Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

California cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents’ claims against a foreign corporation merely because the corporation engaged in the same conduct in California as to resident plaintiffs.  California cannot exercise general jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers, which is not incorporated in, nor does it have its principal place of business in, California.  California may exercise specific jurisdiction…

Hilliard v. Harbour

Senior citizen who held controlling interest in corporate borrower could not state elder abuse claim against lender that foreclosed on borrower; the senior citizen suffered only derivative harm; any damage claim belonged solely to the corporate borrower.  Hilliard, a 78-year-old, owned a controlling interest in Crystal Companies, which owned radio stations.  Wells Fargo lent $20…

Ryan v. Rosenfeld

An order denying a motion to vacate judgment is a separately appealable order, even if the issues raised on appeal overlap issues that the appellant could have or did raise on an appeal from the underlying judgment.  An order denying a motion to vacate judgment under CCP 663 is a separately appealable order even if…

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

A Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a district court order denying class certification or striking class allegations after the named plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his individual claims.  After unsuccessfully petitioning for leave to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification, plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal of the case with…

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.

A party that seeks to intervene in a pending action as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet Article III standing requirements if it wishes to pursue relief that is different from or in addition to the relief requested by the plaintiff, such as, here, a money judgment in favor of…

Weatherford v. City of San Rafael

To establish taxpayer standing under California Code of Civil Procedure 526a, a plaintiff need not allege he paid real property taxes, payment or liability to pay any tax assessed by the defendant government entity suffices.  Under CCP 526a, a person who is assessed and is liable to pay a tax or who has paid a…

IAR Systems Software, Inc. v. Superior Court

Only the prosecutor, not any third party, owes a criminal defendant a duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence, and even the prosecutor need not disclose such evidence if it is developed by a third party not acting under the prosecutor’s control.  Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 US 83, a prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory…

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell

Montana cannot exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant railroad that is incorporated and has a principal place of business in another state, and so cannot adjudicate claims against the railroad arising from transactions or events outside Montana, even though the railroad maintains 2,000 miles of track and has 2,000 employees in Montana.  Although BNSF Railway…

California Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction, Inc.

A contractor that provides pre-construction services to a public entity may perform a public function in advising the entity about the construction contract, thus subjecting itself to Gov. Code 1090’s prohibition of conflicts of interest in the award of public contracts.  Though Gov. Code 1090 (forbidding conflicts of interest in public contracts) expressly applies only…

Ogunsalu v. Superior Court

A vexatious litigant pre-filing order applies to the litigant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus to challenge the decision in an administrative proceeding commenced against him.  Even though a pre-filing order under the vexatious litigant statute does not apply to an appeal by the vexatious litigant in a case in which he is sued…

Orange County Water District v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc.

Trial court did not violate the parties’ right to a jury trial when it bifurcated a trial in a case involving mixed legal and equitable claims, trying the equitable claims first—after which it ruled plaintiff had not proven causation, thus precluding legal as well as equitable claims.  This decision upholds a trial court’s decision to…

Hart v. Darwish

Denial of a motion for judgment under CCP 631.8 is a sufficient ruling on the merits to invoke the interim adverse judgment rule, precluding a later malicious prosecution claim.  The trial court properly took judicial notice of an earlier court’s ruling on a motion for judgment under CCP 631.8 and the earlier court’s stated reasons…