California Case Summaries: Free™
Five New California Civil Cases Published In April 2019
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: 40 new California civil and family law case were published last month. To get summaries of every new published civil and family case in your practice areas, subscribe today to one of our publications listed below.
Our Other Publications
California Case Summaries: Annual™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each year for $499.99 per person. We offer a single-user issue and discounted multi-user issues. To subscribe, click here.
California Case Summaries: Quarterly™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each quarter for $99.99 per person. We offer a single-user issue and discounted multi-user issues. To subscribe, click here.
California Case Summaries: Monthly™: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published each month for $24.99 per person. We offer a single-user issue and discounted multi-user issues. To subscribe, click here.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Employment
Melendez v. S.F. Baseball Associates LLC (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 1848722: The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal finding that a wage and hour action by security guards at what is now named Oracle Park in San Francisco was preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 United States Code, section 185(a). The California Supreme Court ruled that the lawsuit did not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the guards’ union and the San Francisco Giants. Although the agreement might be relevant to the lawsuit and might need to be consulted to resolve it, the Supreme Court ruled that the dispute would be decided on the interpretation of state law, the meaning of “discharge” under Labor Code section 201, rather than an interpretation of the agreement. Because no party had identified any provision of the agreement whose meaning was uncertain and required interpretation to resolve plaintiffs’ claim, the lawsuit was not preempted and state courts could decide it on the merits. (April 25, 2019.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1552361: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition to compel arbitration in an action alleging workplace discrimination. Because plaintiff continued her employment after notification that an agreement to arbitration was a condition of continued employment, plaintiff impliedly consented to the arbitration agreement. The record contained no evidence of surprise, nor of sharp practices demonstrating substantive unconscionability. Because plaintiff failed to specify, with appropriate citations to the record and relevant legal authority, any terms of the agreement that she believed were unconscionable she waived any argument that the agreement was unenforceable. (C.A. 2nd, April 10, 2019.)
Civil Code
Taniguchi v. Restoration Homes (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1923068: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action alleging defendant violated Civil Code section 2924c. The Court of Appeal ruled that, to cure a default and reinstate the loan under section 2924c, the borrowers need not pay the amount of an earlier default on the original loan (which had been deferred under a loan modification to the end of the loan term). They are only required to pay the missed modified monthly payments that caused a default on the modified loan. (C.A. 1st, April 30, 2019.)
Civil Procedure
Workman v. Colichman (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1466957: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) in a complaint by a property owner against her neighbors alleging that the neighbors caused a sale to fall through by sending an email to the owner’s real estate agent claiming that defendants planned to make changes to their property that would destroy the view from plaintiff’s property. The trial court properly ruled that defendants failed to demonstrate that their actions were connected to a public issue. Information about the views from a private residence affecting only those directly interested in buying or selling that house is not an issue of public interest. (C.A. 2nd, April 3, 2019.)
Torts
Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1594460: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on an intentional misrepresentation claim and denying its motion for JNOV on a concealment claim after the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in an asbestos case and awarded plaintiff economic damages of $776,201 and noneconomic damages of $9.25 million. The Court of Appeal also reversed the trial court’s order limiting defendant’s noneconomic damage liability to its percentage of fault under Civil Code section 1431.2. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court properly granted one JNOV (because plaintiff failed to prove reliance) and denied the other. However, because defendant was liable for the intentional tort of concealment, defendant was jointly and severally liable for all of plaintiff’s noneconomic damages. (C.A. 1st, April 15, 2019.)
Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
