California Case Summaries ADR™
Five New Published California Civil Cases
From October 22 to November 2, 2018
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | National ABOTA Board Member | Ca. Attorney since 1980
For ADR Services, Inc. scheduling, contact my case manager Christopher Schuster Phone: (619) 233-1323. Email: christopher@adrservices.com
Monty’s cell: (619) 990-4312. Monty’s email: monty@montymcintyre.com
Warning: this free issue is missing my 15 other summaries of new published California civil cases for the last two weeks. To get EVERY new published case summary subscribe to my online publication California Case Summaries Civil™ for $15.99 a month per attorney. To subscribe now click here.
To know every new published civil and family law decision each quarter in less than 2 hours for less than $100 subscribe to California Case Summaries: Civil Update Quarterly™ for $99.99 a quarter per attorney/judge to get my short, organized summaries with the official case citations. There is no other product like this. To subscribe to the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer law firm and superior court multi-user options. To buy the right multi-user option for your firm or court today, click here.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Ramos v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 5730183: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to vacate its order granting defendant Winston & Strawn, LLP’s motion to compel arbitration in an action by plaintiff (an experienced litigator and patent practitioner with a doctorate in biophysics) for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and anti-fair-pay practices. The Court of Appeal ruled that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, and because the taint of illegality could not be removed by severing the unlawful provisions without altering the nature of the parties’ agreement, the entire agreement to arbitrate was void. (C.A. 1st, November 2, 2018.)
Attorney Fees
Quiles v. Parent (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 5730179: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $689,310.04 in attorney fees and $50,591.69 in costs after she prevailed in a jury trial where the jury awarded her damages for her individual claims for loss of past earnings, non-economic damages including emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. The trial court correctly determined that federal law applied to determine what costs plaintiff could recover under her Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA; 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq.) claim. Defendant forfeited his argument that expert costs were not recoverable under the FLSA because he did not raise that issue in the trial court. The trial court properly awarded plaintiff attorney fees and costs incurred by her in relation to the successful litigation of her wrongful employment termination claim. (C.A. 4th, November 2, 2018.)
Business
AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 5669154: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment for defendant/cross-complainant on both the complaint and cross-complaint, its issuance of an injunction against plaintiff, and its award of attorney fees to defendant. Plaintiff sued to enforce a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (CNDA) that prevented its employees from soliciting any employee of plaintiff to leave the service of plaintiff for at least a one-year period. The individual defendants were formerly “travel nurse recruiters” of plaintiff who left and joined defendant Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., where they also worked as travel nurse recruiters. The Court of Appeal ruled that the CNDA was an improper restraint on the individual defendants’ ability to engage in their profession, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 16600. Moreover, plaintiff’s tort-based causes of action failed as a matter of law because the information allegedly used by defendants to recruit travel nurses was not protected. The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it enjoined plaintiff from attempting to enforce its nonsolicitation of employee provision and when it awarded defendants attorney fees of $169,000. (C.A. 4th, November 1, 2018.)
Civil Code
Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 5730205: The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for plaintiff, following a jury trial, awarding plaintiff $213,000 in actual damages and $910,000 in emotional distress damages on his claim for the unauthorized use of plaintiff’s likeness in violation of Civil Code section 33441. However, it reversed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request for prevailing party attorney fees and costs. The trial court properly excluded testimony from two expert witnesses offered by plaintiff. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that plaintiff was not the prevailing party under section 3344(a). (C.A. 2nd, November 2, 2018.)
Civil Procedure
Marteney v. Elementis Chemicals Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 5689151: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders entering judgment against defendant following a jury trial in a wrongful death action and its order allocating defendant’s liability for damages in light of prior settlements under Code of Civil Procedure section 877. The Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s argument that the wrongful death action trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal of a personal injury and loss of consortium judgment that had been entered in favor of the parents of the wrongful death plaintiffs in an earlier action. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial court properly concluded that the wrongful death action defendant was entitled to a credit based solely on plaintiffs’ settlement in the wrongful death action with Union Carbide Corporation, but defendant was not entitled to any credit for settlements previously made by the parents of plaintiffs in their personal injury action. (C.A. 2nd, filed October 5, 2018, published November 1, 2018.)
Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
