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.

Trials

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 did not abuse its discretion in entering an in limine motion that effectively prevented plaintiff from presenting any evidence at trial.  Plaintiff had not complied with the superior court's local rule requiring an exchange of exhibits and witness lists a week before trial.  Also, plaintiff had not responded to defendant's written discovery or presented its witnesses for… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's oral motion to continue the trial presented at the start of what was scheduled to be the first day of trial.  Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), a party seeking a continuance of a trial must do so by written motion or ex parte application with a supporting… Read More

An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence must be supported by a specification of reasons that does more than just recite ultimate facts.  The specification must point to the evidence which convinced the trial court that there was insufficient evidence on a particular issue.  Here, the specification of reasons did not do so. … Read More

A trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing wage & hour putative class action for failure to bring to trial within five years since pending arbitration did not prevent plaintiff from moving forward with the non-arbitrable pieces of litigation. Read More

For the first time, this decision holds that the rule barring attorneys from vouching for a witness’ credibility in closing argument applies to civil as well as criminal cases, but because the rule’s application to civil cases was not clear before, the district court did not commit plain error in failing to strike the forbidden argument sua sponte.  Read More