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.

A successor corporation that carries on a judgment debtor's business under a new business name may be added as a judgment debtor to a default judgment without proof that it controlled the litigation, but individuals may not be so added unless they are the corporation’s alter ego and had control over the original litigation.  Read More

The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s 10b-5 complaint based on lack of scienter, since defendant told its investors a misleading half-truth by disclosing that animal studies had confirmed the drug’s efficacy but omitting the fact that rats who received the drug had shown increased incidence of cancer.  Read More

Enforcement of a security interest is not collection of a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, so a deed of trust trustee does not act as a debt collector, subject to that Act, in taking steps to nonjudicially foreclose the deed of trust.  Read More

A car dealer selling a “certified” used car must provide the buyer, before the sale, with an inspection report that lists each part that was inspected and states how the part performed on inspection; failure to provide the report violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.  Read More

Labor Code 226 does not require an employer to list on an employee's ordinary pay stubs the amount of vacation benefits earned but not paid during the pay period.  Read More

Summary judgment for defendant casino is reversed as questions of fact exist about whether casino was a common carrier, subject to a stricter standard of care, in providing a van to transport gamblers to and from an adjoining town.  Read More

The one-year limitations period governing medical malpractice actions (CCP 340.5) governs a claim of injury suffered on a fall from a hospital  gurney, since gurney transport was under a doctor’s orders and was integral to the patient’s treatment.  Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from dismissal due to its having filed an amended complaint two days after the deadline, since there was no prejudice, no bad faith, and the short delay was attributable to a reasonable misunderstanding of the district court’s docketing practices.  Read More

Plaintiff reasonably rejected earlier settlement offers requiring general releases and nondisclosure agreements and so was properly awarded her attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act after agreeing to a settlement lacking those provisions.  Read More

A contract's indemnity clause requiring plaintiff to indemnify defendant against all claims resulting from defendant's performance of the contract applied only to claims by third parties—and not to claims asserted by one contracting party against the other, since there was no explicit language indicating the parties intended to agree to fee-shifting in that manner.  Read More

In this car crash case, substantial evidence existed to support jury verdict in favor of defendant, after defendant testified that he mistakenly—but in his opinion, reasonably—thought he could get through intersection safely before plaintiff's car came through in a cross-direction.  Read More

In ruling on a motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, the district court is free to exercise its discretion in examining the totality of the circumstances to decide if the case is exceptional, including whether the suit or prelitigation conduct was frivolous, ill-motivated or objectively unreasonable.  Read More

Evidence of the amount a medical finance company paid the provider for its lien on plaintiff’s personal injury claim is properly excluded as it is only marginally relevant to the reasonable value of the medical provider’s services, and rebuttal evidence would consume too much time, distracting the jury from the central issues in the case.  Read More

An order compelling arbitration of individual wage and hour claims, dismissing class claims, and staying PAGA claims—all arising from the same factual allegations—is not a death knell order and so is not immediately appealable, since other employees may use a judgment on those claims as collateral estoppel to bring their own suits, and the continued existence of the PAGA claims… Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction against U-Haul's enforcement in California of an unlawful non-competition clause in its dealer agreements, which affected 1,000 U-Haul dealers in California as well as U-Haul's competitors, customers and the general public, since U-Haul’s proposed voluntary non-enforcement of the clause would have allowed it to re-start its former policy… Read More

Nothing in the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights requires a foreclosing party to prove, prior to foreclosure, that it has the right to foreclose; rather, the statute allows pre-foreclosure injunction actions only for violation of certain specified HBOR sections, which are enumerated in sections 2924.12 and 2924.19 of the Civil Code.  Read More

A corporation and its lawyer behaved unethically in answering a city’s validation action when both knew the corporation was suspended for non-payment of state taxes; hence, they were properly denied a private attorney general fee award despite prevailing in the action.  Read More

Legal malpractice claim filed more than a year after client’s acceptance of attorney’s withdrawal was properly dismissed as time-barred, and retainer agreement attorney fee clause was broad enough to cover a malpractice claim whether sounding in tort or contract.  Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a pre-trial continuance based on the fact that its attorney is a member of the state legislature, since the statute upon which the continuance request was based is directory rather than mandatory, and the trial court properly found that granting the continuance would harm the plaintiff while denying it would… Read More

A claim of childhood sexual abuse brought against a government agency is exempt from the requirement of filing a government claim before suing even if the abuse is not alleged to have been committed by the agency’s employee, volunteer, representative or agent.  Read More

1 155 156 157 158 159 173