A consent decree that defendant entered into with the Attorney General which prohibited defendant from charging any fee it couldn't show was to reimburse a reasonable cost defendant incurred did not moot the prayer in this UCL class action for a public injunction banning defendant from charging its $45 processing fee for each new rent-to-own contract. The consent decree did… Read More
There are only two elements to a misappropriation of trade secrets claim: the existence of a trade secret, and its unauthorized dissemination, disclosure or use. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove it was damaged or the defendant was unjustly enriched. Those issues are relevant only to an award of damages or restitution. Even absent damages or enrichment,… Read More
The Government Claims Statute (Gov. Code 905) requires plaintiffs to file a government claim with the prospective government entity defendant before filing a suit for damages. However, the statute does not apply to actions for injunctive, specific, or declaratory relief--even if the declaration might be used in a later suit for damages. Here, a contractor sued for a declaration regarding… Read More
A civil harassment injunction entered in favor of an attorney for one of a divorcing couple against the attorney for the other spouse was reversed. Insofar as the injunction was based on emails that defendant sent plaintiff about the divorce, the emails didn't threaten violence and so were protected First Amendment speech which could not be considered in support of… Read More
The trial court erred in granting homeowners an injunction against the county Road Commissioner barring the county from enforcing ordinances banning encroachments on a county road leading to a popular public hiking trail. Courts may not enjoin enforcement of the laws, which in this case make encroachments a misdemeanor offense. Contrary to the homeowners' claim, CEQA does not require any… Read More
When a plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction claiming a state statute infringes on plaintiff's constitutional rights, the district court must weigh the plaintiff's probability of success on the merits as well as the existence of irreparable injury and the balance of equities and public interest because the probability of success on the merits heavily influences the evaluation of the other… Read More
The district court did not err in holding that Apple violated the UCL's "unfair" prong by prohibiting app developers from advertising to consumer iPhone users that they could pay through other means than Apple's in-app payment system and thereby save money. Epic's mere failure to prove its antitrust claim doesn't bar it from establishing the practice is unfair under Cal-Tech's… Read More
This case discusses the disputes are "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the rule normally requiring dismissal of moot cases. To fall within the exception, the action or appeal must be of inherently limited duration and there is a reasonable expectation that the appellant will be subjected to the same type of order in the future. This case… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction under the CLRA against defendants continuing to sell puppies which they falsely claimed were healthy but in fact were not and died in many cases within days after sale. Defendants' main argument on appeal was that the evidence didn't show that they sold the puppies that plaintiffs'… Read More
On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from "scraping" data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association. Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More
In this action under 42 USC 1983, B&G alleged that Embry violated B&G's free speech rights by suing it under California's Prop. 65 for failing to include on its packaging the Prop. 65 warning that B&G's cookies contained acrylamide, a chemical supposedly known to California to cause cancer. The decision holds that in seeking to enjoin Embry from suing B&G,… Read More
This decision affirms a preliminary injunction issued against the California Attorney General and private parties preventing them from filing suit under Prop. 65 to require food manufacturers to give the standard Prop. 65 warning about acrylamide being a chemical supposedly "known" to cause cancer. Under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), the compelled speech (the required… Read More
Following Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619 and disagreeing with Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394, this decision holds that an arbitrator's preliminary injunction order is not an "award" and is not reviewable by a California trial court under CCP 1294, and the trial court's order dismissing a petition to vacate the arbitrator's preliminary injunction… Read More
Owners of adjoining apartments mediated Doe's civil harassment prevention action, reaching an agreement that provided, among other things, that the parties agree not to disparage one another. This decision holds that read in light of the limited nature of the action and surrounding circumstances, the provision could not reasonably be read to ban Doe from saying negative things about Olson… Read More
This decision dismisses as moot a suit that a taxpayer brought seeking to enjoin a program for granting emergency aid to undocumented aliens in California during the COVID pandemic. The program proceeded while the case was pending. All the program's money was spent. There is no way to get the money back and no realistic threat that the program will… Read More
This decision holds that the district court erred in denying Comcast's motion to compel arbitration even though its arbitration clause precluded customers from litigating public injunction claims in any forum. First, the decision holds that the mere presence of the clause in the arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the arbitration agreement for all purposes--but rather only in cases that… Read More
An appeal automatically stays a mandatory injunction, but not a prohibitory injunction. Here, the trial court ordered the San Bernardino Board of Supervisors to remove and replace one of its sitting members based on the trial court's finding that the board had violated the Brown Act (Gov. Code 54950) requiring open meetings. A mandatory injunction is one that commands a… Read More
The district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction before compelling arbitration of the plaintiff's wage-and-hour misclassification claims. Plaintiff had sought an injunction requiring Uber to reclassify all its drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. That injunction would have changed, not preserved, the status quo pending arbitration. Also, there was no urgent need for an injunction before… Read More
CCP 527.8(o) allows a respondent in a workplace harassment injunction action one mandatory continuance in which to respond to the petition. This decision holds that when the respondent has already filed a written response to the petition, 527.8(o) is inapplicable, and the respondent is not entitled to a continuance of the injunction hearing absent a showing of good cause under… Read More
