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.

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

The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the arbitration award on the ground of manifest disregard of the law.  The arbitrator properly reconsidered his initial award and reentered an award based on other grounds after defendant's criminal conviction for fraud was vacated for retrial.  The arbitrator properly drew negative inferences from defendant's invoking the Fifth Amendment in response… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adding P as an additional judgment debtor.  The trial court's early granting of summary judgment to P when she was initially sued in the case didn't prevent her from later being added to the judgment, since the summary judgment absolved her of indiivdual liability for the wrongs committed, while adding her… Read More

11 USC 108(c) extends time limits (such as statutes of limitation) for actions against the debtor until 30  period after the automatic stay in bankruptcy is vacated.  This decision holds that 108(c) extends the 10-year period in which a judgment creditor may apply for renewal of the judgment under CCP 683.130.  The majority opinion also disagrees with In re Lobherr… Read More

BMW sent plaintiff a 998 offer, proposing to settle this personal injury case for $15,000 in exchange for a general release.  The 998 offer did not mention entry of judgment against BMW or specify that plaintiff would file a dismissal with prejudice instead.  Plaintiff accepted the offer.  Then the parties disagreed about terms of the release and entry of judgment. … Read More

A defendant may challenge an order denying his forum non conveniens motion on an appeal from a final judgment even though CCP 418.10 allows a petition for writ of mandate from the order, just as it permits such a petition from denial of a motion to quash the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  But unlike the personal jurisdiction objection… Read More

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment awarding it the $100,000 he had lent defendant, plus a $100,000 "earn-out" fee, plus 10% interest on both of those sums.  Defendant moved to set the judgment aside under CCP 473(d) and appealed from denial of his motion.  Held, the judgment was in excess of jurisdiction in the sense that it was beyond the trial… Read More

Judgment may not be entered against someone who has not been made a party to the suit even if that person funded the litigation.  See Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604. Read More

1 2 3 4