California Appellate Tracker

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

Arbitration clause in employment agreement was not unconscionable; its reservation of the right to seek injunctive relief pending arbitration merely restated a right conferred by statute, and a non-exclusive list of only employee claims did not make the otherwise bilateral arbitration clause one-sided.   Read More

  Read More

A bankruptcy appellate panel is not a court established by an Act of Congress and so cannot issue a writ of mandate under the All Writs Act.  Read More

The trial court correctly vacated the portion of the arbitrator's initial award which awarded attorney fees to defendant employer for defeating plaintiff employee's claims for overtime and meal break compensation which she claimed she was entitled to as a non-exempt employee under California's Labor Code.  Read More

When the public entity owner stopped deducting retention amounts midway through a project but did not pay the prime contractor retention amounts already withheld, prime contractor was not required to pay subcontractors retention amounts it had previously withheld.  Read More

When a testator’s trust provided the residue was to be split evenly among three children, but one of them was not to bear liability for taxes, the trial court erred in readjusting the children’s percentage shares of the residue to equalize the taxation burden.  Read More