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.


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.

Straumann, a Swiss company, and its Swiss-resident officer, Hemm, established purposeful contacts with California by entering into an agreement to be the exclusive distributor outside the United States for Rodo, a California company making dental products.  Hemm was a member of Rodo's board at the time, but negotiated the exclusive distributorship as Straumann's agent.  Rodo's shareholders sued claiming that Rodo's… Read More

After the Court of Appeal decided in Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 927 that the trial court, having first acquired jurisdiction, should decide whether the Workers Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over this worker's injury suit--a question that turned on whether the employer had workers compensation insurance coverage at the time plaintiff was injured.  The plaintiff had… Read More

Each class member must establish Article III standing in order to recover relief in a case in federal court.  Here, TransUnion included incorrect OFAC terrorist information in its credit files on 8,000 class members but issued credit reports to third parties with the incorrect OFAC information only as to 1,600 of the class members.  This decision holds that only the… Read More

A shareholder in a California-based corporation has Article III standing to sue the California Secretary of State to seek to enjoin SB 826 (2018) which enacted Corp. Code  301.3, 2115.5, requiring covered corporations to have at least one female director by 2019 and up to three female directors by 2021.  Even though the statute is directed against corporations, not their… Read More

The trial court retains jurisdiction to consider and approve a final report by a receiver appointed to remediate a nuisance caused by a substandard building is appointed under both H&S Code 17980.7 even after the plaintiff governmental entity dismisses the action.  The receiver's final report and motion for its approval must be served on all persons with an interest in… Read More

Two individuals and a number of states lack standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of Obamacare because Congress eliminated the penalty for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of minimum coverage.  As there was no longer any governmental compulsion to obtain the coverage, the individual plaintiffs could not show that their supposed injury from having paid for coverage was… Read More

Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction over portions of a PAGA suit that attack alleged wage and hour regulations which did not injure the named plaintiff.  A PAGA suit does not fall within the qui tam action exception to the ordinary Article III requirement that the plaintiff has sustained injury from the wrong he sues to redress.  Unlike a traditional… Read More

Plaintiff is a medical doctor specializing in pain management.  CVS, a pharmacy, informed him it would no longer fill his patients' prescriptions, citing conerns he was over-prescribing controlled substances.  Plaintiff sued for an injunction directing CVS to fill his prescriptions.  Held, injunction properly denied.  The State Board of Pharmacy has primary jurisdiction over the issues in this litigation.  It enforces… Read More

When an appellate court’s reversal is accompanied by directions requiring specific proceedings on remand, those directions are binding on the trial court and must be followed.  Here, the disposition language of the prior appellate decision directed a new trial of damages, which the trial court properly held.  The opinion also contained advice on how the trial court should frame special… Read More

Following  Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115 and Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, this decision holds that the Court of Appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a voluntary dismissal entered for the purpose of trying to appeal from an order compelling arbitration in a putative class action.  It does… Read More

1 2 3