California Appellate Tracker

The six-month limitations period under the federal Railway Labor Act was equitably tolled by time expended while the parties brought their dispute before the Railway Mediation Board.  Read More

Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after he successfully sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, even though the administrative ruling approving the project at issue in the suit was not vacated while the Secretary complied with the district court’s order to reconsider it.  Read More

Approval of Vallejo’s Chapter 9 plan did not discharge debts of the city’s non-bankrupt police officers or shield them from personal liability on a judgment for using excessive force to arrest the plaintiff, and since judgment was entered against the police officers after Vallejo’s plan was approved, the city must indemnify the officers as state law requires.  Read More

Bankruptcy court properly denied a creditor’s claim for attorney fees incurred in successfully prosecuting a mechanics lien suit against debtor, since the Chapter 11 plan which allowed the creditor to proceed with the suit did not allow for recovery of attorney fees and the fees would have been fairly within creditor’s contemplation at the time the compromise Chapter 11 plan… Read More

A tax sale conducted in accordance with California law conclusively establishes that the price obtained at that sale was for reasonably equivalent value, so  the sale cannot be set aside as a fraudulent transfer in bankruptcy.  Read More

The current lessor/owners of a post office could not invoke imperfections in service of renewal notices as a means of avoiding the contractually-mandated sale of the property to the lessee (the US Postal Service) at the below-current-market price set in the lease.  Read More

Even though the parties’ arbitrators considered written submissions from both parties in resolving a post-arbitration dispute, they allowed only one side to present oral evidence, and that was sufficiently prejudicial to require the court to vacate the arbitration award.  Read More

Since a ride-sharing company’s arbitration arbitration agreements with its drives delegated all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the district court erred in holding the clauses were unconscionable and unenforceable, except as to the waiver of claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), but that unenforceable provision was severable.  Read More

A mobile home park’s arbitration provision was unconscionable and unenforceable as it was given to Spanish-speaking residents in an English-only adhesion contract and required residents to advance half the cost of a three-person JAMS arbitration while also restricting the remedies arbitrators could award and imposing a one-year limit on bringing claims.  Read More

Lawsuit over supposed concealing of information during settlement negotiations is properly characterized as an illegal SLAPP suit Read More

A court may order the trustee of a trust to satisfy the beneficiary’s child support obligations from trust funds despite any trust provisions to the contrary.  Read More

When a suit raises both state and federal law claims, federal law governs all questions of evidentiary privilege—even if the federal law claims are later dismissed before entry of judgment.  Read More

The SEC may sue for violation of its Rule 13a14, which requires CEOs and CFOs to personally verify the accuracy of financial reports, if the verification is false, as well as if no verification is provided.  Read More

A superior court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit challenging the Public Utilities Commission’s response to a public records request.  Read More

The limitations period for a doctor’s claim for payment of services rendered insured patients is not tolled while the doctor invokes the insurer’s internal process for appealing claim denials.  Read More

In cases involving the Freedom of Information Act, summary judgment decisions are reviewed de novo.  Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for discretionary relief from summary judgment after plaintiff’s attorney declared that he made fatal mistakes in opposition to summary judgment motion because of illness and side effects from medication.  Read More

For the first time, this decision holds that the rule barring attorneys from vouching for a witness’ credibility in closing argument applies to civil as well as criminal cases, but because the rule’s application to civil cases was not clear before, the district court did not commit plain error in failing to strike the forbidden argument sua sponte.  Read More

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction if complete diversity actually existed when the complaint was filed, even if the complaint failed to allege it properly, so the district court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the plaintiff submitted evidence of complete diversity in opposition.  Read More

Summary judgment is affirmed in favor of defendant in antitrust suit by competitor who claimed without sufficient supporting evidence that defendant had illegal exclusive dealing contracts and that its contracts were of such long duration as to unduly restrict the market.  Read More