Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Steven Watts, an automotive repair shop owner, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2019, a disease linked to asbestos exposure. He and his wife, Cindy Watts, filed a lawsuit against 28 defendants, later adding eight more. By the time of trial, only one defendant, Pneumo Abex, LLC (Abex), remained. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2,943,653 in economic damages, $6.75 million in noneconomic damages, and $1 million for loss of consortium, attributing 60% fault to Abex, 25% to other brake manufacturers, and 15% to Watts.The trial court had granted a directed verdict against Abex on its sophisticated user defense, which argued that Watts, as a trained mechanic and business owner, should have known about the dangers of asbestos. The court also made several rulings affecting the allocation of fault, including refusing to include joint compound manufacturers on the verdict form and precluding Abex from using Watts’s interrogatory responses.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in directing the verdict against Abex on the sophisticated user defense, as there was substantial evidence that Watts should have known about the asbestos risks. The court also found errors in the trial court’s rulings on the allocation of fault, including the exclusion of joint compound manufacturers from the verdict form and the preclusion of Watts’s interrogatory responses.The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing Abex to present its sophisticated user defense and addressing the allocation of fault issues. The court also upheld the trial court’s discretion in allocating pretrial settlements but found that the overall handling of the case warranted a new trial. View "Watts v. Pneumo Abex" on Justia Law

Terrence Richard, a brakeman for Union Pacific Railroad Company, fell from a train and broke his leg while working. He sued Union Pacific for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Richard claimed that the locomotive engineer’s mishandling of the train caused a surge that led to his fall. The trial court excluded the testimony of Richard’s expert, Richard Hess, a retired Union Pacific engineer, who would have testified that the engineer’s actions caused the surge. The jury found in favor of Union Pacific, concluding the company was not negligent.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Union Pacific’s motion in limine to exclude Hess’s testimony, reasoning that Hess lacked the necessary qualifications and expertise. Hess had intended to testify that the delay between releasing the train brakes and engaging the throttle caused excessive slack action, leading to a surge at the rear of the train where Richard was working. The trial court’s exclusion of this testimony left Richard without an expert to support his claim of negligent train handling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in excluding Hess’s testimony. The appellate court found that Hess’s extensive experience as a locomotive engineer qualified him to testify about the train handling practices and the potential dangers of the engineer’s actions. The exclusion of Hess’s testimony was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Richard of critical expert evidence to support his negligence claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment for Union Pacific and remanded the matter for a new trial. View "Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Blake Wentworth, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). Wentworth claimed that the Regents failed to engage in the interactive process, provide reasonable accommodations, and invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on three of Wentworth’s causes of action under FEHA and IPA, denied his motion to compel discovery responses, and denied his request for a retrial on a cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The court also denied Wentworth’s post-judgment request for attorney’s fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary adjudication on the claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, finding that the Regents had offered reasonable accommodations and engaged in the interactive process in good faith. However, the court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking a letter about student complaints and disclosing information about Wentworth’s disability accommodation.The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether Wentworth was the prevailing party under the IPA and whether he was entitled to fees under the catalyst theory. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for a retrial on the personnel file cause of action, finding that Wentworth had forfeited his right to object to the verdict form by failing to raise the issue before the jury was discharged. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

Dr. Laura Dean Head, a college professor, passed away in 2013, leaving behind her sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head. Shortly before her death, Dr. Head executed a trust naming her former student and friend, Zakiya Jendayi, as the trustee and sole beneficiary. In 2020, Hamlin and Head petitioned the probate court to invalidate the trust, alleging undue influence, lack of capacity, and forgery. After a 17-day bench trial, the court found that Jendayi had exerted undue influence over Dr. Head and invalidated the trust.The probate court determined that Hamlin and Head, as intestate heirs disinherited by the trust, had standing to contest the trust. The court applied the common law presumption of undue influence, finding that Jendayi had a confidential relationship with Dr. Head, actively participated in procuring the trust, and would unduly benefit from it. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the presumption of undue influence and rejected Jendayi’s claims of judicial bias. The court concluded that any deficiencies in its statement of decision were harmless and affirmed the judgment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the probate court’s judgment, holding that Hamlin and Head had standing to contest the trust. The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the probate court’s application of the presumption of undue influence and its finding of undue influence. The court also concluded that the probate court did not demonstrate judicial bias and that any deficiencies in the statement of decision were harmless. The judgment was affirmed. View "Hamlin v. Jendayi" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a taxpayers' association and a water district over the imposition of groundwater replenishment charges. The taxpayers' association alleged that the water district's charges violated constitutional provisions and unfairly benefited large agricultural businesses. The association sought a writ of mandate to stop the collection of these charges and to vacate the resolutions imposing them. They also claimed conversion, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the water district's board members, general manager, and consulting firms.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike several causes of action on the grounds that they arose from protected activities. The court found that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute applied. Additionally, the court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court also awarded over $180,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption did not apply because the relief sought could only be provided by the water district, not the individual defendants. The court found that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted for most causes of action, except for conversion and the writ of mandate against the general manager. Consequently, the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the demurrer ruling, as the claims against the individual defendants were not legally sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2016, the plaintiff purchased a shopping center from the defendants, which included a dry cleaning business. Before the sale, the defendants provided a 2013 visual inspection report but did not disclose a more detailed soil vapor survey report, which the plaintiff later discovered. After the purchase, the plaintiff incurred significant costs for cleaning up hazardous substances found in the soil. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had withheld critical information about the property's condition.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging fraud and violations of the Civil Code. During discovery, the defendants served requests for admission, which the plaintiff failed to respond to on time. The defendants moved to have the requests deemed admitted. The plaintiff later served a response with objections, but the trial court deemed the responses non-compliant and granted the defendants' motion, imposing sanctions. The plaintiff's subsequent motion to withdraw the deemed admissions was denied for failing to show mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the presence of waived objections in the plaintiff's proposed response did not necessarily prevent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the plaintiff's responses were substantially compliant. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including vacating the order deeming the requests admitted, reconsidering sanctions, and allowing additional discovery. The plaintiff was awarded costs for the appeal. View "Katayama v. Continental Investment Group" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old, M.L., challenged a civil harassment restraining order issued to protect E.G., a former romantic partner of M.L.’s mother. E.G. sought the order after M.L. posted E.G.’s personal information on social media, alleging E.G. supported M.L.’s mother in abusive conduct against M.L. and her younger brother. The restraining order prohibited M.L. from publishing E.G.’s contact information online and from defaming or harassing her. M.L. contended there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment and argued that the trial court failed to consider circumstances making future harassment unlikely.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a three-year civil harassment restraining order against M.L. The court found that M.L.’s social media posts, which included E.G.’s contact information and accusations of supporting child abuse, constituted harassment. The court concluded that E.G. had met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the harassment was likely to continue without a restraining order.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order, including M.L.’s repeated social media posts and the resulting threats and harassment E.G. received from third parties. The court concluded that M.L.’s conduct was not for a legitimate purpose and was not constitutionally protected. However, the court modified the restraining order to expire on M.L.’s 18th birthday, reasoning that the circumstances leading to the harassment were tied to M.L.’s status as a minor and her parents' custody dispute. The order was affirmed as modified. View "E.G. v. M.L." on Justia Law

A lawyer representing an environmental group sought disability accommodations under California Rule of Court 1.100 due to his bipolar disorder. The accommodations requested included extensions of time for briefing deadlines and relief from procedural obligations in a case challenging the approval of a timber harvest plan by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). The trial court had previously granted six similar requests over eight months but denied the seventh request, leading to this appeal.The Sonoma County Superior Court had partially granted the environmental group's petition for a writ of mandate, finding deficiencies in CalFIRE's approval of the timber harvest plan regarding geologic, biologic, and cultural resources. However, the court rejected the group's claim that CalFIRE's delayed and incomplete response to public comments rendered the approval defective. Dissatisfied with this partial victory, the group appealed, arguing that the trial court's denial of the seventh accommodation request prevented a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the seventh request for accommodation. The court noted that the trial court had already granted multiple extensions and that further delays would create an undue burden and fundamentally alter the nature of the expedited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceeding. The appellate court emphasized that the environmental group had the option to retain additional counsel to avoid further delays, which it failed to do. The judgment was affirmed, and the respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "Friends of the So. Fork Gualala v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection" on Justia Law