Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A110023
|
Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace
Party injured by asbestos exposure who was not represented in earlier litigation is not bound by doctrine of collateral estoppel. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 23, 2006 | |
A110023
|
Rodgers v. Sargent Controls & Aerospace
Party injured by asbestos exposure who was not represented in earlier litigation is not bound by doctrine of collateral estoppel. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 23, 2006 | |
03-70472
|
Santos v. People of the Territory of Guam
Court is without jurisdiction to decide appeal because statute under which action had been properly filed was repealed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 11, 2006 | |
C048194
|
Olaes v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Court's denial of defendant employer's motion to strike case is proper where defendant's sexual harassment investigation did not constitute public interest. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 10, 2006 | |
B177908
|
City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League
Petitions filed by city for its employees are not enforcement actions exempt from special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 10, 2006 | |
04-15290
|
Dias v. Elique
Issue preclusion is inappropriate where hearing found substantial evidence supported termination decision while plaintiffs had to prove claims by preponderance of evidence. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 10, 2006 | |
A109057
|
In re Microsoft I-V Cases
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving cy pres provision in settlement agreement for unclaimed settlement funds. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B179383
|
Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP
Limitations period for legal malpractice action is tolled as to attorney and attorney's former firm while attorney continues to represent client. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B181029
|
Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm
Defendant who does not obtain hearing within 30 days after service of anti-SLAPP motion must show court's docket required later hearing. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B176953
|
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group Inc.
Summary adjudication of liability under False Advertising Law is proper where tools represented as made in United States had parts made abroad. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
04-16940
|
Qwest Corp. v. City of Surprise
Claim of telecommunications provider operating under grant of territorial franchise is mooted by amendment of ordinance exempting provider from franchising and licensing requirements. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
D044792
|
Christie v. City of El Centro
Accused's right to fair trial was compromised when presiding judge consulted previously disqualified judge in same case. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B184852
|
Biosense Webster Inc. v. Superior Court (Dowell)
Temporary restraining order is void where it prevents filing of action in any federal forum. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B176874
|
Endres v. Moran
Defendants are not awarded attorney fees where only conspiracy claim was stricken pursuant to their special motion to strike. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
B173070
|
Gackstetter v. Frawley
Order denying summary judgment is reversible on appeal after jury verdict was in favor of nonmoving party where claim was barred. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 7, 2006 | |
04-35618
|
Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Non-resident manufacturer is subject to general jurisdiction where it has serious and long-standing in-state presence. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 6, 2006 | |
03-55548
|
Hawthorne Savings F.S.B. v. Reliance Insurance Co. of Illinois
District court's refusal to abstain in case involving state law contract dispute was not abuse of discretion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 5, 2006 | |
04-944
|
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
Employee-numerosity requirement applicable to Title VII claim did not circumscribe federal court subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Apr. 3, 2006 | |
A109805
|
In re Automobile Antitrust Cases
Personal jurisdiction over foreign vehicle manufacturers was properly denied for lack of evidence connecting manufacturers to alleged conspiracy. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
B176757
|
Lee v. Fick
Parents sued by coach for libel, slander and interference with prospective economic advantage are entitled to grant of anti-SLAPP motion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
B183768
|
The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Wall Street Network LTD.)
Party's motion for reconsideration was properly denied for failure to base motion on new or different facts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
A108129
|
Carver v. Bonds
Foot specialist claiming Bay Area newspaper and baseball player defamed him failed to show challenged statements were false. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
D044663
|
Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas
Defendant prevails under anti-SLAPP statute where abuse of process and barratry claims do not have probability of success. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
B177908
|
City of Los Angeles v. Animal Defense League
Petitions filed by city for its employees are not enforcement actions exempt from special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
B177406
|
People v. Bhakta
State court proceeding may proceed upon remand pending appeal when remand order is not stayed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 29, 2006 | |
E036456
|
Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency v. Stickles
In quick take eminent domain proceeding, trial court did not err in setting date of valuation on date of original deposit. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 | |
G034912
|
Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Association
Allegedly libelous letters sent to homeowner by homeowner's association were protected speech under anti-SLAPP statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 | |
H027093
|
Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Architectural Facades Unlimited Inc.
Filing motion for reconsideration did not extend time to file notice of appeal. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 | |
B176846
|
Major v. Silna
Defendant is awarded attorney fees under anti-SLAPP law because plaintiff failed to establish probability he would prevail on his claims. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 | |
H028333
|
Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.
Under Evidence Code, settlement agreement was admissible and enforceable even though it was not signed personally by defendants. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 |