California Appellate Tracker

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) does not preempt California law to the extent it allows a district attorney to bring an Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) action based on the defendant's unlawful practice of failing to meet CalOSHA workplace safety standards even though the state plan did not provide for enforcement by that means. Read More

A California Justice Department interpretation of Penal Code section 27535―which limits the number of handguns that can be purchased in a 30 day period―is invalid because it was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act without the notice and comment period required for a formal regulation. Read More

By participating in arbitration for 10 months without objection, plaintiff waived right to have the court decide whether the dispute was arbitrable, and the plaintiff lost any right to have the award vacated by failing to raise that issue by petition or response within 100 days of service of the award. Read More

A class member who has already been given a chance to opt out of Rule 23(b)(3) class is not entitled to a second opt-out opportunity after the parties settle the case. Read More

A landowner who hired an independent contractor to work on the roof is not entitled to summary judgment in the contractor’s negligence suit; a question of fact remained as to whether the contractor could reasonably avoid the risk posed by the obvious hazard of an unprotected ledge from which he fell. Read More

California minimum wage and overtime pay laws are not inconsistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and so apply to workers on oil rigs on the outer continental shelf off the California coast. Read More

The wage statement required by Labor Code section 226 need not separately list the hours worked and the hourly rate at which the employer makes contributions to an employer-union benefit trust based on the employee’s work. Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party “prevailed” so as to recover fees or costs; defendant won the right to collect assignment fees, but plaintiff limited the fees to 4% of property value rather than the 10% defendant claimed. Read More

Demurring in state court does not waive the right to remove the case to federal court, at least when the complaint does not reveal on its face that the case is removable. Also, waiver of the right to remove is not a jurisdictional defect so the district court cannot remand sua sponte on that ground. Read More

The standard for loss causation under the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 is the traditional tort standard of proximate causation. Read More

A joint offer by two plaintiffs was effective to allow enhanced cost recovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 when one plaintiff recovered more than the joint offer, thus establishing with certainty that the recovery was more favorable than the rejected joint offer. Read More

To recover under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s wrongful conduct led directly to the plaintiff’s injury. Read More

A motion for sanctions filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 must comply with the 21-day safe harbor requirement. Read More

The favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim cannot be satisfied if the plaintiff in the underlying action prevailed on any claim. Read More

Jury question raised about extent of duty of care a hotel undertook by agreeing to check on guest who did not respond to husband telephone calls. Read More

The Consumer Legal Remedies Act forbids nondisclosure of material facts in the same four situations in which a duty to disclose arises under ordinary tort law: (1) fiduciary relationship, (2) material facts in the defendant's sole knowledge, (3) active concealment, and (4) disclosure needed to make affirmative statement not misleading. Read More

A third party’s payment to a plaintiff in the same amount of a judgment, but for something collaterally related to the judgment, does not constitute a satisfaction of the judgment. Read More

Code of Civil Procedure section 369(a)(3) permits a party to file a lawsuit without joining a party for whose benefit the suit is brought, but the party filing the suit must be acting solely for the benefit of another rather than his or her self-interest. Read More

A suit alleging that Uber misappropriated passengers and income from licensed taxicab drivers are barred under Public Util. Code section 1759 because a finding of liability against Uber would require factual findings that could hinder or interfere with the Public Utility Commission’s ongoing rulemaking pertaining to third-party carriers. Read More

Two-tier pricing based on the customer’s age violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act unless public policy embodied in statutes favors the price-advantaged age group. Read More