California Appellate Tracker

Comerica sought to vacate an adverse arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator's disclosure of prior matters with plaintiff's counsel said a prior matter settled before a final award without disclosing that the settlement came after an interim award.  This decision holds that even if the disclosure would otherwise have permitted vacatur of the award, Comerica forfeited its challenge… Read More

Plaintiff was the executrix as well as a beneficiary of her parents' estate. She claimed that a relative and co-beneficiary conspired with two other defendants to fraudulently induce her, as executrix, to take a large loan at usurious rates secured by the parents' house, the estate's principal asset, after which the co-beneficiary misappropriated most of the loan funds.  This decision… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion in this suit over alleged misappropriation of ideas for a proposed TV show.  To warrant protection under CCP 425.16(e)(4), the conduct out of which the suit arises must not only be in furtherance of the exercise of free speech but also concern a matter of public interest.  Here, acts done in creating… Read More

In this defamation case by a real estate developer against a political consultant, the trial court correctly denied the consultant's Anti-SLAPP motion.  While the allegedly defamatory political campaign mailers that the consultant prepared were protected activity, the developer proved a probability of success on his defamation claim.  The mailers stated that the developer "wants his money back" directly under factual… Read More

The Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA; Ins. Code 1871, et seq.) allows qui tam plaintiffs to file lawsuits on the government’s behalf and seek monetary penalties against perpetrators of insurance fraud.  To prevent duplicative lawsuits, the IFPA contains a “first-to-file rule” (Ins. Code 1871.7(e)(5)) that bars parties from filing subsequent actions related to an already pending lawsuit.  This decision holds… Read More

Plaintiff's record request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250 et seq.) should have been granted.  It sought all emails between county employees and four specified internet domains over a six year period regardless of subject matter.  The County was able to sort its email records and list 42,000 responsive emails.  The County claimed, however, it would be… Read More

Under 28 USC 1367(c)(4), the district court may decline jurisdiction of state law claims  if in extraordinary circumstances there are compelling circumstances for declining jurisdiction.  This decision affirms the district court's ruling that there were extraordinary circumstances in this ADA, physical barriers case, because California's Legislature had amended Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 to discourage repeat litigation by a small… Read More

Plaintiff owner of a gated residential community sued defendant, a private water company, for repeated failures of a 12-inch water main that defendant constructed at plaintiff's request to serve two fire hydrants in the development as well as the domestic water needs of the residents.  This decision affirms the defense judgment.  The inverse condemnation claim failed because the water main… Read More

Affirming an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration of the worker's wage and hour, retaliation and discrimination in employment claims, this decision holds the agreement was at least minimally procedurally unconscionable as it was an adhesion contract.  It also holds two provisions substantively unconscionable, one requiring any claims to be brought within a year of discovery (despite statutes… Read More

Substantial evidence supported the jury verdict finding that defendant had violated Sherman Act section 1 by agreeing with a competitor to fix the terms of credit they would make available to plaintiff.  Terms of credit are part of the price; hence, horizontal agreement to fix credit terms are illegal per se.  Substantial evidence also support the jury verdict finding defendant… Read More

Oakland lacked standing to bring a price-fixing antitrust claim against Oakland Raiders and other NFL teams arising out of the Raiders' move to Las Vegas.  A finding of antitrust standing requires a balancing of the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury, the directness of the injury, the speculative measure of the harm, the risk of duplicative recovery, and the complexity… Read More

A state or local agency's failure to protect may give rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim under the state-created danger exception when the state affirmatively places the plaintiff in danger by acting with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger.  Deliberate indifference is judged by a subjective standard.  Here, defendant arguably displayed deliberate indifference in not keeping… Read More

Before filing a PAGA suit, a plaintiff must send a pre-suit notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer describing the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. Lab. Code 2699.3.  This decision holds that at least when the notice reveals a violation that is likely to have affected more workers than the individual prospective plaintiff… Read More

The plaintiff's alleged failure to give adequate pre-suit notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer before filing a PAGA suit is an affirmative defense which the employer waives either by not pleading it in the answer or by, even if so pleaded, not pursuing it as a defense by pretrial motion or at trial. Read More

Lab. Code 226.3 provides for heightened civil penalties in connection with an employer's violation of wage statement requirements of Lab. Code 226.  Disagreeing with Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, this decision holds that by its plain language, section 226.3 allows for assessment of those heightened civil penalties only when the employer fails to provide… Read More

California's wage statement law (Lab. Code 226) applies to workers based in California who do not work half the time in a different state.  Here, the plaintiff airline crew members were based in California, beginning and ending each sequence of flights there.  They did not spend half their work  time in any other state, so California's wage statement law applied… Read More

When parties agree on the material terms of a contract with the intention to later reduce it to a formal writing, failure to complete the formal writing does not negate the existence of the initial contract.  Also, if the parties do not agree on the content of the formal writing (for example because one party wants to include something not… Read More

Under Corp. Code 15908.02(b), majority partners may file a motion for a compelled appraisal and buyout of a minority partner who has sued for involuntary dissolution of a limited partnership.  Once the motion is granted, the buyout procedure supplants the minority partner's dissolution claim.  This decision holds that once the court has entered an order granting the motion for a… Read More

In ruling on a motion for approval of a settlement of a PAGA claim, the trial court should apply the "fair, adequate and reasonable" standard applied to approval of class action settlements. Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness—including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the… Read More

Disagreeing with Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, this decision holds that the plaintiff in one PAGA action is sufficiently aggrieved by an unfair settlement of a different plaintiff's parallel PAGA suit to have standing to appeal from the judgment following approval of settlement in the other action--so long as the appellant became a party to… Read More