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.

California Appellate Tracker

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.

In this proceeding under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and International Child Abduction Remedies Act (22 USC 9001 et seq.) the father was entitled to an attorney fee award as he had successfully obtained an order requiring the divorced mother to return the child to him.  However, the father served his attorney fee motion only four days before the… Read More

This decision holds that Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank (9th Cir. 2002) 276 F.3d 502 does not apply to or bar an FDCPA claim against a debt collector for trying to collect a debt that was fully repaid under the debtor's Chapter 13 plan before the debtor received a discharge.  That is because in these circumstances whether an unfair debt… Read More

Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.516, in a coordinated proceeding, a 170.6 challenge to the coordination trial judge must be filed within 20 days after that judge has been assigned to the coordinated cases.  The rule also specifies that all plaintiffs in all the coordinated cases are deemed "one side" and all defendants another "side" for purposes of the… Read More

Plaintiff failed to state a disparate impact claim against the County based on its policy of requiring every applicant for CalWorks welfare benefits to accept a home visit from a licensed county peace officer, which plaintiff claimed was traumatizing and stigmatizing.  To plead a disparate impact claim, plaintiff must allege that the defendant has adopted a facially neutral policy that… Read More

Applying the objective standard outlined in Taggart v. Lorenzen (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1795, this decision holds that the debtor's creditors cannot be held in civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction.  They had a reasonable believe that Taggart had "returned to the fray" and thus was liable for attorney fees the creditors incurred in defeating his state court suit. Read More

Following Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, this decision holds that filing an amended charge with the EEOC does not exhaust administrative remedies under California's FEHA.  Nor did plaintiff properly exhaust his state law administrative remedies by amending his FEHA complaint long after the FEHA had closed its file on the matter.  Moreover, the amended… Read More

Plaintiff, the tenant in a commercial building, was injured when his head struck a low beam at the entrance to an upstairs door and as a result he fell down the stairs.  This decision affirms a summary judgment for the landlord based on an exculpatory clause in the lease which absolved the landlord of liability for personal injuries suffered as… Read More

In cases seeking a writ of mandate, where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the [petitioner] need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the… Read More

Generally, an employee must bring a claim under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act within two years of the violation.  ” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1). This limitation is extended to three years for a “willful violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(2).  This decision holds that a violation is willful only if the employer “either knew or showed reckless disregard for… Read More

After plaintiff sustained a loss that its insurer contended was excluded from coverage, plaintiff and insurer entered into a loan receipt agreement under which the insurer lent plaintiff the funds needed to repair the damage to its property.  The plaintiff was not personally liable to repay the loan but agreed to repay out of any proceeds it received from suing… Read More

1 2 3 170