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.

11 USC 108(c) extends time limits (such as statutes of limitation) for actions against the debtor until 30  period after the automatic stay in bankruptcy is vacated.  This decision holds that 108(c) extends the 10-year period in which a judgment creditor may apply for renewal of the judgment under CCP 683.130.  The majority opinion also disagrees with In re Lobherr… Read More

The federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 467e) preempts Webb's state law claims that Trader Joe's labels are misleading in stating that they contain less than 5% retained water.  Under the PPIS, a poultry products producer must file with the Food Safety and Inspection Service a proposed protocol for measuring retained water.  Unless the FSIS objects within 30… Read More

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). " Exceeds authorized access” is defined to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the… Read More

Hockey is a model whose authorized agent contracted for her to perform a 10-hour day's modeling for Brighton for $3,000 payable on receipt of the agent's invoice.  After modeling as agreed, Hockey sued Brighton, claiming it was her employer and that it violated Lab. Code 201 by not paying her the full amount due at the time her employment ended… Read More

California follows Rest.2d Torts sec. 920 in allowing a reduction of a plaintiff's damages if the defendant's tortious conduct has conferred a special benefit on the plaintiff as well as damaging the plaintiff.  But the reduction is permitted only to the extent it is equitable to reduce damages.  In weighing the equities, the court can consider not only whether the… Read More

Under the recently revised Rule 23(e)(2) requires a district court to consider, in determining whether to approve a class action settlement, not only the adequacy of the relief in light of the risks of litigation, but also the effectiveness of the proposed means of distributing the settlement and the terms of any proposed award of attorney fees.  This decision holds… Read More

Wal-Mart pays workers regular wages plus a quarterly bonus for good work during the quarter. Under California law, the bonus is regular wages which must be used to compute overtime time.  But since Wal-Mart doesn't know until the end of the quarter whether it will pay a worker the bonus, its biweekly pay statements don't include the bonus in calculating… Read More

Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction over portions of a PAGA suit that attack alleged wage and hour regulations which did not injure the named plaintiff.  A PAGA suit does not fall within the qui tam action exception to the ordinary Article III requirement that the plaintiff has sustained injury from the wrong he sues to redress.  Unlike a traditional… Read More

Employer sufficiently complied with Lab. Code 226 and its requirement that wage statements show “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee” by showing the overtime pay rate as .5 times the average hourly pay rate--and including overtime hours in the normal hourly category… Read More

Plaintiff is a medical doctor specializing in pain management.  CVS, a pharmacy, informed him it would no longer fill his patients' prescriptions, citing conerns he was over-prescribing controlled substances.  Plaintiff sued for an injunction directing CVS to fill his prescriptions.  Held, injunction properly denied.  The State Board of Pharmacy has primary jurisdiction over the issues in this litigation.  It enforces… Read More

1 2 3 200