Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer action against Defendant. The jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant’s attorney then substituted out of the case, and Defendant proceeded with self-representation. Plaintiff was awarded attorney fees. Defendant’s appeals from the underlying judgment and from the attorney fees award were consolidated. In a separately filed action in which Defendant was the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal declared Defendant a vexatious litigant plaintiff. Consequently, the presiding judge in the instant case directed Defendant to obtain permission to continue the Chan v. John consolidated appeal or to file a substitution of attorney before proceeding further. Defendant sought to vacate the prefiling order. The presiding judge declared that the court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the prefiling motion and dismissed Defendant’s consolidated appeals. The Court of Appeal vacated the appellate division’s order, holding that a defendant’s status as a vexatious litigant plaintiff in one matter cannot limit the same defendant’s ability to pursue her appeal in an action she did not initiate as a plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 391.7’s prefiling requirements do not apply to a self-represented vexatious litigant’s appeal of a judgment or interlocutory order in an action in which she was the defendant. View "John v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging the validity of a certain tax and seeking a refund of taxes. In 2007, during discovery proceedings in the underlying litigation, the trial court determined that certain documents the City possessed were privileged under either the the attorney-client privilege or the privilege for attorney work product. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a request under the California Public Records Act seeking to obtain copies of documents relating to the tax at issue. The City’s administrative office, in response, inadvertently provided Plaintiff with some of the privileged documents. The City filed a motion for an order compelling the return of the privileged material. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the production of the documents under the Public Records Act had waived any privilege. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cal. Gov’t Code 6254.5, which generally provides that “disclosure” of a public record waives any privilege, applies to an intentional, not an inadvertent, disclosure. Remanded. View "Ardon v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses an action after entering into a monetary settlement is a “prevailing party” for purposes of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1032(a)(4) and thus entitled to recover costs in an action or proceeding. After the parties in this case entered into a settlement, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed two causes of action against Defendant. The trial court adjudged that Plaintiff recover nothing from Defendant. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that Plaintiff had obtained a “net monetary recovery” under section 1032(a)(4) and was therefore the prevailing party. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a dismissal pursuant to a monetary settlement is not a dismissal in the defendant’s “favor” as that term is used in section 1032(a)(4); and (2) a plaintiff that enters into a stipulated judgment to be paid money in exchange for a dismissal has obtained a “net monetary recovery” within the meaning of section 1032(a)(4), regardless of whether the judgment mentions the settlement. View "DeSaulles v. Cmty. Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula" on Justia Law