Case Summaries
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[08/15]
RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare W.
In a contract matter, order denying defendants' motions to compel arbitration is reversed where: 1) the trial court lacked discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 to deny arbitration of causes of action covered by the arbitration clause; and 2) battery-related tort claims did not come within the arbitration clause.
[08/13]
Estate of Thottam
In a mediation matter relating to distribution of assets to the three children of the deceased, judgment is reversed where: 1) there is nothing in Evidence Code section 1123(c) requiring that an express agreement in writing permitting disclosure be contained in a settlement agreement; 2) the court erred in reading a timing requirement into section 1123(c); 3) the mediation and facilitation confidentiality agreement satisfied the exception to mediation confidentiality under section 1123(c); and 4) there was sufficient evidence before the court to establish the preliminary fact that a chart created at the mediation was a settlement agreement for purposes of section 1123(c).
[08/11]
Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC
In an optometrist's action claiming employment discrimination based on his military service and his age, order staying the action and compelling arbitration of the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly held that the claims at issue were subject to the arbitration clause of the employment agreement; 2) Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claims are arbitrable; and 3) the district court properly determined that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim of unlicensed practice of optometry.
[08/07]
Youngs v. Am. Nutrition, Inc.
In a dispute between minority and majority shareholders of a closely held corporation involving allegations that the majority usurped the company's corporate opportunities and transferred its assets to the detriment of the minority, orders confirming an arbitration award and awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are affirmed where: 1) majority shareholders failed to show that the award should be vacated due to arbitrator's failure to resolve one particular controversy; 2) they failed to show an abuse of the extremely broad discretion granted to the arbitrator with regard to other disputed issues; 3) there was no error in refusing to consider certain evidence submitted with a motion to vacate the award; 4) there was no merit to a claim that appellants were denied an opportunity to present evidence or participate in the arbitration; and 5) there was no error in setting the date on which pre-judgment interest was to end and post-judgment interest was to begin.
[08/06]
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.
[07/23]
Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.
[07/23]
Thompson v. Toll Dublin, LLC
In a matter involving various fraud-related claims arising from the purchase of condominiums built and/or sold by defendants, denial of defendants' petition to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration agreement did not apply to plaintiffs' fraud-related claims; and 2) the arbitration provisions were, in any event, unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
[07/21]
Simmons v. Ghaderi
In a breach of contract action arising from a medical malpractice suit, wherein plaintiffs sought to enforce an oral settlement agreement allegedly formed during mediation, a ruling upholding a decision to admit evidence relating to the mediation proceedings is reversed where: 1) the court of appeal improperly relied on the doctrine of estoppel to create a judicial exception to the comprehensive statutory scheme of mediation confidentiality; and 2) the evidence relating to the mediation proceedings should not have been admitted at trial.
[07/18]
Salmon Run Shopping Ctr. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
An NLRB order requiring a shopping mall operator to allow a union to distribute literature on mall premises is vacated where the mall operator did not improperly discriminate against the union under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
[06/03]
Baychester Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd.
San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board's decision finding plaintiff-shopping center liable for rent overpayments charged to a tenant is affirmed over a claim that plaintiff could not be held liable for unlawful rent increases imposed by a former landlord.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[08/20]
Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.
[08/20]
Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
[08/20]
Piscitelli v. Salesian Society
In a negligence action against defendant-Salesian Society for failing to protect plaintiff from childhood sexual abuse at the hands of one of defendant's priests, judgment against defendant is affirmed where, if it is relevant to the issue, a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction in order to show bias, without regard to the nature of the underlying crime as it relates to the character traits of honesty and truthfulness.
[08/20]
Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.
In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.
[08/19]
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.
[08/19]
Pelton-Shephard Indus. v. Delta Pkg. Products, Inc.
In an action to recover damages owed by defendant-distributor related to terminated distribution agreement, default judgment for plaintiff company is reversed where: 1) the trial court failed in its responsibilities under the Civil Discovery Act; 2) the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to compel after the discovery motion cutoff date when plaintiff had not moved to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050; and 3) the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for relief from the waiver of objection because defendant's failure to timely respond to the inspection demands was the result of its attorney's excusable neglect.
[08/19]
Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.
[08/19]
King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.
[08/19]
US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.
[08/19]
Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.
More...
Workers' Comp
[08/18]
US v. Simpson
A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information.
[08/11]
Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr.
In an employee's suit alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and state worker's compensation law, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) an interference claim failed because evidence regarding plaintiff's invocation of FMLA, and defendant's requests that she provide adequate medical certification, did not demonstrate that plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA and that defendant denied her FMLA benefits to which she was entitled; 2) defendant could not be deemed to have retaliated against plaintiff by asking her to fulfill her obligations under the FMLA; and 3) a state-law retaliation claim failed as defendant articulated a valid basis for terminating plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to show that such basis was pretext.
[08/08]
Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code section 44043.
[08/06]
C&C Marine Maint. Co. v. Bellows
A Benefits Review Board (BRB) order holding petitioner-employer liable to respondent-employee for disability compensation is affirmed where: 1) the deadline for filing a claim was tolled until respondent became or should have become aware of the relationship between his injury and his employment, and his claim was therefore timely; 2) substantial evidence supported the BRB's finding that the employment injury aggravated respondent's pre-existing arthritic condition; 3) petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to overcome a presumption that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition; and 4) petitioner was not eligible for relief from payments under 33 U.S.C. section 908(f).
[08/06]
C&C Marine Maint. Co. v. Bellows
A Benefits Review Board (BRB) order holding petitioner-employer liable to respondent-employee for disability compensation is affirmed where: 1) the deadline for filing a claim was tolled until respondent became or should have become aware of the relationship between his injury and his employment, and his claim was therefore timely; 2) substantial evidence supported the BRB's finding that the employment injury aggravated respondent's pre-existing arthritic condition; 3) petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to overcome a presumption that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition; and 4) petitioner was not eligible for relief from payments under 33 U.S.C. section 908(f).
[08/06]
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.
[08/04]
Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.
[07/29]
US v. Webber
Conviction for making false statements to obtain federal employees' compensation benefits is affirmed, and the sentence is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, where: 1) the failure of the indictment to allege that the amount of loss was in excess of one thousand dollars and the omission of an instruction requiring a jury finding on the amount of loss were harmless; 2) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant acted willfully; 3) a jury instruction on willfullness was proper; but 4) an order to pay restitution in excess of the government's losses constituted an illegal sentence.
[07/22]
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles
In a case brought by certain retired deputy sheriffs challenging Los Angeles county's policies concerning payment for excess accumulated vacation hours, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the policy discriminated against deputies suffering work-related injuries in violation of Labor Code section 4850.
[05/20]
Ramirez v. Murdick
In a claim for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for the late payment of Workers' Compensation benefits, summary judgment for the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the remedies under section 2357 do not apply since payment was mailed by the defendant within the thirty day period; and 2) the court did not err in converting plaintiff's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment since the plaintiff could not recover under the facts.
More...
|
