California Case Summaries ADR™
Five New Published California Civil Cases
From November 19 to November 30, 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 19 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
Attorney Fees
John Russo Industrial Sheetmetal, Inc. v. City of L.A. Dept. of Airports (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6168139: The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury verdict of $1 for defendant/cross-complainant for breach of contract, the cost award for defendant/cross-complainant, and the attorney fee award for plaintiff/cross-defendant because it prevailed on the California False Claims Act (CFCA; Government Code section 12650 et seq.) claim brought against it. The Court of Appeal ruled that a court may award a defendant fees under section 12652(g)(9)(B) when the defendant prevails on CFCA claims found to be frivolous, even if the plaintiff prevailed in the action as a whole under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4). (C.A. 1st, November 26, 2018.)
Civil Procedure
Roe v. Halbig (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6061791: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was the prevailing party after defendant withdrew his subpoena, but reversed the post-judgment attorney fee and cost award of the trial court. Defendant served a subpoena in California to discover from Google the identity of a person who maintained a blog. Google notified plaintiff, who retained counsel and filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Before the hearing, defendant dismissed the matter without prejudice. Because plaintiff’s motion to quash met all of the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2(c), and it was not mooted by defendant’s withdrawal of the subpoena, plaintiff was the prevailing party under section 1987.2(c). The attorney fee and cost award was reversed because the Court of Appeal could not determine how the trial court arrived at the attorney fees it awarded and could not assess whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion. (C.A. 6th, November 20, 2018.)
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6064837: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to dismiss the entire putative class action for failure to bring the case to trial within five years as required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360. Because an order staying responsive pleadings and outstanding discovery requests, while also requiring the parties to “negotiate and agree . . . on a case management plan” and to prepare and file a joint statement specifically addressing case-related issues in multiple areas (and also allowing the parties to informally exchange documents), did not “effect a complete stay of the prosecution of the action” within the meaning of Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081 and Bruns v. ECommerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 730, the trial court erred when it concluded the five-year period was tolled for 43 days because of the stay. The five-year period had expired before the trial court heard defendant’s motion to dismiss, so dismissal of the action was mandatory. Moreover, even if the 43-day tolling period had been permissible, the trial court’s order granting trial preference and setting the trial for April 10, 2018, the same date on which plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was to be heard, was a manifest abuse of discretion. (C.A. 2nd, November 20, 2019.)
Insurance
Meleski v. Estate of Hotlen (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6241504: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for costs. The lawsuit arose from an auto accident. The defendant driver died before the action was brought. Plaintiff brought the action under Probate Code sections 550 – 555 against the insurance carrier (Allstate) who had issued a $100,000 policy. Plaintiff made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to settle for $99,999 that was rejected by the carrier. The jury verdict was $180,613.86 for plaintiff. While Probate Code section 554 limited the recoverable damages to the $100,000 policy limits, costs are not damages, and section 554 does not limit the recovery of costs. Because Allstate had rejected the 998 offer, the order denying costs from Allstate was reversed and the judgment was modified to include an award of costs in the amount of $66,017.08 in addition to $100,000 in damages. (C.A. 3rd, November 29, 2018.)
Torts
Arista v. County of Riverside (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6065089: The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiffs’ complaint alleging wrongful death and other causes of action. On March 1, 2014, at approximately 6:30 a.m., decedent left his residence in Corona to ride his mountain bike up Santiago Peak in the Cleveland National Forest. The bike ride would be approximately 55 miles, and decedent was scheduled to arrive back home at 2:00 p.m. When decedent did not return, his wife (one of the plaintiffs) called decedent and learned he had fallen off his bike and appeared to be disoriented. Plaintiff wife called defendant to request a search for her husband. Defendant declined to search that night. After learning of this, the wife asked friends to search for her husband. Very early the next morning, a friend of plaintiffs found decedent who had died from hypothermia. The Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to state causes of action for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, it affirmed the demurrer as to the cause of action alleging deprivation of constitutional rights. (C.A. 4th, November 20, 2018.)
Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
