Ho v. ReconTrust Co.

Enforcement of a security interest is not collection of a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, so a deed of trust trustee does not act as a debt collector, subject to that Act, in taking steps to nonjudicially foreclose the deed of trust.  A deed of trust trustee is not a “debt collector”…

Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC

A car dealer selling a “certified” used car must provide the buyer, before the sale, with an inspection report that lists each part that was inspected and states how the part performed on inspection; failure to provide the report violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.  Vehicle Code 11713.18(a) provides that…

Soto v. Motel 6 Operating LP

Labor Code 226 does not require an employer to list on an employee’s ordinary pay stubs the amount of vacation benefits earned but not paid during the pay period.  Agreeing with Heinzman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 2011 WL 12817699, this decision holds that Labor Code 226 does not require an employer…

Huang v. Bicycle Casino, Inc.

Summary judgment for defendant casino is reversed as questions of fact exist about whether casino was a common carrier, subject to a stricter standard of care, in providing a van to transport gamblers to and from an adjoining town.  A question of fact existed as to whether a casino was a common carrier with respect…

Nava v. Saddleback Memorial Medical Center

The one-year limitations period governing medical malpractice actions (CCP 340.5) governs a claim of injury suffered on a fall from a hospital  gurney, since gurney transport was under a doctor’s orders and was integral to the patient’s treatment.  Following Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, this decision holds that the one-year limitations…

M.D. v. Newport-Mesa Unified School Dist.

The district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from dismissal due to its having filed an amended complaint two days after the deadline, since there was no prejudice, no bad faith, and the short delay was attributable to a reasonable misunderstanding of the district court’s docketing practices.  The district…

Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC

Plaintiff reasonably rejected earlier settlement offers requiring general releases and nondisclosure agreements and so was properly awarded her attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act after agreeing to a settlement lacking those provisions.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $185,000 in attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Act after the case finally…

Alki Partners v. DB Fund Services, LLC

A contract’s indemnity clause requiring plaintiff to indemnify defendant against all claims resulting from defendant’s performance of the contract applied only to claims by third parties—and not to claims asserted by one contracting party against the other, since there was no explicit language indicating the parties intended to agree to fee-shifting in that manner.  A…

Minnegren v. Nozar

In this car crash case, substantial evidence existed to support jury verdict in favor of defendant, after defendant testified that he mistakenly—but in his opinion, reasonably—thought he could get through intersection safely before plaintiff’s car came through in a cross-direction.  Under the substantial evidence rule, the court affirms a judgment in favor of defendant.  The…

SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd.

In ruling on a motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, the district court is free to exercise its discretion in examining the totality of the circumstances to decide if the case is exceptional, including whether the suit or prelitigation conduct was frivolous, ill-motivated or objectively unreasonable.  Like the Patent Act, the Lanham Act…

Moore v. Mercer

Evidence of the amount a medical finance company paid the provider for its lien on plaintiff’s personal injury claim is properly excluded as it is only marginally relevant to the reasonable value of the medical provider’s services, and rebuttal evidence would consume too much time, distracting the jury from the central issues in the case. …

Nguyen v. Applied Medical Resources Corp.

An order compelling arbitration of individual wage and hour claims, dismissing class claims, and staying PAGA claims—all arising from the same factual allegations—is not a death knell order and so is not immediately appealable, since other employees may use a judgment on those claims as collateral estoppel to bring their own suits, and the continued…