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.

To obtain review of an OSHA Appeals Bd. decision, the aggrieved party must petition the Appeals Bd. for reconsideration of the underlying decision (whether of an ALJ or the Appeals Bd.), but this decision holds, there can be no second petition for reconsideration unless (a) on the first reconsideration the Appeals Bd. reverses the underlying decision, thus creating a new… 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

The Congress did not show any error in the trial court's conclusion that Center did not improperly seize the Congress' corporate opportunity by running pharmaceutical symposia for the Center's own benefit.  Substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings that the Congress was not interested in drugs but rather was devoted solely to reconstructive joint surgery.  That the Center wrongly… Read More

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

1 2 3 171