Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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.

Because the notice of abatement of nuisance was properly served by city and because plaintiff did not timely file an administrative appeal thereafter, plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedy and was barred from suing in court to challenge the abatement order. Read More

Sheriff’s office could be sued for negligence after it voluntarily assumed the duty of searching for a missing biker but negligently delayed the search effort until the following morning, by which time the biker had died. Read More

Defendant’s motion to dismiss class action for plaintiff’s failure to bring to trial within five years should have been granted; trial court miscalculated the relevant time period when it failed to include a 43-day period during which the court stayed the filing of pleadings and the service of discovery requests while the parties met and conferred on a case management plan. Read More

None of the exceptions to hearsay rule applied to permit admission of plaintiff’s supervisor’s testimony that he had seen defendant’s name on invoices and shipping orders for asbestos-containing pipes. Read More

Since an employer must pay workers for time spent on employer-provided transportation only when the employer requires the workers to use that transportation, defendant was not required to pay its technicians for time they spent driving from home to their first appointment of the day using company vehicles, because employees could return the company vehicles at the end of each… Read More

When plaintiff’s attorney improperly used a mini-opening to try to precondition potential jurors to vote in plaintiff's favor, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing mini-opening statements to the second and third venires of prospective jurors. Read More

For limitations purposes, the client discovered malpractice claim against a lawyer who structured a transaction when the other party to the transaction threatened to sue client based on the transaction’s structure. Read More

The extra costs allowed when a 998 offer is rejected may not be collected by a defendant in an action under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act unless the defendant shows that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Read More

When the question is one of public right and the object of a petition for writ of mandate is to enforce a public duty, the petitioner need not demonstrate some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. Read More

Plaintiff borrowers declaration that he did not recall receiving thirty or more telephone calls with servicer prior to recordation of a notice of default on his mortgage loan did not suffice to create a triable issue of fact as to whether those contacts had taken place since he did not deny that they happened. Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an individual FLSA retaliation claim, properly apportioning total fees among several plaintiffs, and attributing to this prevailing plaintiff only those fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting her individual claims. Read More

1 106 107 108 109 110 173