In Clark v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court considered the claims of elderly plaintiffs under California’s unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et seq., which sought treble damages under Civil Code § 3345. Under Civil Code § 3345, which is part of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the trier of fact is … Continue Reading
In Reid v. Google, the California Supreme Court addressed and resolved a well-known procedural trap for California attorneys: if you file your objections to your opponent’s evidence on a summary judgment motion, but the trial court never specifically rules on them, are the objections preserved on appeal? The Supreme Court’s answer: “yes.” In opposing a … Continue Reading
California, like most states, has enacted a statute (Civil Code section 846) which provides that property owners have no duty to maintain their premises in a manner that makes them “safe” for recreational users of the land. The statute was intended to encourage landowners to make their property available for recreational use without fear of … Continue Reading
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has named Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California Court of Appeal as his choice to replace the retiring Hon. Ronald M. George as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Governor Schwarzenegger praised Justice Cantil-Sakauye’s record in announcing the nomination: Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has a distinguished history of public service and understands … Continue Reading
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George has announced today that he will be retiring from the Court, effective January 2, 2011. We will have a profile of this great California jurist soon.… Continue Reading
In Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc., the Supreme Court resolved a conflict in the lower courts by holding that the peculiar risk doctrine does not make a hiring party liable for workplace injuries of an independent contractor or subcontractor. In doing so, the Court departed from the rationale in Privette, holding instead that an independent … Continue Reading
In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., the Court addressed a legal question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the application of Business and Professions Code §17529.5(a)(2) to spam e-mails that were being sent from multiple domain names to avoid spam filters. While this statute bars spam which “contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged … Continue Reading
Last week the Supreme Court granted review in six civil cases, covering a wide variety of issues: Coito v. Superior Court, which addresses when witness statements are protected from discovery as work product. See Civil Procedure/Evidence/Discovery update. Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, which the Supreme Court transferred on its own motion before … Continue Reading
In Martinez, the unanimous California Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts by rejecting an attempt by agricultural workers to collect unpaid wages from food distributors who bought produce from that farm. In doing so, the court reviewed the history and jurisdiction of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) and its work orders from … Continue Reading
In March 2009, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hertz to address the issue of whether a worker’s inability to participate in vocational rehabilitation due to nonindustrial causes should be apportioned under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664, as they were amended in 2004 by SB 899. The Court of Appeal had ruled … Continue Reading
In Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., a manufacturer brought suit against an attorney who ran an advertisement regarding possible claims against the manufacturer’s products and the trial court granted counsel’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The California Supreme Court has now affirmed the judgment, holding that: 1) the plaintiff has the burden of proof in demonstrating the application … Continue Reading
In its weekly conference, see list of actions, the California Supreme Court granted review in: Jankey v. Lee, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not preempt Civil Code § 55, which entitles the prevailing defendant to attorney’s fees upon defeating a claim for injunctive relief under the … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in seven civil cases, five at the end of May and two in Los Angeles at the beginning of June. These hearings should address a wide variety of issues, including: Do employees have a private right of action against employers who take some of the tips? See … Continue Reading
In Runyon, the unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that whistleblowers employed with California State University do not have to exhaust their judicial remedies (i.e., petition for a writ of mandate) to bring a suit for damages, so long as they first exhaust their administrative remedies. While this ruling is consistent with previous whistleblower rulings by … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court, in O’Neil v. Crane Co., No. S177401, is considering the liability of an equipment manufacturer under these circumstances: The manufacturer sells a product pursuant to the buyer’s specifications (say, a valve or pump) that is accompanied by an allegedly defective part (say, an asbestos-containing gasket) made by another, which is incorporated … Continue Reading
In Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., the court considered an arbitrator’s decision, pursuant to a mandatory arbitration agreement, that an employee’s discrimination claim was time barred. Since by failing to apply the tolling statute CCP § 1281.12, the arbitrator had committed “a clear error of law” which would deprive the employee of any … Continue Reading
In conference Wednesday (see list of actions), the Court granted review in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, in which the Court of Appeal upheld vacating a city ordinance banning the use of plastic bags because an environmental impact report was not prepared. See the Environmental update page. In addition, … Continue Reading
California’s Unfair Competition Act has generated an enormous amount of litigation, and has long been a target of tort reform groups. Those reform efforts met with an important success in 2004, when the voters approved Proposition 64, finding that the statute had been “misused by some private attorneys” to file “frivolous lawsuits as a means of … Continue Reading
Demonstrating the potential significance and broad implications of the California Supreme Court’s deliberations in Loeffler v. Target Corporation, so far a total of nine amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of sixteen entities addressing the issue of whether a taxpayer can directly bring suit against a retailer who allegedly charged a sales tax on … Continue Reading
In conference today (see list of actions), the Court granted review in Brown v. Mortensen, in which the Court of Appeal found that the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted the restrictions imposed by the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. See B & P 17200/Class Actions/Commercial update page. In addition, the Court also requested supplemental briefing … Continue Reading
CAPPING AT THREE. AB2740, a new version of an old bill pending in the California State Legislature, would cap the amount of punitive damages available in California to a flat three times the jury’s award of compensatory damages. AB2740 The previous version died in Committee. The new iteration (tacked onto a National Guard bill, of all … Continue Reading
Add yet another appellate opinion to the growing list of California courts that have cut punitive damage awards on constitutional excessiveness grounds. In this one, Amerigraphics, the jury awarded $3 million in punitive damages in an insurance bad faith case. The trial court cut that number to $1.7 million, but according to the California Court … Continue Reading
Statistics show that the number of civil cases accepted for review by California’s highest court has varied dramatically in recent years, but by any count, the numbers are still small. According to a report released by the State’s Administrative Office of the Courts, for the year 2008, the California Supreme Court granted 6% of all … Continue Reading
The problem of coverage for the so-called "innocent insured" is a recurring one. The issue arises when there is more than one insured on the policy and one commits an act that would bar coverage. Does that act bar coverage for all, or only for the intentional actor? In California, this problem has reared its head … Continue Reading
