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.

Negligent misrepresentation differs from intentional misrepresentation on at least two elements.  For fraud, the defendant must know the representation is false; whereas, for negligent misrepresentation, lack of a reasonable basis to believe the representation is true will suffice.  Also, for negligent misrepresentation, no showing of intent to deceive is required, just an intent to induce reliance on the misstated fact. … Read More

Under CCP 340.5, the statute of limitations on a medical malpractice claim expires at the earlier of three years from the date of injury or one year from the date of discovery.  Injury from the failure to diagnose a latent, progressive condition occurs “when the undiagnosed condition develops into a more serious condition,” and that more serious condition is made… Read More

Under the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act, a "transfer" made with actual intent to defraud creditors is voidable.  This decision holds that the statutory term "transfer" does not impose any requirement that property be transferred from a debtor to a third party.  Instead, a transfer from the debtor to himself can qualify as a voidable "transfer" for purposes of the UVTA… Read More

This decision finds that plaintiff stated a viable claim for fraudulent transfer of properties from Shahen Minassian to his wife Alice via a fraudulent marital dissolution degree with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, including plaintiffs who secured a $100 million judgment against Shahen in underlying litigation.  The complaint alleged badges of actual intent to defraud:  transfer to… Read More

In Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, the Supreme Court held that to state a claim as a bystander for negligent infliction of emotional distress suffered as a result of seeing injury to another person, the bystander plaintiff had, among other things, to be present at the scene of the accident when it occurs and be aware at… Read More

The Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code 895 et seq.) does not apply at all to product liability claims against a non-builder manufacturer of a product that a builder incorporates into a residence--unless the product defect causes the residence to violste one of the building standards set out in Civ. Code 896.  (Civ. Code 896(g)(3)(E).)  Here, however, a defect in… Read More

Plaintiff sued a corporation, took its default on a breach of contract claim.  Plaintiff also sued the corporation's owner and a related corporation.  After voluntarily dismissing the contract cause of action against those defendants, plaintiff continued to pursue tort claims against them for fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy, attempting to hold them liable on the default judgment against the corporation.  The… Read More

To admit her disabled, ill brother, for whom she acted as conservator, to a skilled nursing facility, plaintiff signed an admission agreement as well as two arbitration agreements, one for medical malpractice disputes, the other for all other disputes.  Plaintiff sued after the facility's poor care led to her brother's death.  The trial court denied the facility's motion to compel… Read More

Summary judgment was improperly entered against plaintiff on claims for negligence and intentional tort arising from a violent collision between plaintiff and defendant during an adult "no check" ice hockey league game.  Plaintiff produced evidence that, if believed, showed that defendant had not only violated league rules but had intentionally injured plaintiff or engaged in conduct so reckless as to… Read More

After Iran nationalized its oil industry in 1951, it owned the oil fields and Abadan oil refinery.  Iram contracted with international oil companies for those companies to provide management and other services to operating companies that were incorporated in the Netherlands and owned in part by the international companies and in part by Iram.  This decision holds that the international… Read More

1 2 3 25