied warranty.  But due to an error in the jury verdict form, the jury went on to award plaintiff damages.  Held, the trial court correctly granted… 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

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

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

1 2 3 4