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.

Evidence

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.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs against plaintiff under CCP 2033.420 for having denied defendant's requests of admission regarding the breach of oral promise claim alleged in the complaint.  The evidence at trial showed that plaintiff could not have maintained a good faith belief, at the time he denied those requests, that he would prevail… Read More

Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to establish a probability of success on his defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims to overcome defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff is a world record holder in a number of computer arcade games.  Defendant facilitates video game competitions and runs a website with leaderboards showing top scorers on the games.  After receiving a complaint from… Read More

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

Explaining the California Supreme Court's relatively recent decisions dealing with the admissibility of expert testimony based on hearsay sources, this opinion explains that expert opinion is properly admissible if based on hearsay about background facts or principles of science and the like.  (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665; People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16; People v. Valencia… Read More

Under the federal recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, including documentary evidence, the court “may summarily order his confinement . . . until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information.”  This decision holds that section 1826 applies to post-judgment as well… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment against Monsanto for failing to warn of the toxic nature of Roundup.  It holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et seq.) does not preempt state common law duty to warn and defective design products liability claims.  There was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of liability on those… Read More

The D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1 doctrine about summary judgment affidavits not being allowed to contradict admissions in discovery is not a doctrine regarding the admissibility of evidence, but rather whether the contradictory evidence can be given an weight.  Here, an expert changed his answer on the key question of whether a plaintiff was exposed… Read More

1 2 3 7