California Case Summaries Civil™
Summaries of Every New Published California Civil Case
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
For ADR Services, Inc. scheduling, contact my case manager Kelsey Carroll
Phone: (619) 233-1323. Email: Kelsey@adrservices.org
ADR Web: http://montymcintyre.com/mcintyre
Civil Trial Lawyer | ABOTA National Board Member | Ca. attorney since 1980
To discuss potential representation in a civil case, contact Monty McIntyre
Phone: (619) 990-4312. Email: monty@montymcintyre.com
Law Web: http://montymcintyre-law.com/law
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Civil Procedure
Kurwa v. Kislinger (2017) _ Cal.5th _ , 2017 WL 6419309: The California Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal. After some of plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, the parties agreed to dismiss their remaining claims against one another without prejudice and to waive the applicable statutes of limitations. However, the California Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s judgment was not final and appealable because the parties had effectively preserved their remaining claims for future litigation. (Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097.) Plaintiff then attempted to finalize the judgment by dismissing his own outstanding claims with prejudice, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that no appeal would lie unless defendant also disposed of his outstanding cross-claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal because the trial court still had taken no action to render a final and appealable judgment. It ruled, however, that the trial court had the power to take further action. So long as no final and appealable judgment had been entered in the case, the trial court retained the authority to render one. (December 18, 2017.)
Torts
T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (2017) _ Cal.5th _ , 2017 WL 6521684: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling directing the trial court to sustain a demurrer but grant leave to amend in a case where plaintiff alleged that defendant manufacturer failed to properly warn about known or reasonably knowable adverse effects arising from the use of its drug. Because the same warning label must appear on a brand-name drug as well as a generic bioequivalent, a brand-name drug manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care in ensuring that the label includes appropriate warnings, regardless of whether the end user has been dispensed the brand-name drug or its generic bioequivalent. If the person exposed to the generic drug can reasonably allege that the brand-name drug manufacturer’s failure to update its warning label foreseeably and proximately caused physical injury, then the brand-name manufacturer’s liability for its own negligence does not automatically terminate merely because the brand-name manufacturer transferred its rights in the brand-name drug to a successor manufacturer. (December 21, 2017.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Appeal
Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6540924: See summary below under Arbitration.
Arbitration
Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6540924: In consolidated proceedings, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration because it was not appealable, but it granted a writ petition challenging the trial court’s order. The trial court erred in bifurcating the underpaid wages portion of plaintiff’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, Labor Code, section 2698 et seq.) claim and ordering arbitration of that portion of the PAGA claim. (C.A. 4th, December 19. 2017.)
Civil Procedure
Boyd v. Freeman (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6505856: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, in an action for wrongful foreclosure. The trial court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata barred plaintiff’s claims because of a judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff in a prior action. Because the prior judgment was based upon the statute of limitations, it was not on the merits and res judicata did not bar plaintiff’s claims. (C.A. 2nd, December 20, 2017.)
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6524707: See summary below under Employment.
Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6484032: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a writ petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the California Environmental Quality Act. The trial court properly imposed an issue sanction on standing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.0301, which terminated the action, for the misuse of the discovery process by petitioner by repeatedly failing to make available for a deposition a PMQ for petitioner. (C.A. 4th, filed November 28, 2017, published December 19, 2017.)
Rossetta v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6422567: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint alleging several causes of action related to loan modification negotiations spanning more than two years. The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the causes of action for negligence and violations of the Unfair Competition Law, it properly sustained the demurrer to the causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, but should have granted leave to amend to attempt to state a viable cause of action based on an alleged oral promise to provide plaintiff with a Trial Period Plan under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, and the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion without leave to amend. (C.A. 3rd, December 18, 2017.)
Santa Clara Waste Water Company v. Allied World National Assurance Company (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6505857: See summary below under Insurance.
SP Investment Fund I LLC v. Cattell (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6523523: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders granting judgment on the pleadings and awarding attorney fees to defendant in an action for breach of contract and conversion arising from the sale of a limited partnership interest. The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff’s failure to obtain necessary approvals from other partners was not fatal to the breach of contract claim and, because the money at issue was a specific identifiable sum held for the benefit of another that allegedly had been misappropriated, a claim for conversion could be made. (C.A. 2nd, December 21, 2017.)
Turley v. Familian Corporation (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6546314: See summary below under Torts.
Constitution
Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6461994: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a writ petition on the basis that it found that respondent had not correctly determined whether conditions imposed on a federal and state storm water permit by a regional water quality control board were state mandates. Following the analysis in Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, the Court of Appeal ruled that respondent had applied the correct standard in concluding that the permit requirements were state mandates and subvention of funds was required. (C.A. 3rd, December 19, 2017.)
Contracts
Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6547078: See summary below under Evidence.
Education
Yuba City Unified School District v. California State Teachers’ Retirement System (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6421385: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a writ petition and setting aside respondent’s decision to collect overpayments mistakenly made to some of the petitioner’s retirees. The trial court erred in ruling that the three-year statute of limitations in Education Code section 22008(c) barred collection of the overpayments because a 2005 letter respondent sent to one of the retirees demonstrated actual notice of the payment issues. The letter did not reflect actual notice of the specific payment issues in question. The Court of Appeal ruled that inquiry notice would be sufficient to start the limitations period, but whether respondent had inquiry notice was a question of fact that was not addressed at the administrative level or by the trial court. (C.A. 3rd, December 18, 2017.)
Employment
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6524707: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication of every discrimination and other claim brought by plaintiff. Plaintiff was a severely obese woman who was fired by defendant after working there for fifteen years. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of showing that plaintiff could not establish at least one element of her claims regarding the claims requiring plaintiff to show that her obesity had a physiological cause. The trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims alleging that defendant discriminated against and harassed plaintiff and terminated her in violation of public policy. It also erred in granting summary adjudication on the defamation claim. The trial court properly granted summary adjudication of the FEHA claims alleging that defendant failed to accommodate plaintiff’s disability, retaliated against her, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. (C.A. 1st, December 21, 2017.)
Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6629408: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant in a case where plaintiff sued alleging individual and class claims for wage and hour violations, and seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees under Labor Code section 2698 et seq., the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Plaintiff’s individual claims were ordered to arbitration. While the arbitration was pending, plaintiff accepted an offer to settle his individual claims and dismiss those claims with prejudice. The trial court properly granted summary judgment because, after he settled and dismissed his individual claims against defendant with prejudice, plaintiff no longer had standing under the PAGA as an aggrieved employee. (C.A. 2nd, December 29, 2017.)
Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6540924: See summary above under Arbitration.
Environment
L.A. Conservancy v. City of West Hollywood (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 5899656: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition challenging the approval by defendant of a development project known as “the Melrose Triangle” project. The trial court properly rejected petitioner’s arguments that the environmental impact report was flawed in its analysis of alternatives to the project, that respondent failed to respond to public comments, and that respondent’s finding that an alternative to the project was infeasible was not supported by substantial evidence. (C.A. 2nd, filed November 30, 2017, published December 22, 2017.)
Evidence
Kanno v. Marwit Capital Partners II (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6547078: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, following a jury verdict for plaintiff against defendants, that the parol evidence rule did not bar plaintiff’s breach of oral contract claim. The Court of Appeal ruled as follows: under Delaware law, an integration clause is not conclusive evidence the parties intended their written contract to be their complete agreement. The three written agreements in the case were at most partial integrations, and the oral agreement was enforceable if its terms did not directly contradict and were consistent with those three agreements. There was no direct contradiction or inconsistency between the oral agreement and the terms of the three written agreements. Finally, plaintiff had standing to sue for breach of the oral agreement. (C.A. 4th, December 22, 2017.)
Government
Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6461994: See summary above under Constitution.
L.A. Conservancy v. City of West Hollywood (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 5899656: See summary above under Environment.
Insurance
Santa Clara Waste Water Company v. Allied World National Assurance Company (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6505857: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s application for a prejudgment attachment for $2.5 million plus costs and interest under Code of Civil Procedure section 484.090(a). Defendant and cross-complainant (defendant) insurance carrier sued plaintiff and a subsidiary company for declaratory relief, reimbursement of defense costs and expenses, unjust enrichment, fraud, rescission, and unlawful business practices related to a truck explosion and chemical spillage that caused a fire. The trial court properly granted the writ applications because defendant established the probable validity of its implied contract and rescission claims. The evidence supported the applicability of the “intentional noncompliance” policy exclusion, and established that misrepresentations had been made about hazardous waste discharge in making the policy application. (C.A. 2nd, December 20, 2017.)
Partnerships
SP Investment Fund I LLC v. Cattell (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6523523: See summary above under Civil Procedure.
Torts
Turley v. Familian Corporation (2017) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2017 WL 6546314: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant in an asbestos case. The trial court erred in concluding that the deposition testimony of a witness conclusively negated his prior declaration testimony as to asbestos exposure, and erred in refusing to consider the deposition testimony under D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1. (C.A. 1st, December 22, 2017.)
Copyright © 2017 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
