On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new...more
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them...more
On January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the...more
A broker, motor carrier, contractor, public agency, dispatcher, or developer (collectively “Operator”) that operates, or directs the operation, of any vehicle subject to the California Air Resources Board’s (“ARB”) California...more
On July 15, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review of Boyce v. T.D. Service Company (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 429. (Supreme Court Case No. S226267.) In Boyce, the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff's wrongful...more
7/20/2015
/ Assignments ,
Bank Notes ,
Borrowers ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Consumer Bankruptcy ,
Delinquent Borrowers ,
Res Judicata ,
Standing ,
Unlawful Detainer ,
Wrongful Foreclosures
“There are no free houses,” began the decision issued by the Court of Appeal on March 23, 2015 in Boyce v. T.D. Service Company (B255958). Examining three years of litigation in bankruptcy court, unlawful detainer court, and...more
In Ram, et al. v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. (filed 2/6/15, No. A139055), the California Court of Appeal held that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not void merely because the notice of default was recorded by an entity who...more