Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B318273
|
Zarate v. McDaniel
Plaintiffs failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5(f)'s 21-day safe harbor provision before filing their motion for attorney fees for defendant's frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
L. Lavin | Nov. 29, 2023 |
22-15815
|
Briskin v. Shopify Inc.
Personal jurisdiction did not exist over seller of web-based payment platform because the platform was analogous to interactive websites and the defendant did not actively target its activities at California. |
Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bress | Nov. 29, 2023 |
A166178
|
Z.V. v. Cheryl W.
Mother's notice of appeal was untimely because judgment was entered when the court provided an oral statement of decision, not when it reduced this oral statement to writing. |
Civil Procedure |
|
C. Fujisaki | Nov. 28, 2023 |
A165378
|
Modification: Mattson Technology v. Applied Materials
Trial court should have stayed proceeding until completion of arbitration when common factual questions as to misappropriation of trade secret activities existed as to both former employee and competitor defendants. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 22, 2023 | |
22-55700
|
Brown v. Duringer Law Group PLC
Tenants' federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit was not barred by the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine because there was no state-court judgment adjudicating defendants' second memorandum of costs. |
Civil Procedure |
|
M. Smith | Nov. 22, 2023 |
A165272
|
Oswald v. Landmark Builders
Trial court was within its discretion to determine that COVID-19 courtroom closures did not make it impossible or impractical for plaintiffs to commence trial in a timely fashion. |
Civil Procedure |
|
I. Petrou | Nov. 16, 2023 |
E078234
|
Jimenez v. Chavez
Application to set aside default was properly denied because, although it was timely, it was not in the proper form since it was unaccompanied by a proposed responsive pleading. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Fields | Nov. 15, 2023 |
A165378
|
Mattson Technology v. Applied Materials
Trial court should have stayed proceeding until completion of arbitration when common factual questions as to misappropriation of trade secret activities existed as to both former employee and competitor defendants. |
Civil Procedure |
|
G. Burns | Nov. 3, 2023 |
G061197
|
Tedesco v. White
Sanctions were justified when subpoena request was overbroad, a misuse of the discovery process, and essentially just a fishing expedition to look for some unknown financial misconduct. |
Civil Procedure |
|
T. Goethals | Oct. 31, 2023 |
21-15261
|
DeFiore v. SOC LLC
Private security contractors satisfied federal officer removal statute by alleging they were agents of the Department of Defense and that plaintiffs' claims were based on acts discharging their official duties. |
Civil Procedure |
|
M. Baker | Oct. 26, 2023 |
22-15378
|
Su v. Bowers
Though government's valuation expert was proved wrong at trial, Equal Access to Justice Act attorney's fees were properly denied as government's litigation position was substantially justified. |
Civil Procedure |
|
K. Lee | Oct. 26, 2023 |
B321294
|
L.O. v. Kilrain
Defendant's arguments against two restraining orders were waived when he failed to properly cite to the record in his appellate brief. |
Civil Procedure |
|
T. Cody | Oct. 19, 2023 |
22-70122
|
Idaho Conservation League v. Bonneville Power Administration
Because causation element for Article III standing is a low bar, environmental groups had standing to pursue case against power company's ratemaking decision. |
Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bress | Oct. 17, 2023 |
D081670
|
Modification: EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (EpiRx LP)
Trial court properly declined to enforce forum selection clauses because plaintiffs would be deprived of their right to a jury trial if forced to litigated in the Delaware Court of Chancery. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. McConnell | Oct. 12, 2023 |
22-15660
|
Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
Despite filing initial complaint, individual named in caption of putative class action lacked standing to appeal adverse judgments where new lead plaintiff's amended complaints did not reference his individual claims. |
Civil Procedure |
|
H. Thomas | Oct. 12, 2023 |
C093897
|
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Dept. of Insurance
Administrative mandamus petition was not timely because equitable estoppel and equitable tolling did not apply where the petitioner had successfully pursued settlement and there was no misrepresentation of material facts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
P. Krause | Oct. 11, 2023 |
H049324
|
Modification: Gray v. La Salle Bank
Two voluntary dismissals without prejudice in federal court do not categorically bar a state court action. |
Civil Procedure |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Sep. 29, 2023 |
D081670
|
EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (EpiRx LP)
Trial court properly declined to enforce forum selection clauses because plaintiffs would be deprived of their right to a jury trial if forced to litigated in the Delaware Court of Chancery. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. McConnell | Sep. 25, 2023 |
21-56292
|
Wallingford v. Bonta
Appeal of three-year-long restraining order was moot where the order had expired, and the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate it was an issue capable of repetition yet evading review. |
Civil Procedure |
|
M. Bennett | Sep. 22, 2023 |
F083402
|
Cruz v. City of Merced
Trial court erred in applying collateral estoppel against a police officer based on findings in a criminal suppression hearing regarding an allegedly illegal search the officer had performed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
C. Poochigian | Sep. 15, 2023 |
D079455
|
Modification: North Coast Village Condominium Assn. v. Phillips
Because opposing party was inadequately notified, trial court abused discretion in granting civil harassment restraining order when complaint sought workplace violence restraining order. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Castillo | Sep. 15, 2023 |
21-16977
|
Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC
Texas LLC was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California for a trademark suit because it previously operated and built its trademarks and brand there. |
Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bress | Sep. 13, 2023 |
23-15016
|
Baird v. Bonta
Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction for an alleged Second Amendment constitutional violation was improperly dismissed because the district court failed to analyze the claim's likelihood of success on the merits. |
Civil Procedure |
|
L. VanDyke | Sep. 8, 2023 |
H049324
|
Gray v. La Salle Bank
Two voluntary dismissals without prejudice in federal court do not categorically bar a state court action. |
Civil Procedure |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Sep. 1, 2023 |
D079455
|
North Coast Village Condominium Assn. v. Phillips
Because opposing party was inadequately notified, trial court abused discretion in granting civil harassment restraining order when complaint sought workplace violence restraining order. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Castillo | Aug. 25, 2023 |
22-15872
|
In re: Law Offices of Ben C. Martin v. Babbitt & Johnson PA
District court had the authority to order assessments for a common benefit fund based on the Multi-District Litigation statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
B. Bade | Aug. 25, 2023 |
B318956
|
Inzunza v. Naranjo
An agent's deemed admissions for failing to serve responses do not bind a principal codefendant even when the basis for the action against the principal codefendant is vicarious liability arising from the agent's acts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
B. Currey | Aug. 23, 2023 |
S272237
|
People v. Schuller
Trial court's failure to instruct on theory of imperfect defense amounted to constitutional error and was subject to review under the stricter federal *Chapman* standard for harmless error. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Groban | Aug. 18, 2023 |
B322152
|
In re Andre Pierre Harris
Trial court could deny application for name change where statutorily required criminal history check revealed applicant had outstanding warrants. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Wiley | Aug. 17, 2023 |
21-35995
|
R.W. v. Columbia Basin College
*Ex parte Young* doctrine allowed a nursing student to bring his claim for injunctive relief against school officials because his allegedly wrongful academic sanctions constituted an ongoing constitutional violation. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Paez | Aug. 15, 2023 |