• People v. Douglas
    In a recent case, People v. Douglas – filed April 11, 2017, in the Third District of
    California, 2017 S.O.S. 1906, the court held that excluding prospective jurors solely on
    the basis of sexual orientation is violative of due process and equal protection. Where a
    prosecutor shows both neutral and non-neutral basis for excusing gay veniremen, the
    excusal is justified only if it can be shown that the prospective jurors would have been
    challenged even without considering their sexual orientation. Both the state and federal
    constitutions prohibit using peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors based
    solely on group bias. Such a practice also violates the defendant’s right to equal
    protection under the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. The Appellate
    Court ruled that the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether the sexual
    orientation based reasons for challenging the jurors were not determinative and that
    there were neutral and non-discriminatory reasons supporting the challenges. If the trial
    court were to determine that the sexual orientation based reasons were determinative,
    that is, there were no supportable neutral and non-discriminatory reasons for the
    challenges, the trial court would have to order a new trial.
    Read moreless
  • Animal Protection and Rescue League v. City of San Diego
    A municipality may be considered an “opposing part[y]” for purposes of the private attorney general fee statute, Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5, when it confesses error in response to a petition for writ of mandate challenging the municipality’s action.
    Read moreless
  • Leonard v. Super. Ct. (Retailers’ Credit Association of Grass Valley, Inc.)
    In a case involving how a limited civil case (here a cross-complaint) gets reclassified as an unlimited civil case, where petitioner filed, through counsel, an amended cross-complaint that added a cross-defendant and added causes of action that increased the amount in controversy to over $25,000 and tried twice to pay the court clerk the reclassification fee, the trial court was required to reclassify the case.
    Read moreless
  • US v. Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Rd., Hawkins Bar, CA
    In a case involving the civil forfeiture of real property, the district court’s default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture,entered after the court granted the government’s motion to strike Pickle’s claim and answer based on Pickle’s failure to respond to special interrogatories the government propounded pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiraltyor Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(6)(c)(i)(A), is reversed where failure to answer the Rule G(6) special interrogatories is not a per se basis for striking the claim, and such a conclusion is incorrect as a matter of law.
    Read moreless
  • Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC
    In an action arising out of plaintiff's purchased of a purportedly defective 'certified pre?owned' BMW from auto dealer-defendant, alleging violations of the Magnuson?Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. section 2301 et seq., and New York State law, the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint -- on grounds that the value of plaintiff's MMWA claims did not amount to $50,000 and that she could neither amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages under the MMWA, nor rely on the value of her state?law claims, to meet the jurisdictional threshold -- is reversed where the value of plaintiff's MMWA claims, as pled, exceeds $50,000.
    Read moreless
  • Higgins v. Higgins
    In a trust case in which a wife agreed to hold funds in trust for her husband's elderly stepmother, and after her husband's death, the wife changed the form of the accounts and used the funds for her own purpose, the trial court's judgment in favor of wife-defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is reversed where, despite the form of the bank accounts, when clear and convincing evidence shows funds were transferred to an account owner to hold in an irrevocable trust for a third party beneficiary and the trustee repudiates the trust, a constructive trust may be imposed on the funds for the beneficiary's estate to prevent unjust enrichment.
    Read moreless
  • Ford Motor Warranty Cases
    In a petition for writ of mandate in an underlying Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1 coordination action involving 470 civil cases, alleging Ford breached warranties with respect to cars equipped with the DPS6 transmission, and in which the coordination judge refused to add to the coordination proceeding 467 substantively indistinguishable cases in the same counties, the petition is granted where: 1) a trial judge's order declining to add cases to a coordination proceeding, like the coordination motion judge's original order, is subject to our independent review; and 2) the trial court erred in refusing to add the cases to the proceeding.
    Read moreless
  • San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State
    In an anti-SLAPP Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 case within an underlying dispute alleging the contracts between a public broadcasting media and an independent nonprofit journalism organization violate statutory prohibitions on self-dealing involving public funds, the trial court's order granting the anti-SLAPP motions is affirmed over plaintiff's claim that assertion that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply because its lawsuit targets unlawful self-dealing, not protected speech.
    Read moreless
  • Chung v. Studentcity.com
    In a wrongful death action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, a provider of vacations for students, is reversed where the court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of causation after allowing no discovery on the issue and receiving no briefing on the matter from the parties.
    Read moreless
  • In Re Marriage of Honer
    In this dissolution of a 27-year marriage. the court’s division of community property and spousal support are affirmed over the ex-wife’s claims of error regarding the valuation of the couple’s two grocery stores and the amount of spousal support awarded.
    Read moreless
  • People v. VanVleck
    Vehicle Code section 23640 prohibits military diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.80 for defendants charged with driving under the influence offenses in violation of sections 23152 and 23153.
    Read moreless
  • Sullivan v. McDonald
    In an appeal of the Veterans Court decision concluding that the Department of Veterans Affairs had satisfied its duty to assist claimant with his request to reopen his claim, the Veterans Court's decision is reversed and remanded where it misconstrued 38 C.F.R. section 3.159(c)(3).
    Read moreless
  • Yolanda's, Inc. v. Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate
    In an appeal from a post-judgment discovery order arising from a third party judgment debtor examination in an underlying action involving a breach of lease, the petition for writ of mandate is denied where the scope of questions asked by a judgment creditor in a third party judgment debtor examination may include the location of assets no longer in the possession of the third party, Code Civ. Proc. sections 708.120, 708.130, 187.
    Read moreless
  • Clary v. City of Crescent City
    In a petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094 challenging the City's determinations that the overgrown weeds and rubbish on his lots constitute a public nuisance that required abatement and, when he refused to abate the nuisance, that a lien be placed on his lots for the City's abatement costs, the trial court's denial of the petition is affirmed where the City acted lawfully.
    Read moreless
  • Prather v. Sprint Communications, Inc.
    In a False Claims Act suit brought the U.S. Government against Sprint Communications, the district court's order denying appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) motion to intervene as of right is affirmed where: 1) although his appeal is not moot, he did not have a significantly protectable interest in the government's False Claims Act suit; and 2) his prior filing of a related, but jurisdictionally barred, qui tam action did not entitle him to any award under the False Claims Act.
    Read moreless
  • Fox Factory, Inc. v. Super. Ct.
    In an action for personal injuries brought in Santa Clara, CA, against a manufacturer of bicycle components, alleging negligence, strict products liability, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty for a particular purpose, defendant's petition to review trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff's lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is granted where the court applied the wrong legal standard in denying the motion.
    Read moreless
  • F5 Capital v. Pappas
    In a a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a company, alleging that individual members of the company's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control of the corporation in entering into three separate self-dealing transactions, the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; 2) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and 3) plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand.
    Read moreless
  • Lewis v. Clarke
    In a personal injury suit brought against an employee of a tribal casino, who was involved in an auto accident while acting in the scope of his employment, the Supreme Court of Connecticut's judgment granting defendant's to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is reversed where: 1) in a suit brought against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, the employee, not the tribe, is the real party in interest and the tribe's sovereign immunity is not implicated; and 2) an indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual employees who would otherwise not fall under its protective cloak.
    Read moreless
  • Jackson v. Mayweather
    In a suit brought following the break up of plaintiff's relationship with a former boxing champion, alleging invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on defendant's social media postings about the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy and its relationship to the couple's separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which plaintiff had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures, the trial court's denial of defendant's special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed as to with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well as her cause of action for public disclosure of private facts based on defendant's comments about plaintiff's cosmetic surgery. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
    Read moreless
  • Zarda v. Altitude Express
    In a suit brought by a skydiver who alleges that he was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor because of his sexual orientation, asserting that he was discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., and New York law, the district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) a panel of this Court could not overturn another panel's decision in Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000), which declined to hold that discrimination based on sexual orientation constituted discrimination based on sex for purposes of Title VII; and 2) plaintiff's argument that he is entitled to a new trial on his state-law claim because of alleged evidentiary errors, unfair discovery practices, and prejudicial arguments to the jury based on gay stereotypes is without merit.
    Read moreless
  • Dunson v. Cordis Corp.
    In a mass action in which defendant invoked the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) mass action provision as the basis for removing to federal court eight products liability suits filed against it in state court, the district court's judgment, holding that removal jurisdiction does not exist under CAFA's mass action provision and remanding the cases to state court, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs requested consolidation for purposes of pretrial proceedings, standing alone, does not trigger removal jurisdiction under CAFA's mass action provision; and 2) plaintiffs also requested consolidation for purposes of establishing a bellwether-trial process, but nothing they said indicated that they were referring to a bellwether trial whose results would have preclusive effect on the plaintiffs in the other cases.
    Read moreless
  • Thompson v. McDonald
    In a veterans case raising a question of first impression involving disability rating and the interpretation of 38 C.F.R. section 4.40 in light of section 4.71a, the Veterans Court judgment is affirmed where section 4.40 does not provide a basis for a rating separate from section 4.71a.
    Read moreless
  • Goethel v. US Dep't of Commerce
    In a commercial action, brought by a commercial fisherman challenging various provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where plaintiff's suit was not filed within the thirty-day statute of limitations.
    Read moreless
  • Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc.
    In an injury and tort action arising from plaintiff employee's collision with a motorcycle while commuting to defendant employer's yard and claim of respondeat superior liability, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where it's a material, triable issue of fact whether plaintiff's drive from his home to the yard was part of his commute or a business errand performed on the way to the jobsite.
    Read moreless
  • In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
    In consolidated appeals involve allegations that defendant companies holding the patents for Lipitor and Effexor XR delayed entry into the market of generic versions of those drugs by engaging in an overarching monopolistic scheme that involved fraudulently procuring and enforcing the underlying patents and then entering into a reverse-payment settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer, two of the district court's jurisdictional conclusions are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' allegations of fraudulent procurement and enforcement of the patents do not require the transfer these appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where patent law neither creates plaintiffs? cause of action nor is a necessary element to any of plaintiffs' well-pleaded claims; and 2) remanded as to RP Healthcare, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. appeal where it is unclear whether the District Court had jurisdiction at the time judgment was entered.
    Read moreless
  • The Urban Wildlands Group v. City of Los Angeles
    In an environmental action, challenging defendant city's finding that a project was exempt from formal environmental review, the trial court's grant of mandatory relief to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is reversed where: 1) such relief is limited to default, default judgments, and dismissal; and 2) the trial court's grant of judgment to defendant after plaintiff counsel failed to prepare and lodge the administrative record as stipulated does not fall within either category.
    Read moreless
  • Applied Medical Corporation v. Thomas
    In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.
    Read moreless
  • Diaz v. US
    In a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Contracting Officer's rejection of plaintiff's unsolicited proposal to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (IHEODTD) pursuant to 48 C.F.R. (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)) Subpart 15.6 (2015), the Claims Court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where there is lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) because he lacked standing under 28 U.S.C. section 1491(b)(1) (2012).
    Read moreless
  • Shaw v. Super. Ct.
    In a wrongful termination case brought against a hospital, alleging causes of action based on Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy pursuant to this court's decision in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, the Court of Appeals judgment in plaintiff's favor is: 1) affirmed in part, where a trial court ruling denying a request for a jury trial in a civil action is reviewable prior to trial by a petition for an extraordinary writ; and 2) reversed in part, where there is no statutory right to a jury trial in a cause of action for retaliatory termination under the statutorily created civil action authorized under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5(g) inasmuch as the language and legislative history of that statute demonstrate that the Legislature intended that the remedies available in such an action would be determined by the court rather than by a jury.
    Read moreless
  • Garcia v. Super. Ct. (S. Counties Express, Inc.)
    In an action brought by truck drivers challenging the grant of the motion of real party in interest to compel arbitration of petitioners’ wage and hour complaints to the Labor Commissioner, relief is granted where the evidence proferred in opposition to the motion to compel arbitration provided sufficient grounds for a hearing on the issues whether the parties’ agreements are exempt from the FAA’s preemptive application.
    Read moreless
  • Ashbey v. Archstone Property Management, Inc.
    In an employment case alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq. and equivalent state-law claims, the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration provision signed by plaintiff was enforceable.
    Read moreless
  • Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC
    In an action arising out of the arbitration of a licensing dispute among d, the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from selling unauthorized food items at the restaurants it operates, using certain trademarks, and arguing to to arbitral panel that it should be given additional time to cure any defaults, is: 1) affirmed in part, where the court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the menu offering and trademark use injunctions; and 2) reversed in part where it erred in enjoining defendant from arguing to the arbitral panel for an extended cure period.
    Read moreless
  • Freight Drivers and Helpers Local Union 557 Pension Fund v. Penske Logistics LLC
    A party to an arbitration proceeding under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) can obtain review of the arbitration order, as provided in 29 U.S.C. section 1401(b)(2), by commencing an action by filing a complaint. Here, the amended complaint related back to the filing date of the original complaint, thus rendering it timely.
    Read moreless
  • Flores v. Nature's Best Distribution, LLC
    In an action alleging several claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, denial of defendant's petition to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to prove plaintiff agreed to arbitrate a claim; and 2) the arbitration provision contained in the Agreement was unenforceable because it is unconscionable.
    Read moreless
  • Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark
    In a consolidated action brought by two family members holding powers of attorney for two decedents against a nursing home, alleging the substandard care had caused their deaths, the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision, that the arbitration agreements between the plaintiffs and the nursing home were invalid because neither power of attorney specifically entitled the representative to enter into an arbitration agreement, is reversed where the Kentucky Supreme Court's clear-statement rule violates the Federal Arbitration Act by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment.
    Read moreless
  • Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark
    In a consolidated action brought by two family members holding powers of attorney for two decedents against a nursing home, alleging the substandard care had caused their deaths, the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision, that the arbitration agreements between the plaintiffs and the nursing home were invalid because neither power of attorney specifically entitled the representative to enter into an arbitration agreement, is reversed where the Kentucky Supreme Court's clear-statement rule violates the Federal Arbitration Act by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment
    Read moreless
  • Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc.
    In an employment class action alleging violations the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201-219, as well as the Missouri minimum-wage statute, raising two questions of first impression, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) when a federal district court is confronted with a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. sections 1-16, in a case where the parties have delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the court mus first determine whether the FAA applies before compelling arbitration under the FAA; and 2) a provision of the FAA that exempts contracts of employment of transportation workers from the FAA's coverage, the section 1 exemption, applies to a transportation-worker agreement that establishes or purports to establish an independent-contractor relationship.
    Read moreless
  • Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.
    In a case involving the enforceability of an arbitration agreement included in the terms of a 'payday loan' obtained over the internet, alleging that defendant violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. section 1961 et seq., when defendant used its role within a network of financial institutions 'to conduct and participate in the collection of unlawful payday loans', the district court's judgment that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp., 811 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2016), and denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), is affirmed where the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and the lender is unenforceable.
    Read moreless
  • McGill v. Citibank
    In a dispute between a consumer and a credit card company involving the validity of a provision in a predispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum, the Court of Appeals' decision is reversed where: 1) such a provision is contrary to California public policy and is thus unenforceable under California law; and 2) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. section 1 et seq. does not preempt this rule of California law or require enforcement of the waiver provision.
    Read moreless
  • James v. Global TelLink Corp.
    In a putative class action brought by plaintiffs who used defendant's prison phone services, alleging unconscionable service fees, the district court's denial of defendants' motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs did not agree to be bound by the terms of use contained on defendant's website, as they never visited it; and thus 2) the district court properly held plaintiffs did not agree to arbitrate.
    Read moreless
  • Aliments Krispy Kernels Inc v. Nichols Farms
    In a suit to enforce an arbitration award plaintiff received against the defendant in a contract dispute, the district court's denial of plaintiff's petition to confirm and grant of defendant's petition to vacate is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where there is an issue of material fact exists as to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.
    Read moreless
  • Betancourt v. Prudential Overall Supply
    In a complaint seeking enforcement of the Labor Code under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Labor Code section 2698, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where, while a PAGA action might be subject to arbitration, relying on a predispute agreement with a private party will not suffice to compel arbitration of a PAGA claim.
    Read moreless
  • CBF Industria DeGusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.
    In consolidated appeals of actions to confirm a foreign arbitral award against defendant as alter?egos of the then?defunct award?debtor, the district court's dismissal of both actions is: 1) vacated as to No.15?1133 where the district court erred in a) determining the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. section 201, require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and b) in holding that appellants' fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly allege that defendants engaged in fraud; and 2) dismissed as moot as to No.15?1146.
    Read moreless
  • Emerald Aero v. Kaplan
    In defendant's appeal from a judgment confirming a $30 million arbitration award consisting of significant punitive damages, arising out of his conviction wire fraud and awarded after a hearing which defendant elected not to attend, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate the award is reversed where the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding punitive damages without adequate prior notice to defendant, in violation of the parties' arbitration agreement and fundamental procedural fairness principles.
    Read moreless
  • In re ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigation
    In a complaint allege that defendants delayed competitors from marketing generic versions of the diabetes drug ACTOS by falsely describing two patents to the Food and Drug Administration, thereby causing plaintiffs to pay monopoly prices for the drug in violation of state-law analogs of the Sherman Act, the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to plausibly allege that the false descriptions caused the delay is: 1) affirmed in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory posits a delay in the marketing of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants other than Teva, where plaintiffs' theory presupposes that these applicants were aware of Takeda's allegedly false patent descriptions when they filed their applications, which is not supported by well-pleaded allegations and 2) vacated in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory as to Teva does not require any knowledge of the false patent descriptions, where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Takeda delayed Teva?s market entry.
    Read moreless
  • Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hosp.
    In a suit by a former employee against her former hospital employer for violations of the California Labor Code and other statutes relating to meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime compensation, the trial court's denial of the hospital's motion to compel arbitraiton where: 1) this dispute is not over plaintiff's substantive rights, but instead the forum in which those rights are to be determined; 2) if those rights are to be determined only by arbitration, a collective bargaining agreement must make that clear; and 3) the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) here required arbitration of claims arising under the agreement, but it did not include an explicitly stated, clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to a judicial forum for claims based on statute.
    Read moreless
  • Prime Healthcare Services v. United Nurses and Allied Professionals
    In a dispute between employees and their successor employer, both of whom agreed to arbitrate, the district court's refusal to compel arbitration because it found that ERISA preempted arbitration of this dispute, which presented an issue of arbitrability properly decided by a judge, is reversed where the issue of ERISA preemption in this case is not an issue of arbitrability, but rather one that is squarely for the arbitrator to decide.
    Read moreless
  • Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co.
    In an employment class action, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to stay proceedings, compel arbitration of claims arising out of the plaintiff's employment, and dismiss class and representative claims, is reversed where: 1) although the Incentive Bonus Agreement was an adhesion contract, it was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable under California law; and 2) the dispute resolution provision was valid and enforceable once the judicial carve-out was extirpated and the waiver of representative claims was limited to non-PAGA claims.
    Read moreless
  • Iraq Middle Market Dev. v. Harmoosh
    In a case in which a creditor secured a judgment securing in Iraq for non-payment of a promissory note and sought to have a recognized in federal district court, the district court's judgment that the judgment was not entitled to recognition given that the parties had agreed to arbitrate their disputes, is vacated where genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the debtor lost his right to arbitrate by utilizing the Iraqi judicial process.
    Read moreless
  • Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees Int'l Union
    In a labor dispute involving four arbitration awards involving janitorial employees, the district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration awards were properly confirmed, based in large part upon the limited scope of this court's review of a labor-arbitration decision pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA); and 2) the Union waived its claim for attorneys' fees by not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.
    Read moreless
  • Norcia v. Samsung Telecom. Am., LLC
    In a class action complaint alleging that Samsung made misrepresentations as to the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone, the district court's order denying Samsung's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the Product and Safety & Warranty Information brochure in the Galaxy S4 box did not create a binding contract between plaintiffs and defendant to arbitrate the claims in plaintiff's complaint; 2) defendant failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exception to the general California rule that an offeree's silence did not constitute consent; and 3) the brochure was not enforceable as an in-the-box contract.
    Read moreless
  • CBF Industria De Gusa S/A, et al. v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.
    In a consolidated appeal of two judgments to enforce a foreign arbitral award against appellees as alter?egos of the then?defunct award?debtor, the district court's judgment dismissing both the initial action to enforce and the subsequent action to confirm a foreign arbitral award is: 1) vacated as to the initial action where, a) it erred in determining that the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. section 201 et seq., require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and b) in holding that appellants' fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly allege that appellees engaged in fraud; and 2) dismissed as to appeal of the judgment dismissing the action to confirm, where it is moot.
    Read moreless
  • Kum Tat, Ltd. v. Linden Ox Pasture, LLC
    In an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denying plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of a claim against defendant, the appeal is dismissed where: 1) the court lacks jurisdiction because the arbitration motion relied only on state law and was not filed pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not clearly err in reserving for itself the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; and 3) the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the parties did not form a contract.
    Read moreless
  • Hernandez v. Ross Stores
    In a former employee's single-count representative action filed under the California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et. seq.(PAGA), alleging retailer/employer defendant had violated numerous Labor Code laws, the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) there is no authority supporting defendant's argument that an employer may legally compel an employee to arbitrate the individual aspects of his PAGA claim while maintaining the representative claim in court; and 2) requiring an employee to litigate a PAGA claim in multiple forums would thwart the public policy of PAGA to 'empower employees to enforce the Labor Code' on behalf of the state.
    Read moreless
  • In re N.L.
    Mother’s appeals from the juvenile court’s permanent restraining order against her requiring her to stay away from father and their six-year-old child is affirmed in part, reversing in part, and remanding where based on the record, the juvenile court erred by including child in the restraining order, as there was insufficient evidence to support the inclusion of child in the restraining order as a protected person.
    Read moreless
  • In re M.M.
    The Juvenile Court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order adjudging petitioner’s four-year-old son a dependent of the juvenile court, removing him from petitioner’s care and custody and placing him with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for suitable placement, are reversed where: 1) the court erred in proceeding with the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing in petitioner’s absence; and 2) there was, in any event, insufficient evidence that minor was at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
    Read moreless
  • In re P.R.

    In a mother’s appeal of the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights, Welf. & Inst. Code sections 366.26 and 395, alleging that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that there was good cause to deviate from the adoption placement preferences of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. section 1901 et seq., the appeal is dismissed where the mother lacks standing to challenge the placement order.

    Read moreless
  • Howell v. Howell
    In a case in which a case a State treated as community property and awarded to a veteran's spouse upon divorce a portion of the veteran's total retirement pay, and long after the divorce, the veteran waived a share of the retirement pay in order to receive nontaxable disability benefits from the Federal Government instead, the Supreme Court of Arizona's judgment is reversed where a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits.
    Read moreless
  • In re Priscilla A.
    In a juvenile dependency case, in which a Father challenges the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders. the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders are reversed where because Daughter was not abused, neglected, or exploited and Father neither did nor failed to do anything to put Daughter at any risk of harm, dependency jurisdiction was not proper here.
    Read moreless
  • Gabrielle A. v. Co. of Orange
    In an action brought by parent's challenging the detention of their children for six months, specifically, the two months they were detained in Orange County before the case was transferred to Los Angeles, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to social worker-defendants is affirmed where: 1) the parents' knowing and voluntary pleas of no contest to the jurisdictional allegations during dependency proceedings defeats their claims; 2) the social workers are entitled to immunity; and 3) met their burden to establish they were entitled to summary judgment on each cause of action, and plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues of material fact.
    Read moreless
  • In re Marriage of Huntley
    In a wife's challenge of the trial court's denial of her motion to divide unadjudicated community property under Family Code section 2556, the judgment is reversed where: 1) section 2556 provided the trial court with continuing jurisdiction to divide omitted or unadjudicated community property; 2) the default judgment's silence as to any division of property requires reversal and remand for further proceedings under sections 2550 and 2556.
    Read moreless
  • McLintock v. Djulus
    The Court reversed a family commissioner's judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and related orders concerning child custody, visitation, child and spousal support, and an award of attorney fees, where: 1) the commissioner failed to obtain one party's stipulation to having the matter heard by a temporary judge, as required by the California Constitution, Article VI section 21; and 2) the tantamount stipulation doctrine did not apply where the record shows that the commissioner never advised the parties that she was a commissioner, and that the objecting party, proceeding in propria persona, did not and should not have known she was a commissioner.
    Read moreless
  • In re J.L.
    In a family law action, the juvenile court's termination of K.B.'s parental rights to Jc.L. and Ja.L. is affirmed where the court did not fail to comply with the inquiry/notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. sections 1901 et seq., because K.B. and the children's other parent provided minimal and in information of Indian ancestry on their Parental Notification of Indian Status forms.
    Read moreless
  • In re Matthew C.
    In consolidated dependency actions, in which Mother contests the juvenile court's detention and dispositional orders temporarily denying her visitation with her young son, the juvenile court's orders are affirmed where parental visitation may be denied during the reunification period if such visitation would be inconsistent with the physical or emotional well-being of the child.
    Read moreless
  • Jason P. v. Danielle S.
    In a long-running case involves the effort by a sperm donor to establish that he is a legal parent of a child conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using his sperm, and that he is entitled to joint legal and physical custody of the child with the child's mother, the family law court's finding that donor is a presumed parent and the custody order are: 1) affirmed as to the parentage finding; and 2) conditionally reversed as to the award of custody where the court's award of joint custody was premature because it had not yet received evidence that Jason completed the requirements the court deemed necessary to rebut the Family Code section 3044 presumption.
    Read moreless
  • Y.R. v. A.F.
    In a Mother's appeal of the trial court's order awarding child support from Father in an amount that deviated downward from the statewide uniform guideline by a substantial amount, under Family Code section 4056(a), the order is reversed where: 1) t the trial court's failure to comply with the requirements of section 4056(a) mandates reversal, despite the existence of evidence sufficient to warrant a deviation from the guideline; and 2) the court's reliance on Mother's expenses and lifestyle, rather than on those of Father and his children, precludes us from implying findings adequate to support the deviation ordered by the court.
    Read moreless
  • In re Hannah D.
    In a Mother and Father's appeal of a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights, the order is affirmed where: 1) Father's failure to challenge the order via petition for extraordinary writ precludes review of the order in this appeal; and 2) the dependency court did not err in denying Mother's request to order yet another assessment for placement.
    Read moreless
  • In re Alayah J.
    In a Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights over her children, the court's order is affirmed where, although the juvenile court erred by terminating Mother's parental rights without first considering her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, no miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of that error.
    Read moreless
  • Padilla v. Troxell
    In a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. section 9001 et seq., seeking the return of petitioner's child after she was taken to the U.S. by her father, the district court's denial of the petition is affirmed where although petitioner established that child was wrongfully removed, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that petitioner consented to father's removal of child from Mexico to the United States.
    Read moreless
  • In re T.W.
    In a Father's appeal from the juvenile court's findings at the six-month review hearing that reasonable reunification services were provided to him and that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, the juvenile court's orders are reversed where: 1) no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that he was provided with reasonable reunification services; and 2) the juvenile court erred in finding the Department made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
    Read moreless
  • Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dep't of Social Servs.
    After a Mother's successful challenge to an administrative order declaring that she should be reported to the statewide child abuse index for what was deemed excessive discipline of her 12-year old daughter, the trial court's award of only a portion of her requested attorney fees is remanded where, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the court's complete denial of relief as to three of plaintiff's four attorneys exceeded the bounds of sound discretion.
    Read moreless
  • Ali v. US
    In an suit challenging the denial of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) plaintiff's I-130 petition seeking permanent resident status for plaintiff's noncitizen husband petition, because of the agency's determination that the husband's prior marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, 8 U.S.C. section 1154(c), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where, even assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs are entitled to some form of constitutional due process from an interest in the husband having permanent resident status through the petition, the district court properly held that the plaintiffs have not shown how the additional process they seek would have made any difference to the outcome.
    Read moreless
  • In re Breanna S.
    In an action brought by Mother and presumed Father of nine-year-old and four-year-old appealing the juvenile court's order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights and identifying adoption as the permanent plan for children, the order is remanded where the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. section 1901 et seq., but otherwise conditionally affirmed.
    Read moreless
  • In re Grace P.
    In a Mother and Father's appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to six-year-old daughter, five-year-old son and three-year-old son pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the juvenile court's order is reversed where, in a matter of first impression, the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Father a contested selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26. When, as here, a parent has consistently and regularly visited his or her children and at the selection and implementation hearing, offers testimony regarding the quality of their parent-child relationship and possible resulting detriment that would be caused by its termination, a juvenile court abuses its discretion if it denies a contested hearing on the beneficial parent-child relationship exception.
    Read moreless
  • C.M. v. M.C.
    In an appeal from a judgment declaring plaintiff-Father to be the sole legal parent of triplet Children and finding that defendant, the gestational carrier for the children, has no parental rights, alleging an all-out attack on the constitutionality and enforceability of surrogacy agreements in California, the judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant's arguments are foreclosed by specific legislative provisions and by a prior decision by our Supreme Court; and 2) the legislative requirements for establishing an enforceable surrogacy agreement were met in this case.
    Read moreless
  • In re Yolanda L.
    In a Father's appeal of family court orders declaring his two children dependent children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b), removing the children from Father and placement with Mother, the orders are affirmed over his claims that: 1) the jurisdiction order was not supported by sufficient evidence; and 2) the removal order was 'not authorized by statute.'
    Read moreless
  • In re Carl H.
    In a Mother's appeals from juvenile court orders establishing jurisdiction over the Daughter and bypassing family reunification services for Mother, and the juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction over Son, the orders are: 1) affirmed in part where, assessed under the relevant legal standard, the record supports the court's jurisdictional findings and the bypass of services to Mother; and 2) reversed in part as to the dismissal of Son's dependency case because findings were unsustained as to his custodial parent was error.
    Read moreless
  • Carroll v. Delaware River Port Authority
    In response to a certified question arising in a failure-to-promote discrimination suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 38 U.S.C. section 4301, the court holds that plaintiffs need not plead or prove that they are objectively qualified in order to meet their initial burden under USERRA. Instead, employers may raise a plaintiff's lack of qualifications as a non-discriminatory justification for declining to promote the plaintiff, notwithstanding his or her military service.
    Read moreless
  • Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
    In a civil action filed by four Iraqi nationals, alleging that they were abused while detained in the custody of the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib prison, located near Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003 and 2004, brought pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. section 1350, that defendant's employees committed acts involving torture and war crimes, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and also asserting various tort claims under the common law, including assault and battery, sexual assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the District Court's judgment is vacated where it erred in its analysis by failing to determine whether the military exercised actual control over any of defendant's alleged conduct.
    Read moreless
  • Marriage of Chapman
    After a marital settlement agreement and judgment of dissolution, one spouse's unilateral election to change from one type of military benefit (military retirement that is taxable and community property) to another type of military benefit (combat-related special compensation that is not taxable and separate property) can not defeat the community property interest of the other spouse set forth in the marital settlement agreement.
    Read moreless
  • Angiuoni v. Town of Billerica
    In a military veteran's claim against a Town and Chief of Police under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. section 4301-4335, claiming that his status as a veteran was a motivating factor for defendants' termination of his employment, the District Court's entry of the jury verdict in favor of defendants is affirmed over defendant's contention that the District Court made a series of errors in its evidentiary rulings that warrant a new trial.
    Read moreless
  • Hopkins v. Superior Court
    In a criminal action, the petition for a writ of mandate is granted. The court held that Vehicle Code section 23640's bar on pretrial diversion in cases charging a DUI under section 23152 or 23153 does not apply to veterans or active duty military members who meet the criteria for pretrial diversion under Penal Code section 1001.80.
    Read moreless
  • Davis v. City of Philadelphia
    In a suit brought by a veteran challenging delinquent property tax interest and penalties that the City of Philadelphia assessed against his company while he was on active duty, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. section 3901 (SCRA) afforded to plaintiff as a servicemember do not extend to his company's property.
    Read moreless
  • Snyder v. Dep't of the Navy
    In an appeal of the Final Decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the decision of the Department of the Navy to furlough petitioner for six days between July and September of 2013 as a result of the federal government sequestration of 2013, the Board's decision is affirmed where there is no reversible error.
    Read moreless
  • Monk v. Shulkin
    In a Vietnam veteran's appeal concerning whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has authority to certify a class for class action or for similar aggregate resolution procedures, the Veterans Court denial of a motion to certify a class of thousands of veterans alleging service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder, diabetes, hypertension, and strokes, on grounds that it lacks authority to certify classes of claims, or to adjudicate disability claims on an aggregate basis, is reversed where the Veterans Court has the authority to certify a class for a class action and to maintain similar aggregate resolution procedures.
    Read moreless
  • S.H. v. US
    In an action brought by a military family under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, alleging that plaintiff's child's birth injuries resulted from the negligent approval of plaintiff's command-sponsored travel overseas, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is vacated where: 1) plaintiff's claims arose in Spain and therefore were barred by the FTCA's foreign country exception; and thus 2) the claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    Read moreless

Contact Our Firm Today!

    • Please enter your name.
    • This isn't a valid phone number.
      Please enter your phone number.
    • This isn't a valid email address.
      Please enter your email address.
    • Please make a selection.
    • Please enter a message.
Put Us On Your Side