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.

The trial court correctly excluded most of a declaration by Synchrony Bank's litigation assistant which attempted to show that plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration provision of the bank's credit card agreement.  Though the declaration attached copies of account statements and different versions of the credit card agreement containing the arbitration clause, it did not attach any record showing the… Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment for the employer in a FEHA disability discrimination case.  The employer met its McDonnell Douglas burden of proving a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff; namely, her chronic absenteeism and failure to document dispensing of prescription medicine properly.  Plaintiff didn't produce any evidence showing the employer's reason was pretextual.  Though the employer had misclassified… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment in a disability discrimination case under FEHA.  Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case that he could perform the essential duties of a job with or without accommodation and that he was treated differently from other employees because of his disability. Defendant's showing of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's discharge… Read More

Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of his hip replacement for product liability failure to warn and defective manufacture.  This decision affirms summary judgment for the defendant.  The failure to warn claim failed because plaintiff's doctor who chose and implanted the hip replacement testified that he kept closely abreast of developments in hip replacement surgery and was aware from reading scientific journals… Read More

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant's going and coming rule defense.  After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness' deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed… Read More

Applying Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 regarding the definition of employer under IWC orders, this decision affirms a summary judgment finding that a bail bond surety company is not the employer of bail bondsmen's fugitive recovery personnel.  The surety company did not hire, fire or exercise control over those personnel.  The surety company's contracts with the bail bondsmen… Read More

An employer that gives preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner does not thereby discriminate on the basis of sex against other employees of the same sex as the paramour because it doesn't satisfy Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731's test--would employer have acted differently if employee was of the opposite sex.  As used in… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment, finding that a question of fact exists as to whether defendant insurer acted reasonably to settle this catastrophic injury case within the insured's $25,000 policy limits.  During the week the plaintiff's policy limits demand remained open, defendant did not transmit the offer to its insured for his consent.  Defendant also repeatedly failed to send… Read More

1 2 3 5