California Case Summaries ADR™
Five New Published California Civil Cases
From December 17 to December 28, 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 and family law 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 SUPREME COURT
Landlord-Tenant
Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 6597341: The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that an owner of real property that acquires title to property under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust must perfect title by recording the trustee deed before serving a three-day written notice to quit required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a(b). (December 17, 2018.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Cox v. Bonni (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6598930: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting a motion for reconsideration and confirming a judgment for defendant following an arbitration of a claim for medical malpractice where plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently performed a hysterectomy. Although the neutral arbitrator did not provide his disclosures regarding new defense counsel within the time required by statute, plaintiff forfeited her challenge by not objecting to the disclosures until ten months later when the arbitration award was issued. The trial court erred when it initially vacated the judgment based upon the arbitration award due to the neutral arbitrator’s untimely disclosures. It correctly granted reconsideration and affirmed the judgment because plaintiff’s objection to the late disclosure was untimely. (C.A. 2nd, December 17, 2018.)
Howard v. Goldbloom (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6715755: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal ruled that the lawsuit dispute did not fall within any of the four arbitration agreements, all of which related to plaintiff’s employment with Kaggle, Inc. Instead, plaintiff’s claim was rooted in, and any harm he suffered was measured by, his rights as a company stockholder. The dispute was whether defendants wrongfully diluted the value of his shares, breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff as a minority stockholder, and unjustly enriched themselves at his expense. Defendants’ fiduciary duties to minority shareholders and alleged wrongs existed independently of any employment relationship between plaintiff and Kaggle. (C.A. 1st, December 21, 2018.)
Attorney Fees
Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6804470: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff attorney fees and costs of $2,636.90 in response to plaintiff’s motion requesting $89,445 in lodestar attorney fees with a 1.5 enhancement of $44,722.50 plus $5,059.05 in costs in an action brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code, section 1790 et seq.) After admitting the vehicle qualified for repurchase, defendant made two offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998): one in March 2015, to which plaintiffs objected and the trial court found was impermissibly vague, and a second in June 2016, offering to pay plaintiffs $65,000 in exchange for the vehicle’s return. Following the second offer, the parties negotiated a settlement in which defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs $76,000 and deem them the prevailing parties for purposes of seeking an award of attorney fees. The Court of Appeal, agreeing with plaintiffs that the ultimate recovery was double the estimated value of defendant’s invalid March 2015 section 998 offer, ruled that the trial court abused its discretion and erred by cutting off all attorney fees and costs incurred after that offer. (C.A. 4th, filed December 6, 2018, published December 27, 2018.)
Torts
Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6696021: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of two corporation defendants in a personal injury action. Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in a pickup truck involved in a single vehicle, rollover accident. He sued the driver (his father), the corporation that employed the driver, and an affiliated corporation that owned the vehicle. The evidence showed defendants required the driver to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond immediately to cell phone calls for repairs and maintenance needed at the ranches, farms and dairies operated by defendants. There was also conflicting evidence about whether the driver was required to use the company-owned vehicle, which contained tools and spare parts, at all times so he could respond quickly to call for repairs at defendants’ various locations. Based on this evidence and other details about the driver’s job, the Court of Appeal ruled that a reasonable trier of fact could find the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. (C.A. 5th, December 20, 2018.)
Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
