Foxen v. Carpenter

Plaintiff’s suit against her former attorney was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice because, even though plaintiff sought to allege claims for breach of contract and the like, ultimately her claims depended upon allegations that the attorney had not performed his professional duties in the proper manner.  Plaintiff’s suit against her…

McNair v. City & County of San Francisco

The litigation privilege immunized a doctor from being sued by a bus driver, after the doctor refused to certify him for a commercial driver’s license and wrote to the DMV that plaintiff posed a risk to himself and others due to specified cognitive deficits.  The litigation privilege immunized a doctor from suit by a bus…

LAOSD Asbestosis Cases (Evans v. American Optical Co.)

In this asbestosis case against an independent contractor that laid gas pipelines for So. Cal. Gas, plaintiff’s employer, the trial court did not err in giving jury instructions about the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees, nor did it err in marking but not admitting a document used to refresh a…

Kase v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.

Defendant, a broker who arranged for asbestos-containing insulation products to be delivered to Naval shipyards for insulation of submarine pipes, may successfully invoke the defense contractor immunity doctrine, since the Navy’s detailed specifications could only be satisfied with asbestos-containing insulation, and the Navy had specifically studied and approved the aspect of the product—its asbestos—which was…

Kesner v. Superior Court

Employers and landowners owe a duty of care to members of an asbestos worker’s household, who habitually live with the worker and thus are exposed to the asbestos he or she brings home from work.  An employer owes a common law duty of care to members of their workers’ families to prevent transmission of asbestos,…

Parisi v. Mazzaferro

Civil harassment injunction which barred defendant from writing defamatory letters about plaintiff did not violate defendant’s First Amendment rights, but the trial court’s order needed to clarify that defendant was allowed to conduct bona fide petitioning activity in letters to governmental officials about plaintiff.  The trial court did not impermissibly infringe on defendant’s First Amendment…

Doe v. Regents of University of California

University’s procedures prior to imposing discipline on male student for an alleged sexual assault were adequate to protect the accused’s rights.  Substantial evidence supported the University’s imposition of a one-year suspension on a male student who, it found, had digitally penetrated a woman student’s vagina despite her strenuous objections.  The woman’s testimony alone was sufficient…

Sutter Health v. Eden Township Healthcare Dist.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a local governmental entity to pay a $17 million judgment against it in up to 10 annual installments, since the entity presented evidence that paying the judgment in a lump sum would constitute an “unreasonable hardship.”  Under Gov. Code 970.6, a local governmental entity may apply…

Lee v. Rich

An execution sale following a judgment is absolute and cannot be set aside for any reason, not even on grounds of extrinsic fraud.  Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, an execution sale is absolute and cannot be set aside for any reason.  (CCP 701.680(b).)  Thus, even though the judgment debtor obtained an order setting aside…