A foreclosure sale purchaser attempting to evict a tenant on the property can encounter pitfalls, as made clear in a series of court cases in recent years. Here is a summary, capped by an update on a recently filed opinion: ...more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court jump-started 2024 with a boon to employees, ending trial courts’ inherent authority to dismiss unmanageable claims under the Private Attorneys’ General...more
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, issued the following decision on October 17, 2023: FCM Investments, LLC v. Grove Pham, LLC, et al., Case No. D080801: Though an agreement to privately...more
In a December 2018 post, Money and Dirt covered a California Supreme Court case — Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center — in which the Court held: “an owner that acquires title to property under a power of sale...more
The state's Supreme Court has unanimously held that employers do not owe a duty of care under tort law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees' household members. Although the Court, in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks,...more
Sections 17200 to 17210 of the California Business and Professions Code are commonly referred to as the unfair competition law. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc., v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 553, 558, fn. 2 (1998). The UCL...more
On March 29, 2023, the California Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of an employee’s claim that California Labor Code Section 204 requires employees to be paid on weekends. The California high court declined...more
Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal (2d Dist.) ruled that issue preclusion bars a derivative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim where the plaintiff litigates individual Labor Code claims in arbitration...more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decisions last week: Hoffmann v. Young, et al., Case No. S266003: Under Civil Code section 846, landowners generally owe no duty of care to keep their property safe for...more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decision on Thursday: Zolly v. City of Oakland, No. S262634: In a case involving the California Constitution’s taxpayer approval requirements for local taxes, the...more
On March 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeal's decision in Isaak et al. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County. In Isaak, the Court of Appeal held that the provisions governing...more
Recently-signed California legislation SB 1146 immediately modifies the California Code of Civil Procedure on electronic service and remote depositions. Additionally, SB 1146 extends certain civil deadlines for the duration...more
On March 23, 2020, California Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California Tani Cantil-Sakauye issued a statewide order suspending all jury trials, criminal and civil, for 60 days. On March 30, she issued another order...more
It is Christmas in July for eminent domain practitioners! We have a California Supreme Court opinion on a condemnation case, which is rare. The case, Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020 Cal. LEXIS...more
Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more
The California Supreme Court unanimously decided earlier in the year that in ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, the context of a defendant’s statement—such as the commercial nature of the statement, the identity of the speaker,...more
California Supreme Court Invalidates Agreement To Arbitrate Wage Disputes - OTO, LLC v. Kho, 2019 WL 4065524 (Cal. S. Ct. 2019) - In the most recent chapter of the ongoing saga regarding the enforceability of...more
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court held in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, S244630, that a mandatory arbitration agreement may be unenforceable against employee wage claims if it requires the employee to forego the “Berman”...more
• In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the scope of the ascertainability prerequisite to class certification. The Court held that proposed classes are ascertainable if defined by objective...more
Almost two years ago, Money and Dirt covered a Fourth District California Court of Appeal opinion addressing an apparent split of authority regarding how a lender can enforce senior and junior deeds of trust on the same...more
The California Supreme Court unanimously decided on Monday that in ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, the context of a defendant’s statement – such as the commercial nature of the statement, the identity of the speaker, the...more
In his Daily Journal article, Partner Stephen Squillario discusses the potential escape hatch that is provided by C.C.P. Section 473(b) when an attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect has harmed the client. ...more
This week, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center. The case reviewed the decision of the California Court of Appeal from March 2017...more
California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against...more
On July 13, 2017, the Supreme Court of California issued a unanimous opinion in Williams v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Marshalls of CA, LLC), holding that a representative plaintiff in a Private Attorneys...more