Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

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.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendant improperly charged them use tax on its lease-end vehicle turn-in fee.  This decision holds that the suit was properly dismissed because plaintiffs did not first submit their claims to respondent California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and obtain its definitive ruling on the taxability question. Plaintiffs' claims were barred by their failure to exhaust administrative… Read More

When a trustee of an inter vivos trust does not initiate a proceeding under Prob. Code 19000 et seq. and there is no probate of the trustor's estate, a creditor of the estate may sue the trustee on the trustor's debt or file a petition against the trustee under Prob. Code 850 for any real or personal property that the… Read More

This decision holds that a holder of a consumer contract subject to the FTC Holder Rule cannot avoid liability on claims against the dealer by reassigning the contract to the dealer or a third party after liability for the claim has attached.  Any person holding the contract when the claim accrues remains liable on the claim despite later transfer of… Read More

This decision affirms a trial court's denial of defendant elder care facility's motion to compel arbitration.  The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the arbitration clause was buried in a lengthy document about other matters, not presented as a separate agreement or marked in any manner to draw attention to it.  Also, the plaintiff was under extreme time pressure to… Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement's temporal duration. … Read More

This decision affirms a summary judgment for defendant in a slip and fall case based on the trivial defect doctrine.  The discontinuity between the sidewalk and PG&E's manhole cover was less than an inch vertically.  There was nothing that concealed the discontinuity of the pavement from view.  The fact that the sidewalk was on a steep hill did not make… Read More

This decision upholds COVID Emergency Rule 10(a)'s extension of the 5 year statute by six months.  The rule did not permit tolling of the statutory period but instead simply added 6 months to the otherwise applicable 5 years to bring the case to trial.  So in this case, it was error to dismiss the case less than 5-1/2 years after… Read More

If a party opposing arbitration wishes a court to decide whether a clause delegating arbitrability questions to the arbitrator is itself unenforceable for some reason, the party must mention that it is challenging the delegation provision and make specific arguments attacking the provision in its opposition to a motion to compel arbitration.  It is permissible, however, for that party to… Read More

For the second time, the Ninth Circuit reverses approval of a class action settlement in this case which challenged Tinder's charging those over 30 more than younger subscribers for its dating services.  The Ninth Circuit finds that the named plaintiff was not an adquate representative of the class because her interest conflicted with that of a large number of class… Read More

A UCL suit by a public prosecutor does not operate as merger and bar of private suits for the same alleged UCL violations against the same defendant.  A law enforcement action by prosecutors is designed to protect the public, not one to benefit the individuals harmed by the defendant's illegal practices, even if restitution is sought and ordered in the… Read More

California recognizes a form of the filed rate doctrine for rates or prices approved by state or municipal regulatory agencies, but the state doctrine is more limited and not as restrictive as its federal counterpart.  The California filed rate doctrine did not bar plaintiff's class action insofar as it sought injunctive relief (against false advertising) and punitive damages under the… Read More

This decision vacates dismissal of the mandate petition and remands to the trial court to determine in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Boermeester v. Carry (2023) 15 Cal.5th 72 whether the common law doctrine of fair procedure applies to this private vocational school and if so whether the school gave plaintiff a fair procedure including the right… Read More

The San Francisco Fire Department and San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Agency are departments of the City and County of San Francisco, not independent public agencies.  Hence, a fireman was a city employee and when he was injured by an MTA bus driver who drove through an active fire scene, severing a fire hose which caused the fireman serious injuries, the… Read More

B&P Code 6128(a) makes it a misdemeanor for an attorney to engage in deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or a party.  In this case, the LA and San Francisco district attorneys sued the Potter law firm claiming it engaged in an unlawful business practice in violation of B&P Code 6128(a) and 17200 by filing shakedown ADA… Read More

Health Net's arbitration clause did not satisfy H&S Code 1363.1's requirements.  The enrollment form did not clearly that the plan required arbitration of disputes because it said that the arbitration clause didn't apply if the plan was governed by ERISA--and the enrolling employee would have no way to determine whether ERISA applied.  Also, because of intervening text about ERISA plans,… Read More

This decision holds that some but not all claims for retaliation for whistleblowing activities, in violation of Lab. Code 1102.5, are not intentional acts for which insurance defense and indemnity is barred by Ins. Code 533.  In particular, under Lab. Code 1102.5(c), an employee is protected if he refuses to perform work duties if doing so is actually (not just… Read More

In this sex harassment case, the Court of Appeal reverses a denial of plaintiff's new trial motion, finding that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the contents of complaints co-workers lodged against plaintiff.  The fact that co-workers had complained about plaintiff was relevant since the complaints provided a possible motive for plaintiff to fabricate her own sex harassment… Read More

Echoing Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, this decision states that a separate statement should contain only the facts material to the challenged element(s) of a claim or defense.  Other background facts need not and should not be set out in the separate statement.  The decision also states that the nonmoving party… Read More

Effective in 2019, Gov. Code 12923 "clarified" the law regarding hostile work environment sexual harassment claims.  The section states that summary judgment should rarely be granted on such claims.  In addition, it provides that even a single incident can be sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim "if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance… Read More

A district court order was immediately appealable insofar as it prohibited the defendant employer from communicating with workers about this opt-in FLSA action or soliciting them not to join the action, but not insofar as it voided the agreements that the employer had solicited from workers releasing FLSA claims or agreeing not to join the action.  The appealable portion of… Read More

1 4 5 6 7 8 173