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.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Schermer v. Tatum

A court may decide the issue of class certification on demurrer when it is clear that, even taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, there is no reasonable possibility that the requirements for class certification can be met.   Read More

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

A public entity’s inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document under the Public Records Act does not waive evidentiary privileges.  Read More

Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc.

Unless the website prominently discloses that use of the site constitutes agreement to its terms, a “browsewrap” disclosure of terms is insufficient to bind the user to the arbitration clause in the site’s terms.   Read More

Lenz v. Universal Music Publishing, Inc.

A notifier who sends a take-down notice to a website owner can be held liable to the poster of the taken-down content, if the notifier sends a take-down notice without first making a good faith determination that the content's use of copyrighted material is not protected by the fair use doctrine.  Read More

Arizona ex rel. Horne v. Geo Group, Inc.

The EEOC is not required to conciliate with an employer on behalf of individual employees before bringing suit on behalf of a class of employees, but may conciliate on behalf of the class and then join to the suit particular individuals who fall within the specified class.  Read More

Ontiveros v. Constable

The same attorney cannot represent both a corporation and those of its officers or shareholders who are sued by a minority shareholder in a derivative action.  Read More

Costello v. Buckley

Attorney was disqualified from defending his brother against suit by brother’s former lover whom attorney had previously represented, when the lover produced direct evidence of she had shared relevant confidential information with attorney. Attorney represented Costello in a suit about an easement over property she owned. At the time Costello was romantically involved with Attorney's brother, Buckley. Later, that romantic… Read More

In re Marriage of Murchison

Ordinarily, a movant has no standing to seek disqualification of another party's attorney unless the movant had a prior attorney-client, confidential, or fiduciary relationship with that attorney.  Husband does not have standing to seek disqualification of wife's counsel in a marital dissolution proceeding. Husband sought disqualification on the ground that counsel had purchased the couple's former residence from wife to… Read More

Salazar v. Matejcek

To preserve a statute of limitations defense, the answer must (1) allege facts showing that the action is time-barred and showing that the defense of the statute of limitations is being raised, or (2) plead the specific section and subdivision of the CCP which is applicable and bars the suit; catch-all references to a range of statutes are insufficient to… Read More

1 … 174 175 176 177