Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

Under Lab. Code 925(a)(1), an employer may not require an employee to agree to adjudicate in another state a dispute arising in California.  This decision holds that the provision does not prohibit a court or arbitrator in another state from adjudicating whether section 925 applies.  Here, Zhang was a full partner of Dentons, so there was ample room for questioning… Read More

Under 9 USC 201 et seq. governing foreign arbitrations, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce arbitrator-issued subpoenas served on US residents.  The subpoena enforcement action may be filed in any district court where venue is proper under 28 USC 1391, the general venue statute, or 9 USC 204, which allows--but does not require--suit in the district in which… Read More

The trial court in San Francisco abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to transfer this wrongful death case to San Diego where the accident occurred and most witnesses reside.  The fact that the Legislature authorized remote trial testimony through July 2023 is not a favor that the trial court could properly invoke to ignore the fact that most witnesses… Read More

This decision affirms denial of the employer-defendant's motion to compel arbitration under an agreement that delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.  The arbitration agreement and its delegation clause were both unconscionable for the same reasons.  Procedurally, the agreement was presented as an adhesion contract that employees had to sign to retain employment.  Also the agreement was nine pages of 10… Read More

A PAGA suit under Lab. Code 2988 may be brought against the employer in any county in which an aggrieved employee worked and a Labor Code violation was allegedly committed.  The private plaintiff need not bring the action in the county in which he worked or where the violations against him occurred. Read More

A defendant, against whom a district attorney had filed an unfair competition action, was not entitled to a transfer of the case to a “neutral” county—i.e., a county other than the DA’s county. Read More