Chen v. L.A. Truck Centers, LLC

After an Indiana-based bus manufacturer was dismissed from the case, California law governed Chinese bus passengers’ claims against a California-based bus distributor for injuries sustained when the bus overturned in Arizona; only California had a governmental interest in application of its law.  This products liability case arose from a roll over accident of a tour…

Safari Club Int’l v. Rudolph

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied when he was sued for secretly tape recording, and later publishing, a conversation that took place over dinner at a restaurant with plaintiff’s president, because even though this was protected activity, plaintiff showed a probability of success on its claims for, among other things, invasion of privacy.  The district…

Stueve v. Buchalter Nemer

For purposes of the five-year deadline for bringing a civil case to trial, trial “commences” when a jury is impaneled and sworn—even if the voir dire is not concluded within the five-year period.  Trial commences for purposes of the five-year deadline for bringing a civil case to trial when a jury is impaneled and sworn. …

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

The sue-and-be-sued provision in Fannie Mae’s statutory charter does not confer federal jurisdiction over suits against Fannie Mae or allow it to remove those suits to federal court absent some other basis for federal jurisdiction.  Reversing the Ninth Circuit (Lightfoot v. Cendant Mort. Corp. (9th Cir. 2014) 769 F.3d 681), this decision holds that the…

Pizarro v. Reynoso

Probate court did not err in charging the interests of two trust beneficiaries for the fees incurred by the trustee in defending against their unwarranted charges which were brought in bad faith and supported by false testimony, but the court did err by imposing personal liability on the beneficiaries for sums exceeding the amount of…

Schwern v. Plunkett

Based on a recently-enacted Oregon statute requiring courts to enter a limited, immediately appealable judgment when denying an Anti-SLAPP motion, the Ninth Circuit now has jurisdiction to consider appeals from orders denying Anti-SLAPP motions under Oregon law.  Shortly after the 9th Circuit’s decision in Englert v. MacDonell (9th Cir. 2009) 551 F.3d 1099, the Oregon…

In re Tomkow

A California state court judgment must be given issue preclusive effect on any issue it decides even if it is affirmed by the state Court of Appeal only on other issues.   Following DiRuzza v. County of Tehama (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 1147 despite some California Court of Appeal decisions criticizing DiRuzza, this decision holds…

Kum Tat, Ltd. v. Linden Ox Pasture, LLC

The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over a non-final order denying motion to compel arbitration because the motion was brought under California’s Arbitration Act, not the Federal Arbitration Act.  Under 9 USC 16, a federal Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction of appeals from orders denying stays or motions to compel arbitration under 9 USC…

Okafor v. United States

District court properly denied equitable relief to plaintiff whose attorney filed a claim challenging a forfeiture one day late, since this error was the result of ordinary negligence rather than an extraordinary circumstance that would warrant relief.  Plaintiff filed a claim challenging forfeiture of $99,500 one day late.  This decision upholds the district court’s denial…

Mashiri v. Epsten, Grinnell & Howell

An attorney engaged in debt collection and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a homeowner a letter demanding payment of delinquent homeowners association dues and threatening to file a lien on the homeowner’s property unless the dues were paid within 25 days, thus overshadowing the FDCPA-required notice that the homeowner had 30…

Bareno v. San Diego Community College

Triable issues of fact existed as to whether defendant employer had terminated plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under California’s Family and Medical Leave Act.  The trial court erred in granting the employer summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for retaliation for exercise of her rights under California’s Family and Medical Leave Act.  There…

In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs who purchased applications from Apple’s App Store are direct purchasers from Apple and can sue it for monopolizing the market for distribution of applications that run on the iPhone.  Following the Third and Tenth Circuits and declining to follow contrary Seventh Circuit precedent, this decision holds that Rule 12(h)(2) generally bars a defendant from…