Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

California Appellate Tracker

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

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.

Probate Code 8402(a)(4) provides that to be eligible to serve as an executor or administrator of an estate, a person must be a resident of the US.  This decision interprets the statute as meaning that an executor or administrator must be "domiciled" in the US--that is, reside in the US with the intention of remaining there.  Here, the proposed administrator--the… Read More

The insured landlord's CGL policy excluded claims for claims arising out of actual or claimed uninhabitable conditions on the premises--and all other claims (whether or not otherwise covered) which were alleged in the same suit as claims for non-habitability.  This decision holds that the exclusion was plain, clear, conspicuous, and enforceable.  As a result, the exclusion relieved the insurer of… Read More

CCP 995.240 grants a trial court authority to waive any provision requiring a litigant to post a bond if the trial court finds the party that is otherwise required to post a bond is indigent and unable to obtain sufficient sureties.  This decision holds that the statute applies, and grants the trial court discretion, to waive CCP 917.1's otherwise applicable… Read More

The district court properly granted defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  Anti-SLAPP motions do not conflict with federal procedure and so may properly be brought in federal court on diversity claims governed by California law.  Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2010) 559 U.S. 393 did not overrule or undermine prior 9th Circuit authority so holding.  Plaintiff could not show… Read More

To determine whether speech or other conduct falls within the scope of CCP 425.16(e)(4)'s catchall provision, the court must make a two-step analysis, first asking what public issue or issue of public interest the defendant's conduct or speech implicates, and second asking what functional relationship exists between the speech and the public conversation about that issue of public interest--i.e., whether… Read More

Under Civil Code 846, landowners are generally immune from liability for personal injuries suffered by persons entering their property for recreational use. There is an exception to that immunity if the plaintiff was "expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner."  This decision holds that despite the statutory wording, immunity is lost if the… Read More

The FCC's regulation governing the standards for the permissible amount of radio frequency emission from a cellphone (47 C.F.R. § 1.1310(c)) preempt plaintiff's state law claims that Apple's iPhones are unsafe even though they conform to the FCC's standards.  The FCC issued its regulation under the broad authority that Congress conferred on it in the Federal Communications Act of 1934. … Read More

Landlord violated Pasadena's eviction control ordinance by failing to offer tenants a one-year lease after giving them notice of a rent increase.  Also, the landlord violated the ordinance in treating as cause for eviction the presence on the premises of the husband and daughter of one of the authorized tenants.  The ordinance requires landlords to allow occupancy by dependent minors… Read More

Enacted in 2002, Civ. Code 3339, Gov. Code 7285, Health & Saf. Code 24000, and Lab. Code 1171.5 each provide that all rights and protections of law are available to all without regard to immigration status, that immigration status is irrelevant to proof of liability for violation of state labor, employment, civil rights, consumer protection, and housing laws, and that… Read More

A "conditional acceptance" of a 998 offer is ineffective to become on enforceable settlement under CCP 998, although it may become a settlement upon the original offeror's acceptance of the other party's counteroffer.  Here, Sutter's 998 offer was $500,000.  Plaintiff's "conditional acceptance" added three terms for the court to "clarify" including whether prejudgment interest was owed on the $500,000.  The… Read More

The Ellis Act re-subjects to rent control units that are taken off the market under the Act but then are re-rented within five years thereafter.  (Gov. Code 7060.2(d).)  That provision prevails over Civ. Code 1954.52 which exempts separately alienable single family dwellings or units from rent control.  So, the landlord did not evade rent control by withdrawing five units on… Read More

Silver, a Hollywood executive, took his chef and an executive assistant, Musgrove, with his family for their vacation on Bora Bora.  The chef met Musgrove after hours and gave her alcohol and cocaine, after which she went swimming and drowned.  This decision holds that Silver is not vicariously liable for the chef's after hours activities with Musgrove under any of… Read More

For purposes of ERISA plan insurance policies, the Ninth Circuit defines "accident" or "accidental" to mean that the insured did not subjectively expect injury or death to result from his actions--so long as those subjective expectations were reasonable from the insured's perspective.  If the insured's subjective expectation cannot be ascertained, then the court asks whether a reasonable person with a… Read More

A trade dress need not be associated in the public mind with a particular manufacturer or other provider in order to acquire secondary meaning and thus be protectible under the Lanham Act.  It is enough to show that the public thinks the product in that dress comes from a single source, even if the public cannot identify which source that… Read More

LA's COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Ordinance which banned evictions for reasons other than the tenant's fault was not preempted by state law.  A demurrer was properly sustained to the owner's unlawful detainer action which alleged no tenant default but instead claimed the owner wanted to move into the unit himself. Read More

After 601 sued Frum for rent due under his lease, Frym cross-complained against 601, its owner DiCarli, and their attorney, Leoni.  The three cross-defendants brought separate Anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss.  DiCarli's was heard first.  She prevailed and was awarded attorney fees.  Frym then dismissed his claims against 601 and Leoni before their motions were heard.  This decision holds that the… Read More

1 59 60 61 62 63 195