Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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 case of first impression in California, this decision holds that a party to one of several cases that the Judicial Council has ordered to be coordinated is not entitled to mandatory intervention in other of the coordinated cases than the one in which it already is a party because the would-be intervenor cannot show that it is so… Read More

Under FRCivP 24(a), a would-be intervenor must show that it has a significant protectable interest as to the property or transaction involved in the dispute which may be impaired by resolution of the case as well as that the motion to intervene was timely and the existing parties don't or can't protect the intervenor's interest.  Here, the plaintiff sought a… Read More

An heir is not categorically precluded from intervening in a wrongful death suit brought by the personal representative of the decedent's estate.  So long as the heir meets the criteria for intervention, including inadequate representation of his interest by the existing parties, she should be permitted to intervene to protect those interests.  By intervening, the heir does not file a… Read More

Another employee of the same defendant employer is not entitled to intervene as of right in a PAGA suit brought by a different employee of that employer in order to challenge the settlement to which the latter employee and the employer have agreed.  To intervene as of right under FRCivP 24(a)(2), a party must show (among other things) that his… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying Volkswagen's motion to intervene in a FOIA action seeking production of documents concerning Volkswagen's dieselgate fraud.  Volkswagen satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)'s three requirements for intervention as of right.  It had a significant protectible interest in asserting that the sought documents were exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 4.  A ruling… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the longshoremen's union permissive intervention in this multi-sided litigation over an environmental impact report for the China Terminal which handles 17% of the cargo at the Port of Los Angeles.  In ruling on a motion for permissive intervention, a court considers four factors:  1. whether the intervener has followed proper… Read More

If all existing named parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the magistrate judge may rule on a motion to intervene even if the prospective intervenor does not consent.  Read More