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.

The district court correctly dismissed this 1983 action brought by entities that had interests in California Insurance Company, an entity that the California Insurance Commissioner had sued to place in conservation in a California state court due to various unapproved corporate transactions.  Under the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control… Read More

Following City of Oakland v. BP, PLC (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 895, this decision holds that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over San Mateo's public nuisance suit against energy companies for promoting use of their fossil fuels thereby causing global warming and rising sea levels that threatened harm to county property.  The county's state law claims do… Read More

The trial court erred in vacating entry of judgment in California on a sister state judgment rendered in Missouri where plaintiffs lived.  Missouri had personal jurisdiction over the California defendants since they had sent allegedly fraudulent communications to plaintiffs in Missouri, inducing the Missouri plaintiffs to enter into a contract for defendants' adoption services and pay defendants from Missouri.  An… Read More

The common law rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to PAGA suits.  Nothing in the PAGA statutes clearly or unequivocally evince an intent to abrogate that well-established rule in PAGA suits.  Absence of an express first-filed suit requirement in the statute is insufficient to show such an intent.  Invoking the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule, the trial court properly stayed this… Read More

If a statute prescribes a time limit within which a petition, appeal or other pleading must be filed, it will be treated as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that the time limit is jurisdictional.  Jurisdictional time limits cannot be waived or forfeited, must be raised by courts sua sponte, and do not allow for equitable exceptions.  Here, the Court… Read More

In Vaden v. Discover Bank (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1262, the Court held that under 9 USC 4, to determine whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration, the court should "look through" the arbitration issue and determine whether the court would have jurisdiction of the underlying dispute in the absence of an arbitration agreement.  This decision… Read More

As the party invoking federal judicial power, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to support Article III standing (with the manner and degree of evidence appropriate to the stage of litigation--which on a motion for remand means taking alleged facts to be true).  Here, Experian established plaintiffs' standing.  They alleged that Experian had violated 15… Read More

Following Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 619 and disagreeing with Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394, this decision holds that an arbitrator's preliminary injunction order is not an "award" and is not reviewable by a California trial court under CCP 1294, and the trial court's order dismissing a petition to vacate the arbitrator's preliminary injunction… Read More

Under 28 USC 1367(c)(4), the district court may decline jurisdiction of state law claims  if in extraordinary circumstances there are compelling circumstances for declining jurisdiction.  This decision affirms the district court's ruling that there were extraordinary circumstances in this ADA, physical barriers case, because California's Legislature had amended Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 to discourage repeat litigation by a small… Read More

A district court may decline jurisdiction over an action that seeks only declaratory relief, so long as the district court properly considers the factors listed in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. (1942) 316 U.S. 491 and Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol (9th Cir. 1998) 133 F.3d 1220.  However, the district court cannot decline jurisdiction if the declaratory relief claim… Read More

1 2 3 4