California Appellate Tracker

The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act proscribes labeling the front of baby food containers with the product’s nutrient content. However, the federal act does not grant any private right of action for violation of that proscription.  However, California's Sherman Law copies the federal labeling proscriptions and does grant a private right of action for violations.  This decision holds that… Read More

Defendant could not properly remove this suit under 28 USC 1442, the federal officer removal statute.  The suit alleged that defendant's privately developed and operated patient portal website improperly allowed tracking by Google and Meta, thus breaching plaintiffs' privacy rights.  The mere “fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company’s activities in considerable detail the defendant's… Read More

The district court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP statute motion to dismiss.  The case fell within the public benefit suit exception under CCP 425.17(b).  Plaintiff sued on behalf of a class alleging that defendant's use of her name and contact information which defendant made accessible for free by prospective customers to promote the D&B Hoovers database (along with all the rest… Read More

Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2024) 105 F.4th 1179 (42 USC 1981 provides that all persons within US jurisdiction are entitled to the same right to  make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.  This decision holds that plaintiff, a US citizen, states a claim for violation of section 1981 by alleging that defendant discriminates against US citizens… Read More

The probate court correctly held that the decedent's emails and electronic answers to a questionnaire did not validly amend her revocable trust before her death.  The decedent did not sign the electronic writings.  And the Uniform Electronics Transactions Act (Civ. Code 1633.2 et seq.) did not apply to treat her electronic writings as "signed."  The UETA applies only to transactions… Read More

Disagreeing with Garcia v. Expert Staffing West (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 408, this decision holds that a joint employer cannot enforce the arbitration clause in a temporary staffing agency's agreement with the worker that the joint employer hired through the agency--at least when, as in this case, the worker sues only the joint employer and solely for Labor Code violations.  Such… Read More

The FEHA does not protect a female employee against discrimination or harassment for undergoing oocyte (egg) retrieval procedures to donate eggs to others or freeze them for her own future use.  At least if those medical procedures are not needed to overcome infertility or some similar medical condition, they are not pregnancy or pregnancy-related, nor a disability and so are… Read More

Following Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, LP (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, this decision holds that in the employment context, an arbitration agreement statement that arbitration is to be conducted under AAA or JAMS rules is not sufficient to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.  The decision also holds that CCP 1281.98, which allows a nondrafting party to avoid arbitration if the drafting… Read More

Following County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 543, this decision holds that a county does not owe any mandatory duty to prosecute a dog as dangerous or a nuisance or confine it to investigate whether it has rabies--after it has bitten one human.  Hence, the next person bit by the dog cannot recover from the county… Read More

Volokh’s conduct is not within the ambit of section 527.6’s definition of harassment. Volokh’s identification of Luo in a law review article and on his blog was not unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence. There was no evidence that Volokh stalked Luo, made harassing phone calls, or sent her harassing correspondence. Volokh’s writings served a legitimate purpose—a discussion… Read More

Explaining the ambiguities that can arise over the word "or" in a statute--does it mean A or B or both (inclusive) or A or B but not both (exclusive), this decision holds that a statute providing for vicarious liability of a general contractor for a sub's failure to comply with public works apprentice hiring requirements was inclusive so a showing… Read More

This decision affirms an order in coordinated suits against Uber by women allegedly assaulted by Uber drivers, staying suit in California on forum non conveniens grounds to allow the plaintiffs to sue instead in the states where the assaults allegedly occurred.  The trial court properly determined that those states were "suitable" forums based on Uber's stated willingness to stipulate to… Read More

The DMV's disclosure to employers, insurers, and others of the fact that an individual has had his driver's license suspended as well as the reason for the suspension--such as excessive blood alcohol level on test or a refusal to take the test does not violate the constitutional right to privacy or Lab. Code 432.7(g)(2).  Unlike records of arrests that don't… Read More

Civ. Code 56.20 bars an employer from obtaining medical information about an employee from the employee's medical provider without the employee's signed authorization and bars the employer from discriminating against the employee for refusing to provide that authorization.  The section also bars the employer from using such information against the employee.  Here, the court concludes that an employer's requirement that… Read More

In an extremely detailed opinion, the court holds that CCP 203 renders ineligible only sex offenders required to register under Penal Code 290, not those required to register under adjacent sections of the same Penal Code article.  The Legislature could reasonably choose not to render ineligible those required to register under the adjacent sections due to the difficulty of determining… Read More

Plaintiff sued defendant for a sexual assault which occurred during a business trip to Florida in 2022.  Plaintiff was a Colorado resident but was CEO of a California corporation in which defendant's venture capital firm had made a large investment.  The decision holds that defendant was not subject to specific jurisdiction in California because all the events regarding the sexual… Read More

Following Arnold v. California Exposition & State Fair (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 498, this decision holds that a master carnival operator contract to run the midways at the county fair was not a government contract subject to the Public Contracts Code's competitive bidding requirements because the operator did not charge the government anything or provide it any goods or services, but… Read More

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a viable claim for employer liability outside the Workers Compensation Act for a worker's injury due to the employer's fraudulent concealment.  Lab. Code 3602(b)(2).  Three elements comprise a fraudulent concealment claim: “(1) the employer knew that the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury; (2) the employer concealed that knowledge from the plaintiff; and (3) the injury was… Read More

A claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that a federal administrative agency's regulation is contrary to the enabling statute must be filed within 6 years after the claim accrues.  28 USC 2401.  This decision holds that the claim accrues and the six years begins to run when the plaintiff is injured by the challenged regulation--since before then, the plaintiff lacks… Read More

This decision overrules Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837 and holds that the APA requires courts to construe statutes, including those with ambiguities, de novo, without deference to the administrative agency's interpretation of the statute. Read More