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.

Summary Judgment

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.

A trial court has discretion to consider new evidence in reply papers supporting a summary judgment motion as long as the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to respond.  Evidence which is used to fill gaps in the original evidence created by the opposition is particularly appropriate to consider in a reply. Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment in favor of defendant police officers and their employer, the city, against plaintiff's complaint based on injuries she suffered while escaping from a car used by bank robbers, holding plaintiff and other hostages, to escape from the scene of the robbery.  Police must use act reasonably in all the circumstances in employing deadly force. … Read More

Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer.  Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds.  The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement.  Held:  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene.  The motion was… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant in an age and racial association FEHA discrimination case is affirmed.  The employer provided evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact that the stated reason was pretextual.  The few alleged comments about plaintiff's age--mostly that she looked much younger than her age--were harmless and… Read More

The trial court wrongly granted a health insurer summary judgment on the insured's bad faith and UCL claims.  The insured's son was autistic and, before he turned 7 was given 157 hours a month of insured treatments.  When he turned 7, Magellan reduced the monthly allotment to 57 hours.  On the insured's appeal to the Department of Managed Health Care,… Read More

In this wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted Kaiser summary judgment based on the going and coming rule.  Kaiser's volunteer had finished providing dog therapy to one of Kaiser's patients and was returning home when the volunteer struch and killed plaintiffs' decedant.  The required-vehicle exception to the going and coming rule did not apply because there was no… Read More

Eminent domain actions are special proceedings governed by the Eminent Domain Law, CCP 1230.10 et seq.  In eminent domain proceedings, a party may bring a pretrial motion for a ruling on “an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation" under CCP 1260.040(a).  Inverse condemnation actions, however, a common law suits that are not governed by the Eminent… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.  It holds that the defendant did not satisfy its initial summary judgment burden because the expert witness declaration which was the centerpiece of its motion failed to state reasons and a factual basis for the conclusion that the defendant had conformed to the applicable professional standard… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered for the employer in this wage and hour case.  The employer's expert showed that the employer's time rounding of clock in and out times to the nearest 15 minutes was facially neutral and neutral in practice as well.  Also, the employer disproved the employee's claim that he was denied meal and rest breaks.  Each weekly… Read More

1 2