Would you like to know every new published case in your practice areas each quarter in less than 2 hours for less than $100 instead of spending far more money and time reading thousands of pages? Subscribe to California Case Summaries: Civil Update Quarterly™ for $99.99 a quarter to get my short, organized case summaries with the official case citations. There is no other product like this. To purchase the single-user issue today for $99.99, click here. To purchase the law firm multi-user issue (for one-office location) today for $499.99, click here.
California Case Summaries Civil™
Summaries of Every New Published California Civil Case
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | ABOTA National Board Member | Ca. attorney since 1980
For scheduling, contact my ADR Services case manager Christopher Schuster
Phone: (619) 233-1323 Email: Christopher@adrservices.com
Monty’s Cell: (619) 990-4312 Monty’s Email: monty@montymcintyre.com
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Attorneys
Sheppard, Mullin etc. v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 4137013: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that reversed the trial’s order confirming an arbitration award, but it reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it ordered disgorgement of all fees collected by plaintiff law firm. Plaintiff law firm agreed to represent a manufacturing company in a federal qui tam action brought on behalf of a number of public entities. During the same time period, the law firm represented one of the public entities in matters unrelated to the qui tam suit. Both clients executed engagement agreements that purported to waive all such conflicts of interest, current or future, but the agreements did not specifically refer to any conflict, and the law firm did not tell either client about its representation of the other. Under the framework established in Loving & Evans v. Blick (1949) 33 Cal.2d 603, the law firm’s conflict of interest rendered the agreement with the manufacturer, including its arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. Although the manufacturer signed a conflicts waiver, the waiver was not effective because the law firm failed to disclose a known conflict with a current client. However, the ethical violation did not categorically disentitle the law firm from recovering the value of the services it rendered to the manufacturer, and this issue was remanded to the trial court. (August 30, 2018.)
Ethics
Sheppard, Mullin etc. v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 4137013: See summary above under Attorneys.
Evidence
Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 4057248: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal decision that affirmed the trial court judgment after a jury found for defendant in a product liability case. Plaintiffs claimed the pickup truck was defective because its standard configuration did not include a particular safety feature, known as vehicle stability control (“VSC”), that they claimed would have prevented the accident. At trial, the jury heard evidence that no vehicle manufacturer at the time included VSC as standard equipment in pickup trucks. Evidence that a manufacturer’s design conforms with industry custom and practice is not relevant, and therefore not admissible, to show that the manufacturer acted reasonably in adopting a challenged design and therefore cannot be held liable. Under strict products liability law, a product may contain the same safety features as other products on the market and still be defective. But evidence of industry custom and practice may nevertheless be relevant to the strict products liability inquiry, including the jury’s evaluation of whether the product is as safely designed as it should be, considering the feasibility and cost of alternative designs. Because the evidence in this case was properly admitted for that limited purpose, the judgment for defendant was affirmed. (August 27, 2018.)
Taxes
Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 4057226: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. Respondent operates an electric utility as one of its city departments. The California Supreme Court ruled that respondent’s practice of annually transferring money from the electric utility’s enterprise fund to respondent’s general fund, designed to compensate the general fund for the costs of services that other city departments provide to the utility, was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. (August 27, 2018.)
Torts
Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 4057248: See summary above under Evidence.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Attorneys
Bridgepoint Construction Services v. Newton (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4203622: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order disqualifying an attorney. The trial court had multiple reasons to disqualify attorney Robert Klein (Klein). Klein originally represented Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. (Bridgepoint), Norman Salter (Salter) and Dilip Ram (Ram) who were suing defendants for $2 million in damages. Klein was later disqualified from representing Bridgepoint and Salter. Klein later filed a cross-complaint for Ram seeking the same $2 million in damages. Because Bridgepoint, Salter and Ram were all seeking the same damages from the same $2 million pool, there was an obvious conflict. Every dollar that Ram obtained from the pool would be a dollar that would not be available to Bridgepoint or Salter. Attorney Klein simultaneously represented Bridgepoint in an Arizona action and Ram in the instant action, making his disqualification automatic. Klein also obtained confidential information from Bridgepoint when he retained an expert to review Bridgepoint’s financial records before he was disqualified from representing Bridgepoint in this action. Finally, there was a substantial relationship between the subject matter of Klein’s former representation of Bridgepoint in this case and his current representation of Ram. (C.A. 2nd, September 4, 2018.)
Civil Procedure
Martinez v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4091279: See summary below under Employment.
Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4090622: The Court of Appeal reversed the part of the trial court’s order that denied a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the album cover and a promotional video for a posthumous Michael Jackson album entitled Michael misleadingly represented that Jackson was the lead singer on each of the 10 vocal tracks on the album, when in fact he was not the lead singer on three of those tracks. The trial court ruled that the album cover and the promotional video for the album were commercial speech that was subject to regulation under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civil Code section 1750 et seq.). The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the challenged representation―that Michael Jackson was the lead singer on the three disputed tracks―did not simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a disputed issue of public interest. The statements about the identity of the artist were not simply commercial speech but were subject to full First Amendment protection and were outside the scope of an actionable unfair competition or consumer protection claim. The motion to strike these claims was granted. (C.A. 2nd, August 28, 2018.)
Consumer Protection
Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4275356: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civil Code section 1770), Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Business & Professions Code, section 17200) and express warranty law (Commercial Code, section 2313). The Court of Appeal ruled that, because defendant’s trade name One a Day inspired reliance in consumers, the action should have survived the demurrer. (C.A. 4th, September 7, 2018.)
Employment
Martinez v. Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4091279: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s putative class action wage and hour case for failure to bring their lawsuit to trial within five years as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360. The trial court properly ruled that that the five-year period had been extended only a total of 1,033 days (75 days during the period of removal to federal district court and 958 days during the class certification appeal), and that the time to bring the action to trial had expired on August 26, 2015. (C.A. 2nd, filed August 1, 2018, published August 28, 2018.)
Environment
Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City or Riverside (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ : The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the approval by respondent of a development permit to build six single-family homes by issuing a negative declaration stating the development did not require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.). The Court of Appeal found there was no evidence of land use violations and respondent did not abuse its discretion when the project was approved. (C.A. 4th, filed August 10, 2018, published September 7, 2018.)
Ethics
Bridgepoint Construction Services v. Newton (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4203622: See summary above under Attorneys.
Government
Black v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4275238: The Court of Appeal the trial court’s order denying a writ petition claiming that a 1978 building moratorium constituted an unlawful taking. The trial court properly ruled that the moratorium did not prevent all economic use of the properties, and that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by first applying to respondent for permission to build on their lots. (C.A. 2nd, September 6, 2018.)
Insurance
Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Company (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4275376: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial in a class action, finding that defendant’s charges for overnight mail and courier services and some of the draw deed fees were unlawful under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Business & Professions Code, sections 17200 et seq.) because they were not included in defendant’s rate schedules. The Court of Appeal ruled that the action was barred by the immunity in Insurance Code section 12414.26 and was subject to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Insurance Commissioner because it challenged defendant’s ratemaking-related activity. Because plaintiffs were no longer the prevailing party, the Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court’s order denying attorney fees to plaintiffs. However, it directed the trial court to enter a new order awarding costs to defendant, and remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of the costs award. (C.A. 6th, September 7, 2018.)
Landlord-Tenant
Coyne v. De Leo (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4090886: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff landlord in an action for unlawful detainer under the Ellis Act (Government Code section 7060 et seq.). Given the conflicting evidence on the key issue—whether the landlord had a bona fide intent to exit the residential rental market—and the fact that the jury was not unanimous in its resolution of the issue, even when the tenant’s case was presented in a limited fashion, the Court of Appeal could not say that no more than an abstract possibility existed that a result more favorable to the tenant might have been achieved in the absence of the error. Because the trial court erroneously foreclosed presentation of the tenant’s proffered evidence, which went to the heart of the landlord’s right to possession of the cottage, the judgment in the landlord’s favor was reversed. (C.A. 1st, filed July 30, 2018, published August 28, 2018.)
Probate
Estate of O’Connor (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4103191: The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order declaring that decedent John O’Connor’s power of appointment exercised in his will complied with the requirements of Probate Code section 632. The language in the decedent’s will—”I exercise any Power of Appointment which I may have over that portion of the trust or trusts established by my parents for my benefit or any other trusts for which I have Power of Appointment”—constituted a valid and effective exercise under section 632. The language of decedent’s will contained enough detail to discern his conscious exercise of the particular power of appointment granted to him, and thus complied with the requirements of both the granting instrument and section 632 that he make a specific reference to the power of appointment. (C.A. 4th, August 29, 2018.)
Real Property
Black v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4275238: See summary above under Government.
Water
Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 4103188: The Court of Appeal affirmed various rulings of the trial court. The trial court properly ruled that the public trust doctrine applies to extraction of groundwater from the Scott River system to the extent that such extraction of groundwater affects public trust resources and uses in the Scott River; the County of Siskiyou (County), in issuing permits for wells that would result in extraction of groundwater has a public trust duty to consider whether the wells will affect public trust resources and uses in the Scott River; the Groundwater Management Act (Water Code sections 10750 et seq.) does not conflict with the County’s public trust duty; the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA; Water Code sections 17320 et seq.) which was enacted by the Legislature in 2014, does not conflict with the County’s public trust duty; the Scott River Decree of 1980 does not alter the County’s public trust duty; and State Water Resources Control Board has the authority and duty under the public trust doctrine to regulate extractions of groundwater that affect public trust uses in the Scott River. (C.A. 3rd, August 29, 2018.)
Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
