California Case Summaries: Free™
Five New California Civil Cases Published In May 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: 45 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
Civil Procedure
Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 1984289: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the application of the anti-deficiency rule in Code of Civil Procedure section 580d. When a creditor holds two deeds of trust on the same property, section 580d does not preclude the creditor from recovering a deficiency judgment on the junior lien extinguished by a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the senior lien. (May 6, 2019.)
Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) _ Cal.5th _ , 2019 WL 2292828: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal directing it to affirm the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award but denying costs to respondent. A request for costs under section 998 is timely if filed with the arbitrator within 15 days of a final award. An arbitrator has authority to award costs to the requesting party, but if the arbitrator refuses to award costs, judicial review is limited. (May 30, 2019.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Attorney Fees
Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 2238428: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the trial court’s orders granting attorney fees in an action where plaintiff prevailed on its complaint to recover on a promissory note and also defeated defendant’s cross-complaint to recover allegedly unpaid wages. The trial court found that defendant had not brought the wage claim in bad faith and declined to award plaintiff attorney fees incurred solely in connection with the wage claim, but it awarded plaintiff attorney fees incurred in defending the wage claim that were inextricably intertwined with the contract claim. The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that, unless a trial court finds a wage claim was brought in bad faith, Labor Code section 218.5(a) prohibits, as a matter of law, an award of attorney fees to a nonemployee prevailing party for successfully defending a wage claim that is inextricably intertwined with a claim subject to a contractual prevailing party attorney fees provision. To the extent the wage claim and the contract claim are inextricably intertwined, section 218.5(a)’s prohibition on recovering attorney fees controls over the contractual attorney fees provision. (C.A. 4th, May 24, 2019.)
Arbitration
Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1929662: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting in part, and denying in part (as to one cause of action for lost wages) defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour action. The trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce under 9 U.S.C. § 1 and thus exempt from Federal Arbitration Action coverage. Even though plaintiff did not physically transport goods across state lines, his employer was in the transportation industry, and the vast majority of the goods he transported originated outside California. Thus, California Labor Code section 229 required staying the prosecution of his cause of action for unpaid wages while the other five causes of action proceeded to arbitration. (C.A. 4th, May 1, 2019.)
Civil Procedure
Global Financial Distributors v. Superior Court (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 2083249: The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate and reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum because it was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(e). The Court of Appeal ruled that section 410.30 applies after a defendant has made a general appearance, and because defendants filed their motion to stay or dismiss on the ground of inconvenient forum after they had appeared in the action by filing demurrers, section 410.30 applied, and the motion was not untimely under section 418.10(e). (C.A. 2nd, filed April 16, 2019, published May 13, 2019.)
Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
