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.

Jurisdiction

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.

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

To establish organizational standing, the plaintiff associations  needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organizational missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct.  Diversion of resources happens when the plaintiffs alter their resource allocation to combat the challenged practices, but not when they go about their business as usual.  Here, the evidence on defendant's Rule 12(b)(1)… Read More

In a proceeding under 9 USC 7 to enforce a subpoena that an arbitrator has issued to a non-party witness, when no federal claim is at stake, a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter only if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (including the amount in controversy requirement) are satisfied.  The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, if the value of… Read More

Following Zehia v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal..App.5th 543 and distinguishing Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, this decision holds that California may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Canadian resident defendant.  He published defamatory internet postings about plaintiff, a California resident, on an internet site run by another California resident as well as on plaintiff's internet site.  The… Read More

After a voluntary dismissal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff's claims but may still rule on ancillary matters not involving the merits, such as in this case, a motion to reconsider discovery sanctions that were issued based on the plaintiff's misleading statement of his lawyer's hourly rate without revealing that the lawyer had agreed… Read More

For specific jurisdiction is sufficient if the plaintiff's claim "arises from or is related to" the defendant's contacts with the forum state.  Arises from describes a causal relationship between the defendants contacts and the claim.  But relates to does not require causation.  Here, Ford had substantial contacts with Montana and Minnesota, selling cars of the same type as those involved… Read More

A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.  For the purpose of Article III standing, nominal damages provide the necessary redress for a past, completed violation of a legal right. Read More

Adams, a lawyer, switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Independent, and then filed this case challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's constitutional provisions that allow only a bare majority of judges on its top five courts to be of the same political party and require that the remaining judges on the top three courts be of the other major political… Read More

Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of Pop Secret popcorn, claiming it committed unfair business practices and breached the warranty of merchantability, by including partially hydrogenated oils (artificial trans fat) in the popcorn after the FDA had concluded that the ingredient was no longer approved for human consumption.  This decision holds that plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact to… Read More

1 2