Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

Attorneys representing themselves should not be afforded special consideration or the liberal pleading standard allowed other types of pro per litigants, and do not fall into the category of those “proceeding without assistance of counsel" under 9th Circuit rules. Read More

In this case, plaintiff sued defendant under the CLRA for not disclosing the amount of its potential or likely emergency room evaluation and management services fee.  The court concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that defendant owed a duty to disclose the charge as that information was within its sole knowledge and not readily available to its patients.  The complaint… Read More

When the plaintiff files an amended complaint that omits a defendant named in the prior complaint, the amendment is treated as a voluntary dismissal of the omitted defendant, without prejudice.  Here, plaintiff's third amended complaint named Minassian as a defendant.  The parties stipulated to the filing of plaintiff's fourth amended complaint which omitted Minassian.  Though the trial court didn't sign… Read More

Plaintiffs alleging parallel conduct among competitors as a Sherman Act section 1 conspiracy must allege additional facts (plus factors) that place that parallel conduct in a context suggesting a preceding agreement.  Here, only one of the eight plus factors plaintiffs alleged weighed slightly in favor of conspiracy, which was insufficient to cross the threshold from possible to plausible.  The three… Read More

Ordinarily, when a complaint alleges a stand-alone claim for declaratory relief and properly alleges the existence of an existing controversy, the trial court should not grant a demurrer because the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights even if unfavorable.  However, the error is not prejudicial if the declaration would be in the defendant's favor.  The appellate opinion affirming… Read More

Whitaker adequately alleged standing to bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act by alleging that the counters in Tesla's showrooms were inaccessible to him (as a wheelchair-bound person) and deterred him from returning to Tesla's showrooms.  However, Whitaker's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to meet Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards as it mostly repeated the statutory elements of an… Read More

To preserve its affirmative defenses, a defendant need not file a new answer to an amended complaint that does not change the cause of action to which those defenses pertain.   When an amended complaint does not add new parties, new claims, or significant new factual allegations, the answer to the previously filed complaint suffices. Read More

Under CCP 446(a), a defendant must file a verified answer to a complaint filed by the state, a county or certain other governmental agencies  “unless an admission of the truth of the complaint might subject the party to a criminal prosecution."  This decision holds that a defendant corporation is a "party" entitled to file an unverified answer under the quoted… Read More

A lawsuit against a public entity may allege additional facts and new causes of action not stated in the plaintiff's government claim so long as they are based on the same fundamental facts supporting liability on the same legal theory or theories raised in the tort claim.  Here, the plaintiff's government claim alleged torts arising from the police response to… Read More

An action for an accounting upon dissolution of a corporation is not a special proceeding or an action for declaratory relief and thus is an action that triggers the compulsory cross-complaint rule under CCP 426.10 et seq. Read More

Plaintiff's False Claims Act complaint alleged that all the defendant health insurers submitted false claims using false diagnoses of patients' medical condition from the same vendor, and no further differentiation among the health insurers was needed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) since they all acted the same way. Read More

Plaintiff may amend the original complaint once before answer or demurrer hearing, but leave of court is required for any amendment to an amended complaint. Read More

Plaintiffs who purchased applications from Apple's App Store are direct purchasers from Apple and can sue it for monopolizing the market for distribution of applications that run on the iPhone.  Read More

Compliance with the Government Tort Claims statute's claim presentation requirement may be alleged generally—as by checking a box on the Judicial Council form complaint stating that "Plaintiff … has complied with applicable claims statutes.”  Read More