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.

The federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 467e) preempts Webb's state law claims that Trader Joe's labels are misleading in stating that they contain less than 5% retained water.  Under the PPIS, a poultry products producer must file with the Food Safety and Inspection Service a proposed protocol for measuring retained water.  Unless the FSIS objects within 30… Read More

Following Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (2005) 125 S.Ct. 1788, this decision holds that a state law claim for failure to warn of the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not expressly or impliedly preempted by FIFRA.  The warning that plaintiff claimed Monsanto should have put on Roundup labels was not in addition to or different from FIFRA's… Read More

The dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit California from applying its labor laws to airline employees who reside or are employed predominantly in California.  The airline's block time method of computing pay was similar to the pay scheme approved in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, and so did not offend California Labor Code guarantees of… Read More

A defendant can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation on two disparate theories.  First, under Rest.2d Torts section 311, a defendant may be liable for negligent misrepresentation in endorsing a product that physically harms the plaintiff.  (See Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 680.)  Here, plaintiff suffered no physical injury and so couldn't rely on that theory to pursue… Read More

The federal Poultry and Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq.) expressly preempts state laws that impose different or additional labeling requirements to the labels approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under the PPIA.  (21 U.S.C. 467e.)  This decision holds that the federal statute preempts any state law claim that the federally approved label for a poultry… Read More

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's regulation interpreting 49 U.S.C. § 31141(c) governing preemption of state law relating to commercial motor vehicle safety was entitled to Chevron deference.  The regulation reasonably found California's meal and rest breaks statutes preempted by federal law since the state laws required more frequent and longer rest and meal breaks than federal law and with… Read More

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt California's ABC test for distinguishing between independent contractors and employees, and so that test as adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and codified in Lab. Code 2775 and 2776 governs in determining whether a federally licensed interstate motor carrier has correctly classified its truck… Read More

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . , broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property."  (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).)  In this case, an injured motorist brought a common law negligence action against a transportation broker for negligently selecting… Read More

This decision holds that a bank or other non-savings and loan that acquired a loan originated by a savings and loan before the Dodd-Frank Act, is entitled to assert the same Home Owners Loan Act field preemption of state law as the originating savings institution could have.  To hold otherwise would impair an essential feature of how savings institutions worked… Read More

The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the plaintiff’s state law claim that defendant falsely advertised its Vitamin E supplement as promoting cardiovascular health. Read More

1 2 3