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.

Under Lab. Code 515(a) and Wage Order No. 44 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040), an employer need not pay overtime pay to an employee who (1) is primarily engaged in exempt duties and (2) earns “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment."  This decision holds that "salary"… Read More

When a married couple uses community funds to acquire property with joint tenancy title, the property is presumptively held as community property if acquired after January 1, 1975.  (See Fam. Code 760.)  The spouses hold joint tenancy interests in property acquired before 1975 as separate property.  For joint tenancy property acquired between January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1984, the… Read More

The FDCPA's bona fide error defense does not allow debt collectors to avoid liability by contractually obligating creditor-clients to provide accurate information, nor by requesting that creditor-clients provide notice of any errors in an account assigned for collection without waiting to receive a response to the request before instituting collection efforts. Read More

Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116, a homeowner's association is allowed a superpriority lien for certain HOA dues and maintenance expenses.  This decision holds that the statute does not offend the US Constitution's Takings Clause since no governmental entity takes the value of liens subordinated to the HOA's superpriority lien.  It also holds that the statutory notice of foreclosure sent by… Read More

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the Supreme Court held that in the employment context, Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 is to be strictly enforced, prohibiting enforcement of any noncompetition clause except in circumstances that are exempted by B & P Code 16601, 16602 or 16602.5.  However, this case holds that outside the employment context, and… Read More

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had agreed to cremate plaintiff's two dogs individually, but sent them random ashes rather than those of their dogs.  Plaintiffs sought to recover for the emotional distress they suffered as a result.  Held:  Plaintiffs didn't state a breach of contract claim as their vet, not they, had contracted with defendant, but on remand plaintiffs should be… Read More

The complaint in this case adequately alleged loss causation based on a stock price drop after the New York Post ran an article about BofI revealing, based on information it obtained through FOIA requests, that the SEC was investigated BofI for money laundering.  The article was close enough to a contradiction of BofI's denial of knowledge of any investigation.  The… Read More

In a poorly lawyered case, this decision affirms an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the trial court properly held the arbitration clause was unconscionable.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was a form contract presented to the patient only moments before the laser hair removal operation in a large stack of other paper she didn't have… Read More

In reaction to San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, the Legisalture amended CCP 128.5 to require in subdivision (f) that the court first find a motion, complaint or other filing to be frvolous under subdivision (a) and then not award sanctions until after a 21-day safe harbor as under CCP 128.7.  This… Read More

This decision affirms a $22,000 sanction imposed on plaintiff's counsel under CCP 128.7 for bringing a frivolous motion to lift the stay pending arbitration.  The AAA had misapplied the defendant's arbitration fee and then closed the arbitration.  When notified of its error, the AAA acknowledged that it had received the fee payment and said it would reopen the arbitration if… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 6 170