California Appellate Tracker

A lender’s silence in response to the borrower’s request for payoff quotes and reinstatement demands is not First Amendment-protected activity, so the lender’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied.  Read More

An unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment for individual injunctive relief and the full amount of statutory damages for the named plaintiff does not moot out a putative class action even when backed by a deposit in court of the statutory damages.  Read More

A contract for a fee for alerting an owner to escheatable property is void as against public policy if entered into between the time a holder reports escheated property to the state and the date the holder transfers that property to the state.  Read More

A primary insurer cannot escape proportionate liability for indemnity or defense costs even if it puts its other insurance clause in the coverage portion of the policy as well as in the policy conditions section. Read More

In context of imposing a cramdown plan in the bankruptcy reorganization of a debtor who had obtained a HUD loan to build an affordable housing project, the bankruptcy court should have valued HUD’s claim as whatever the property would ordinarily be worth absent any restriction for use as affordable housing (even though the debtor ultimately intended to continue with the… Read More

A superior court’s branch with only one sitting judge is still part of a larger court with more than one authorized judge, so the normal rules setting the time for filing a 170.6 challenge apply, not CCP 170.6(a)(2) which sets a special rule for courts authorized to have only one judge.  Read More

Mandate was denied because it was not clear that the contractual forum selection clause applied to the claims plaintiff alleged and because the only harm petitioner would suffer by raising the issue on a normal post-judgment appeal was the cost of the trial proceedings.  Read More

A regulation banning conduct by California state university students that “threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person including intimidation and harassment” is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, because the words “threatens or endangers health or safety” give context and meaning to the prohibited “intimidation and harassment.”  Read More

A bankruptcy court applied the wrong test in determining whether interest payable on an oversecured creditor’s claim between the petition filing date and plan approval date should be paid at the loan’s default interest rate.  Read More

A South Carolina judicial foreclosure judgment barred borrower’s California suit for wrongful foreclosure.  Read More

A letter from a state-level fire department supervisor to a county-level fire supervisor asking that plaintiff not be assigned any duty that brought him on state fire department premises was not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and in fact it breached a settlement agreement under which plaintiff had voluntarily resigned rather than face charges of sexual assault.  Read More

USC violated common law standards of fair procedure in disciplining Doe in connection with a group sexual encounter at a fraternity party, by giving him inadequate notice of the charges against him and denying him a fair hearing.  Read More

Bishop of Episcopalian diocese lacked authority to amend the canons of the corporation sole in whose name the diocese’s property was held, so transfers of diocese property which the bishop made pursuant to his purported amendments were invalid.  Read More

A completely uncooperative father’s appeal from a juvenile court order removing a child from his custody is dismissed under the appellate disentitlement doctrine.  Read More

There was sufficient evidence to support a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s prohibition of discrimination against a person based on his association with a disabled person, when an employee's new boss purposefully scheduled him to drive later-than-usual truck routes so as to prevent him from being able to administer dialysis to his son, thus ridding the company… Read More

An employer must provide an employee a seat if the nature of the employee’s tasks at that location, objectively viewed in light of all the circumstances, reasonably permit sitting and sitting would not interfere with tasks that require standing at that location. Read More

Questions of fact prevented summary judgment on defense that plaintiff’s graphical method of presenting medical test results was functional and so not a protectable trade dress. Read More

Warships are not “products” for purposes of strict liability in tort since they are not distributed commercially; also, the “any exposure” theory is insufficient proof of causation in an asbestosis case.  Read More

California's general rule requiring automatic disqualification of counsel involved in a simultaneous conflict of interest does not apply to or require disqualification of the counsel for plaintiffs in a class action who drafted a settlement that gave named class representatives an interest in conflict with unnamed class members’ interests.   Read More

In this mixed-motive wrongful termination case, the trial court did not err in giving a jury instruction that required the plaintiff to prove that the forbidden motive was "a substantial motivating reason" for the termination.  Read More