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.

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.

This decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.  It holds that the defendant did not satisfy its initial summary judgment burden because the expert witness declaration which was the centerpiece of its motion failed to state reasons and a factual basis for the conclusion that the defendant had conformed to the applicable professional standard… Read More

The portion of 47 U.S.C. 227(b) added in 2015 to exempt calls to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government from the TCPA's ban on robocalls to cellphones is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.  The exception is content-based as it draws distinctions based on the message conveyed in the telephone call.  The exception may be invalidated… Read More

Two years after this case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, the parties discovered that one of the properties at issue in the case was partly owned by a trust of which one trustee was a non-diverse California resident.  The plaintiff moved to join the non-diverse trustee as a defendant.  The district court granted the joinder, severed the… Read More

Distinguishing Andrews v. Foster Wheeler (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96 and following Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884 instead, this decision holds that no logical inference that the plaintiff possesses no facts to support his claim can be drawn from the plaintiff's improper use of the procedure under CCP 2030.230 (pointing to documents from which an answer can be drawn)… Read More

Under CCP 1094.6, a petition for administrative mandate must be filed within 90 days after the administrative decision becomes final.  But that statutory period does not begin to run until the administrative agency mails its decision to the petitioner with a notice that warns of the 90-day limit on petitioning for mandate and states the date on which the administrative… Read More

In reviewing an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case, the appellate court applies the norrmal standard of review, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Those inferences will not affect the case when it proceeds to trial.  And the appellate court's affirmance of the order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion will only preclude a summary… Read More

The interim adverse judgment rule did not prevent this malicious prosecution action because the maliciious prosecution defendant had engineered a denial of the defense summary judgment motion in the underlying action by withholding of a critical piece of evidence in willful violation of multiple court orders--which had it been produced would have resulted in summary judgment being awarded.  The withheld… Read More

A unilateral dismissal of the underlying action while facing a motion for terminating discovery sanctions was a favorable termination sufficient to serve as the basis for a malicious prosecution action by the former defendant even though the dismissal was accompanied by a negotiated payment of less than all of the former defendant's legal fees.  The slight reduction in fees was… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment against Anthem for violating the Cartwright Act by a vertical boycott.  Anthem announced that it would not accept "wrapped" health insurance plans of the type that Ben-E-Lect offered to small employers, and Anthem said it would terminate any of its agents who attempted to offer Anthem insurance plans in a "wrapped" package, such as those… Read More

To survive express and implied preemption, a state law claim against a medical device manufacturer must allege a claim that is based on conduct that violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act but is wholly based on state law which would give rise to recovery even if the federal act did not exist. Here, plaintiff's claims of negligence and… Read More

1 2 3 4 146