California Appellate Tracker

Users of Reddit, a social media platform, posted and circulated sexually explicit images and videos of minors online. Parents of those depicted sued Reddit.  This opinion holds that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) immunizes Reddit.  While § 230 immunity does not apply to child sex trafficking claims if the conduct underlying the claim also violates… Read More

Under B&P Code 17918, a party that regularly transacts business in California for profit under a fictitious business name may not maintain an action on a contract made in the fictitious business name until a fictitious business name statement is filed.  The statute abates the action but does not invalidate the contract.  This decision holds that a motion to compel… Read More

Both parts of the Discovery Act's sanctions chapter, CCP 2023.010 lists the types of discovery abuses the Legislature sought to preclude, and CCP 2023.030 lists the types of sanctions that can be awarded if authorized by a later section governing a specific discovery device, but neither of these general sections, in itself or combined with each other, authorizes imposition of… Read More

A petition to recover estate property under Probate Code 850(a)(1)(c) is not the proper vehicle for obtaining communications and documents from a temporary conservator of the plaintiff's estate; those documents are not the type of personal property interests that can properly be sought through and adjudicated in a section 850 petition. Read More

Reversing summary judgment on plaintiff's whistleblower retaliation claims under Lab. Code 1102.5, this decision holds that (a) the employee's reports to his supervisor and to the federal contracting officer that he thought he was being asked to prepare reports that violated NEPA was activity protected by section 1102.5--even though plaintiff claimed that the persons he reported to were wrong-doers. Read More

Following Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 847 F.3d 1037, this decision holds that a person who receives a non-consented-to robocall in violation of the TCPA has Article III standing since the claim is similar to a common law claim for invasion of privacy and is statutorily protected. Read More

This decision holds that there is a constitutional limit on aggregate statutory damage awards even if the statutory damage per violation passes constitutional muster.  An aggregate damage award may exceed due process limits in extreme situations—that is, when they are “wholly disproportioned” and “obviously unreasonable” in relation to the goals of the statute and the conduct the statute prohibits.  Constitutional… Read More

In these individual lawsuits arising from VW's emission defeat devices, the district court erred in reducing the juries' punitive damage awards to 4 times actual damages.  Reprehensibility here was high--a years-long intentional deceit that defeated the fuel-economy and reduced emissions goals of car buyers.  The high reprehensibility plus relatively low actual damages warranted punitive damages of more than 4 to… Read More

The trial court erred in granting Staples summary judgment on plaintiff's Equal Pay Act claim under Lab. Code § 1197.5.  Following federal cases, this decision holds that a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of an Equal Pay Act violation by showing she was paid less than a single male comparator.  It is not a defense to show that… Read More

Plaintiff, a public interest group that was not itself harmed, sued two immigration consultants who had posted statutory bonds issued by Hudson as required under the Immigration Consultant Act (Bus. & Prof. Code 22440 et seq.), seeking injunctive relief for violation of that act.  This decision holds that plaintiff cannot recover its attorney fees from the surety, Hudson, because the… Read More

Plaintiff sued Road Runner after finding it had charged him an annual fee for its loyalty program for three years after the initial free period.  Road Runner moved to compel arbitration under a clause it added to its website during the last year before plaintiff sued.  This decision holds that plaintiff did not agree to clause.  It was not presented… Read More

Following Sutter Health v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, this decision holds that to state a claim under Civ. Code 556.36 and 56.101 for negligence in storing or disposing of medical information, the plaintiff must allege not just that the defendant negligently lost (or lost control of) confidential information about the plaintiff but also that the information was viewed… Read More

When a responding party serves both objections and answers to interrogatories, the 45-day deadline for filing a motion to compel (even if directed only against the objections) does not begin to run until the responding party serves a verification of the answers.  However, service of only a notice of motion to compel before the deadline is insufficient.  To be timely,… Read More

An administrative hearing need not be conducted according to the rules of procedure and evidence used in civil trials.  Instead, any relevant evidence may be considered if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. (Gov. Code, § 11513(c).)  So, here the department's hearing officer did not err… Read More

In a Workplace Violence Protective Order hearing, the trial court must allow the parties (and here, particularly the defendant) an opportunity to present any relevant evidence, including through cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness(es).  Here, the trial court disallowed cross-examination, thus violating the defendant's due process rights and requiring reversal of the anti-harassment injunction. Read More

Landlord's taking possession of premises and re-leasing it to a third party did not moot defendant's appeal from denial of its motion to set aside the default judgment in the landlord's unlawful detainer against it.  The appellate court could still grant relief in the form of restitution under CCP 908 either in kind (i.e., restoration of possession) or in money. Read More

Doubling down on LaSalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, this decision holds that plaintiff's counsel owes an ethical and legal obligation to notify the defendant's counsel (if known) of the defendant's failure to timely respond to the complaint and plaintiff's intention to seek a default.  Here, plaintiff not only didn't notify defendant's counsel, but also arranged to serve the… Read More

A setoff under CCP 431.70 must be asserted as an affirmative defense in the answer to a complaint.  A party may not assert a setoff under that section in a post-judgment motion.  A judgment debtor may not use a non-statutory post-judgment motion as a means of obtaining an offset against the judgment based on disputed claims. Read More

This decision affirms an order enforcing a settlement agreement that resolved 20 medical malpractice actions--even though the agreement for liquidated damages of $50,000 per month up to a cap of $1.5 million if the defendant failed to timely pay the installments due under the $575,000 settlement amount.  The opinion emphasizes that under Civ. Code 1781(b), which applies to contracts other… Read More

Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff's complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorprates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt.  Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for… Read More