Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

A loan servicer, and its principal, the loan’s owner, can be held liable to a borrower for negligence  in handling the borrower’s loan modification application; however, the borrower has no breach of contract claim for the loan servicer’s failure to offer a permanent loan modification after performance of a non-HAMP trial period plan.  Following Alvarez…

Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1, LLC

To prove a common law dedication, plaintiff need only show the owner’s intent to dedicate the property to public use and the public’s acceptance of the dedication; no written conveyance or acceptance by a public entity is required.  Cal. Const., art. X, sec. 4, declares that riparian owners must permit the state a right of…

Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills

Because a property owner has no right to unobstructed views, the owner cannot sue a city in inverse condemnation for planting trees that block views even if the loss of views lowers the value of the property.  A property owner has no right to unobstructed views.  Hence, he has no inverse condemnation action against a…

Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group

A party moving to compel arbitration need not authenticate the opposing party’s signature on the agreement containing the arbitration clause in its initial moving papers, but can wait until after the opposing party has challenged the authenticity of his signature, so defendant’s supplemental declaration which was submitted after its moving papers but before plaintiff’s opposition…

Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc.

Whether the burden on the employer of allowing two 10-minute rest breaks in the middle of the work periods before and after the meal break justified the employer’s practice of allowing only one 20-minute rest break before the meal break was a disputed factual issue precluding summary judgment.  Rest breaks of 10 minutes per four…

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Policeman stated a viable claim for wrongful termination in violation of his First Amendment rights by alleging that he was demoted because the police department mistakenly thought it observed him supporting a rival candidate for mayor instead of the incumbent.  A policeman stated a claim for termination in violation of his First Amendment rights by…

Babbitt v. Superior Court

Trust beneficiary did not have any right to obtain information about the disposition of assets while the trust was revocable.  While the Babbitts’ family trust remained revocable—during the lifetime of both Babbitts—the beneficiaries of the trust had no right to any accounting of the trust’s assets or affairs.  Hence, the probate court erred in ordering…

Sanford v. Rasnick

A 998 offer requiring the opposing party to enter into a settlement agreement is not a valid 998 offer; while cases have allowed a 998 offer to demand a release, a settlement agreement is different, more extensive and more subject to disagreement as to form and contents.  A 998 offer requiring the opposing party to…

Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center

Plaintiff was properly deemed a vexatious litigant because, despite the court’s warning, she filed a third meritless motion attacking a final judgment from which she had not appealed.  A trial court’s order deeming plaintiff a vexatious litigant was supported by substantial evidence.  After a final judgment was entered and the appeal time had run, plaintiff…

A.G. v. C.S.

The use of a settled statement on appeal (in lieu of a reporter’s transcript) does not negate the implied findings doctrine if the parties have waived a statement of decision, since the settled statement is a record of what was said, rather than a record of the trial court’s reasoning.  The implied findings doctrine applies…

Abuemeira v. Stephens

Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied in a suit based on his public distribution of a video of fight between two neighbors, not involving any public figure or  issue of public interest. Public distribution of a video of an altercation between two neighbors was not protected conduct under CCP 425.16(e), so the trial court properly…

Estate of Barton v. ADT Security Servs. Pension Plan

Though the employee generally bears the burden of proving his eligibility for benefits under an ERISA plan, the plan or employer when proof is, or should be, in the employer’s records.  When a plan beneficiary has equal or better access to the required information, he bears the burden of proof in showing he is eligible…