Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Aguilar incurred debt from a consumer credit account with OneMain Financial, which assigned the account to OneMain Trust. The debt was later sold to CACH, which sued to collect the charged-off debt. CACH dismissed that action without prejudice, following Aguilar’s attempt to file a cross-complaint alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, 1788), premised on incorporated provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and an alleged violation of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, based on CACH’s apparent misidentification of the charge-off creditor as OneMain Financial rather than OneMain Trust.Aguilar sued CACH and its counsel, alleging false or misleading representations in the collection action, in violation of the Rosenthal Act. The defendants filed a successful anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court struck the Rosenthal Act claim. The court of appeal affirmed. The trial court correctly considered whether Aguilar made a prima facie showing of a material misrepresentation under the Rosenthal Act, insofar as the alleged violation is premised on a purported failure to comply with FDCPA requirement, and found the complaint lacked minimal merit. Materiality is a proper consideration under the Rosenthal Act where the alleged state law violation is premised on enumerated provisions of the federal statute, which federal courts uniformly interpret as incorporating a materiality requirement. View "Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP" on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal is whether section 5241 precludes the obligee from seeking a determination of arrearages allegedly owed by the obligor, where the obligor’s employer is subject to a valid earnings assignment order. The family court ruled section 5241 precludes such a request, but reached that conclusion by answering a different question: whether section 5241 precludes an obligee from seeking to enforce arrearages against an obligor whose employer is subject to an earnings assignment order. The court concluded section 5241 precludes such a request. As a result, the family court denied a request by Plainitff for an order to determine child and spousal support arrearages against her former husband, Defendant. The court also granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney.   The Second Appellate District reversed the family court’s order and directed the court to determine the amount of arrearages, if any, Defendant owes Plaintiff.  The court explained that based on the language and legislative history of section 5241, we conclude that, where an employer is subject to an earnings assignment order, section 5241 protects obligors only from being held in contempt or subject to criminal prosecution for nonpayment of the support. Contrary to the family court’s ruling the statute does not preclude an obligee like Plaintiff from seeking arrearages or a determination of arrearages from an obligor like Defendant. Which in turn means Plaintiff’s request for an order determining arrearages was not frivolous for the reasons stated by the family court and did not support an award of sanctions against Appellant. View "Brubaker v. Strum" on Justia Law

Michael Smalley sued Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) under California’s lemon law. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, Subaru made a settlement offer to Smalley, which Smalley did not accept. The matter went to trial, and Smalley prevailed, but recovered less than the section 998 offer. In accordance with the fee shifting rules of section 998, the trial court awarded Smalley his pre-offer costs, but awarded Subaru its post-offer costs. Smalley appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the section 998 offer was valid, reasonable, and made in good faith. Therefore, it affirmed the trial court’s costs awards. Because of the pendency of the appeal on the costs awards, the trial court deferred a ruling on Smalley’s motion for attorney fees. Smalley also appealed the order delaying ruling on the attorney fees motion. The Court of Appeal concluded that order is not appealable, and no grounds existed to construe it as an extraordinary writ. That appeal was dismissed. View "Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Desert Regional Medical Center, Inc. (DRMC) appealed trial court orders denying DRMC’s first amended petitions to compel nurses Leah Miller, Lynn Fontana, and Renita Romero (Respondents) to arbitrate their labor claims alleging rest and meal break violations by DRMC. DRMC contended the trial court erred by denying its petitions to compel arbitration and failing to stay Respondents’ individual claims until after completion of arbitration of a separate proceeding initiated by Respondents’ union (the California Nurses Association) on behalf of all nurses employed by DRMC in California. DRMC argued the trial court erred in denying DRMC’s petitions to compel arbitration based on a finding DRMC waived the right to arbitrate. DRMC argued the issue of waiver had to be determined by the arbitrator, not the trial court, and, even if the court has jurisdiction to decide waiver, there was insufficient evidence to support its finding of waiver. DRMC further contended Respondents were estopped from arguing waiver because Respondents’ Union was responsible for DRMC’s delay in petitioning to compel arbitration and agreed, in a separate proceeding, to arbitrate the Union’s group grievance. After review, the Court of Appeal rejected DRMC’s contentions and affirmed the order denying DRMC’s amended petitions to compel arbitration and request for a stay. View "Desert Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of two California statutes— Civil Code section 3333.2, which caps the number of damages a plaintiff may recoup for noneconomic losses at $250,000 (Civ. Code, Section 3333.2, subd. (b)); and Business and Professions Code section 6146, which sets limits on the amount of contingency fees a law firm may charge in representing a plaintiff in a professional negligence action against a health care provider. (Civ. Code, Section 3333.2 and Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 6146 are sometimes referred to collectively as the challenged statutes.)   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. The court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge civil code section 3333.2 and Business and Professions Code Section 6146. Further, the court held that the heirs do not have standing because the heir’s alleged injuries are insufficient to confer upon them standing to challenge the statutes in question. Moreover, the court could not conclude Plaintiffs will suffer hardship if declaratory relief is withheld. View "Dominguez v. Bonta" on Justia Law

In November 2015, while hospitalized at Fremont, an acute psychiatric facility, McGovern was assaulted by another patient. In March 2016, McGovern’s attorney sent Fremont a letter, requesting that Fremont preserve evidence, and stating that counsel would be gathering more information and would present Fremont’s insurance carrier with a pre-litigation demand. It requested that Fremont place its carrier on notice. On October 27, 2016, McGovern’s counsel sent Fremont a Notice of Intent to Commence Action For Medical Negligence Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 364, which requires that a plaintiff give a healthcare provider 90 days’ notice before commencing an action for professional negligence. Subsection (d) tolls the limitations period for 90 days if the notice is served on the defendant within the last 90 days of the applicable statute of limitations. which expired on November 7, 2016, in McGovern's case.McGovern filed suit on January 20, 2017. The trial court granted Fremont summary adjudication, finding that the March letter constituted a section 364 notice. so the complaint was not timely filed, and McGovern failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to neglect under Welfare & Institutions Code 15610.57. The court of appeal reversed. The March letter lacked the requisite elements for section 364 compliance and was not a notice of intent. McGovern’s professional negligence causes of action are not time-barred, The court also reversed an order quashing a subpoena for the assailant’s mental health records. View "McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Freedom Foundation filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the California Public Records Act (PRA) to compel the Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to disclose records regarding collective bargaining units and state employees. The trial court denied the petition and complaint. In seeking extraordinary relief, Freedom Foundation argued: (1) the collective bargaining exemption under Government Code section 6254 (p)(1) was limited to information that revealed an agency’s deliberative processes; and (2) CalHR was obligated to search the database maintained by the State Controller’s Office for responsive documents. “To justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.” Freedom Foundation failed to persuade the Court of Appeal that the California Legislature could not have intended the Government Code provision to apply as the trial court explained. Because the Court rejected Freedom Foundation’s construction of the collective bargaining exemption, it also found Freedom Foundation's assertion that CalHR should have produced redacted records that revealed only the “aggregate information” it sought unpersuasive. "At a minimum, the evidence demonstrated, even if other information could be redacted from the document over which CalHR asserted the collective bargaining privilege, disclosing the information requested by Freedom Foundation would reveal CalHR’s research and evaluations conducted pursuant to the Dills Act. As such, the court did not err in concluding CalHR was not required to produce this document at all." View "Freedom Foundation v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Petitioners Geoff Cole and Admiral’s Experience, Inc. sought a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to calendar their timely motion for summary judgment for a hearing before the start of trial. The Court of Appeal notified the parties it was considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171(1984)), and read and considered the informal response and request for judicial notice from real party in interest Matt Zeiner (Zeiner). Petitioners also field a reply brief, which Zeiner requested to strike. In 2018, a dispute arose between petitioners and Zeiner after a trailer petitioners rented from Zeiner was destroyed. In January 2019, Zeiner initiated the underlying lawsuit against petitioners seeking to recover for the loss of the trailer. The Court of Appeal granted the request for judicial notice, denied Zeiner’s request to strike the reply brief, and concluded that petitioners were entitled to peremptory writ relief. The Court published its decision to provide guidance on the deadline for filing a summary judgment motion that is served electronically. View "Cole v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Golden acted as a real estate broker for a rental property owned by Banerjee's company, Arkesh. Golden found a five-year tenant. Arkesh contracted to pay a commission if the tenant bought the property. . The tenant purchased the property for $4,850,000. Golden demanded that First American (as escrow holder for the sale) hold the commission ($145,500) and an outstanding lease fee ($5,994.95). The commission remained unpaid.Golden sued, alleging breach of contract against Arkesh and Banerjee, and promissory estoppel against First American. Golden served the summons and complaint through substituted service; although Banjerjee’s name was listed at a gated community in Dublin, on seven occasions, the process server was unable to gain access. On an eighth attempt, the documents were served to a “co-resident” who indicated Banerjee was not home and a copy was also mailed to Banerjee at that address. Defaults were entered against the defendants. First American then cross-complained against the defendants for indemnity and contribution; Banerjee was personally served. Golden assigned its claims to First American, which obtained a default judgment.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to set aside the default judgment, rejecting arguments that the service of the original summons and complaint was improper and that the default judgment should be set aside for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Banerjee was personally served with the cross-complaint two months after the default was entered on the complaint but waited more than two years before moving to set aside the default. View "First American Title Insurance Co. v. Banerjee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight dba Knight Construction (Knight) to remodel a house pursuant to a contract that provided Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera for all claims arising out of the work. Knight obtained a general liability insurance policy from defendant-respondent Security National Insurance Company (Security National) that covered damages Knight was obligated to pay due to bodily injury to a third party. As relevant here, the policy also covered Knight’s “liability for damages . . . [a]ssumed in a contract or agreement that is an ‘insured contract.’ ” Security National acknowledged the indemnity provision in Knight’s contract with LaBarbera was an “insured contract” within the meaning of the policy. The policy also provided, “If we defend an insured [i.e., Knight] against a suit and an indemnitee of the insured [i.e., LaBarbera] is also named as a party to the suit, we will defend that indemnitee” if certain conditions were met. During the remodeling work, a subcontractor suffered catastrophic injuries, and sued both LaBarbera and Knight. LaBarbera’s liability insurer (plaintiff-appellant Lloyd's of London Underwriters) defended him in that lawsuit, and Security National defended Knight. LaBarbera also tendered his defense to Knight and to Security National, but they either ignored or rejected the tender. After settling the underlying lawsuit for $465,000, LaBarbera and Underwriters sued Knight and Security National, seeking to recover the full $465,000 settlement amount and over $100,000 in expenses and attorney fees incurred defending LaBarbera in that lawsuit. Security National moved for summary judgment on the ground that all claims against it were barred because the undisputed facts established it did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify LaBarbera. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Security National. LaBarbera and Underwriters appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed, adopting different reasoning than the trial court. The Court agreed with Security National that the indemnitee defense clause in Knight’s general liability insurance policy did not bestow third party beneficiary rights on the indemnitee, LaBarbera, who benefitted only incidentally from the clause. Because LaBarbera was not a third party beneficiary under Knight’s policy, he was precluded from bringing a direct action against Security National. View "LaBarbera, et al. v. Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law