California Case Summaries Free™: February 2019

California Case Summaries: Free™
Five New Published California Civil Cases
February 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:
this free issue is missing my 34 other summaries of new California civil and family law cases published in February 2019. To get my short, organized case summaries of EVERY new civil and family law case published each month subscribe to California Case Summaries: Monthly™ for $24.99 a month per attorney, judge or neutral. There is no other monthly publication like this. To subscribe now, click here.

2018 Annual Summaries: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published in 2018 are in California Case Summaries: Annual 2018™ for $499.99 per year per attorney/judge/neutral. There is no other annual publication like this. To subscribe to the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer multi-user issues for law firms, superior courts and ADR providers so they can buy the right to give a copy to every attorney, judge or neutral. To get the right 2018 multi-user option for your organization, click here.

Quarterly Summaries: Short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published in the prior quarter are in California Case Summaries: Quarterly™ for $99.99 per quarter per attorney/judge/neutral. There is no other quarterly publication like this. To subscribe to the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer multi-user issues for law firms, superior courts and ADR providers so they can buy the right to give a copy to every attorney, judge or neutral. To get the right multi-user issue for your organization, click here.

 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Civil Procedure

Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 962324: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. In the second stage of an anti-SLAPP hearing, when determining a plaintiff’s probability of success, a court may consider statements that are the equivalent of affidavits and declarations because they were made under oath or penalty of perjury in California. In this case, change of plea forms, factual narratives, and excerpts from grand jury testimony satisfied this requirement. A court may consider affidavits, declarations, and their equivalents only if it is reasonably possible the proffered evidence set out in those statements will be admissible at trial. Conversely, if the evidence relied upon cannot be admitted at trial, because it is categorically barred or undisputed factual circumstances show inadmissibility, the court may not consider it in the face of an objection. If an evidentiary objection is made, the plaintiff may attempt to cure the asserted defect or demonstrate the defect is curable. (February 28, 2019.)

Employment

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 470963: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision that had allowed an employee to bring causes of action for unpaid wages against a payroll company for the employer for breach of the payroll company’s contract with the employer under the third party beneficiary doctrine, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The California Supreme Court ruled that an employee may not be viewed as a third party beneficiary who may maintain an action against the payroll company for an alleged breach of the contract between the employer and the payroll company with regard to the payment of wages. Moreover, an employee who alleges that he or she has not been paid wages that are due cannot maintain tort causes of action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against a payroll company. (February 7, 2019.)


CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Arbitration

Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 910979: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a petition to compel arbitration of all causes of action in a wage and hour case, except the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Labor Code, section 2699 et seq.) claim, and staying the PAGA claim until the conclusion of the arbitration. The trial court acted within its discretion in considering plaintiffs’ response to the arbitration petition even though plaintiffs filed the response after the statutory deadline. The California Supreme Court decision of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held unenforceable agreements to waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum, remains binding on California courts. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) __ U.S. __ [138 S.Ct. 1612] (Epic), does not change this result. While Epic reaffirmed the broad preemptive scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, it did not address the specific issues before the Iskanian court involving a claim for civil penalties brought on behalf of the government and the enforceability of an agreement barring a PAGA representative action in any forum. The trial court also properly declined to compel arbitration of the PAGA claim and stayed that issue until after the arbitration. (C.A. 4th, February 25, 2019.)

Civil Procedure

Sunrise Financial, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 476095: The Court of Appeal denied a writ petition challenging the trial court’s denial of a Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge by several defendants to the trial judge on the basis that it was untimely filed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court properly found defendants’ section 170.6 challenge was untimely because it was filed more than 15 days after they made an appearance in the action by filing an opposition to a Code of Civil Procedure section 403 transfer/consolidation motion in the judge’s department. While the section 170.6 time deadlines were not written with section 403 transfer motions in mind, this conclusion best effectuates the legislative intent when viewing the specific words of the statute and the statutory purpose and objectives. (C.A. 4th, February 7, 2019.)

Elder Abuse

Darrin v. Miller (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 337088: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition for a restraining order under Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Elder Abuse Act; Welfare & Institutions Code, section 15600 et seq.). The trial court erred in denying the petition because the restraining order was requested against a neighbor. The Court of Appeal ruled that the plain language of the Elder Abuse Act authorizes a trial court to issue a restraining order against any individual who has engaged in abusive conduct, as defined by statute, toward a person age 65 or older regardless of the relationship between the alleged abuser and victim. (Welfare & Institutions Code, sections 15610.07(a)(1) and 15657.03.) (C.A. 1st, filed January 28, 2019, published February 21, 2019.)

 

Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved