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.

Judgments

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.

After judgment was entered against defendant, was set aside by the district court, and then reinstated on appeal, defendant filed motion for relief from the judgment again based on fraud on the court (Rule 60(d)) and based on newly discovered evidence and fraud (Rule 60(b)(2), (3)).  Plaintiff's judgment was for lost profits on its antitrust claims, but the new evidence… Read More

This decision affirms all but $42 million of a $344 million judgment against Johnson under the UCL and FAL for misleading advertising and concealment of the serious risks entailed in using its pelvic mesh product to cure certain conditions in women.  The trial court applied the proper test in determining whether Johnson's instructions for use and other advertising would mislead… Read More

Corso obtained a default judgment against Rejuvi in a district court in South Australia.  Corso filed a proof of claim in Rejuvi's bankruptcy proceeding.  Rejuvi appealed from a bankruptcy court order allowing Corso's claim based on the South Australia default judgment.  Held, the claim was properly allowed.  Under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (CCP 1713 et seq.), Rejuvi… Read More

Following David S. Karton, A Law Corp. v. Dougherty (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 600, this decision holds that when a defendant pays a default judgment entered against him before successfully moving to vacate the default judgment (and hence before filing an answer), Civ. Code 1717(b)(2) applies, making the defendant the prevailing party for purposes of a fee award if the plaintiff… Read More

Rice recovered judgment against Downs.  While Downs' appeal from the judgment was pending, Rice moved for a charging order against Downs' interest in Triton, an LLC of which he was the managing member.  That motion was denied due to the automatic stay on appeal.  Glaser, Downs' lawyer, then obtained a security interest in Downs' interest in Triton, which it perfected… Read More

A breach of contract is not "wrongful conduct" sufficient to support a claim for interference with prospective economic relationships.  Here, plaintiff narrowed its claim to interference based on the defendant's breach of a nondisclosure agreement.  Held, the trial court erred in submitting that claim to the jury since it was the court's responsibility to determine whether the alleged conduct was… Read More

Defendant's $200,000 998 offer was clear, not ambiguous, and was enforceable when plaintiff recovered less than $200,000--even though the offer did not refer to the workers’ compensation lien and state whether settlement proceeds could be used to recoup the lien.  Absence of a reference to the workers' comp. lien didn't render the offer uncertain or invalid.  A party making a… Read More

The res judicata/collateral estoppel effect of a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer judgment extends only to proper conduct of the trustee's sale, not to claims of earlier wrongs committed by the lender that purportedly led eventually to the foreclosure.  Thus, here, the unlawful detainer judgment against the borrowers did not preclude them from later suing on a claim that the lender had… Read More

1 2 3 5