Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2007 a fire spread from defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s storage site to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ property. Scholes’ sued alleging negligent trespass, intentional trespass, and strict liability against Lambirth. Lambirth demurred to the third amended complaint, arguing it was barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a viable claim for intentional trespass or strict liability. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Proceeding in pro per, Scholes appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding his claims barred by the statute of limitations and by failing to grant Scholes leave to amend. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co." on Justia Law

In this writ proceeding, Daniel Ramirez sought review of his independent medical review (pursuant to his workers' compensation claim) on the ground the underlying utilization review was based on an incorrect standard. In effect, he sought review of his utilization review with this the Court of Appeal. The Court concluded this was not a proper ground for appeal of a utilization review determination because "it goes to the heart of the determination of medical necessity. The independent medical reviewer is in the best position to determine whether the proper standard was used to evaluate the medical necessity of the requested treatment, and the statutory scheme requires the independent medical reviewer to use the proper standard in determining medical necessity." Ramirez made no claim that the independent medical reviewer did not use the proper statutory standard, nor did he state a proper ground for review of his independent medical review, which was appealable only for the nonsubstantive reasons. Ramirez also challenged the constitutionality of the independent medical review process, claiming it violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause, and state and federal principles of procedural due process. The Court concluded that the Legislature’s plenary power over the workers’ compensation system precluded any separation of powers violation, and the process afforded workers under the system afforded sufficient opportunity to present evidence and be heard. View "Ramirez v. WCAB" on Justia Law

Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff Amanda Quiles and against defendant Arthur Parent, Jr. Parent satisfied the damages portion of the judgment. Parent’s appeal related solely to the awards of attorney fees and costs that followed the initial entry of judgment. Parent did not satisfy or bond the awards of costs and attorney fees. Quiles attempted to collect the remainder of her judgment pending this appeal. The trial court denied Parent’s request to stay enforcement of the judgment. Parent appealed to the Court of Appeal for a writ of supersedeas clarifying that the remainder of the judgment is automatically stayed pending appeal. After review, the Court concluded that the attorney fees and costs awarded to Quiles qualified as “costs” under Civil Code section 1021 et seq. Therefore issued the requested writ of supersedeas, staying enforcement of the remainder of the judgment pending resolution of this appeal. View "Quiles v. Parent" on Justia Law