California Case Summaries: December 3, 2018 to December 14, 2018




California Case Summaries™:
In the video above I discuss my three new California civil cases published during the last two weeks. These summaries are also shown below. Be aware that there were 17 more published cases during this period!

I’ll bring you three new free civil case summaries in two weeks.

My online publication California Case Summaries™ is the fast affordable way that California lawyers and judges use to keep up with new California civil and family law case law. I offer biweekly, quarterly and annual subscription options that provide short, organized summaries of every new civil and family law case published by California courts. The quarterly and annual issues also include the official case citations. Each subscription option includes both single-attorney and multi-user law firm/superior court options. For more information about these products or to subscribe, click here.  

Mediation, Arbitration and Referee Services:
Please contact me at ADR Services when you need an experienced and capable mediator, arbitrator or referee who knows the law. To schedule a matter with me, please contact my case manager at ADR Services, Christopher Schuster, phone (619) 233-1323, email

Do well and be well™.

Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator and Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Publisher of California Case Summaries™



Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Medical Center (2018) _ Cal.5th _ , 2018 WL 6442036: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal that had affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant in a wage and hour putative class action by hospital employees alleging violations of meal period breaks. The California Supreme Court ruled that a wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission permitting health care employees to waive a second meal period, even if they had worked more than 12 hours did not violate the Labor Code section 512(a) requirement that employees who work more than 10 hours must be provided with a second 30-minute meal period. (December 10, 2018.)


 Attorney Fees

Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6520889: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff prejudgment interest, but reversed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff $5,882 for the cost of trial transcripts and reversed the trial court’s application of a negative multiplier of 33 percent (33%) to the lodestar figure of $351,055.26, resulting in a $115,848.24 attorney fee award on a $17,455.57 recovery for plaintiff in a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code, section 1790 et seq.) case. The Court of Appeal ruled that plaintiff did not show she was entitled to prejudgment interest on her jury award as a matter of right. Plaintiff was entitled to recover trial transcript expenses. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in applying a 33% negative multiplier to plaintiff’s requested lodestar attorney fees of $351,055. Part of the court’s expressed purpose in applying the negative multiplier was to tie the attorney fee award to a proportion of plaintiff’s modest damages award. This was error because it is inappropriate and an abuse of a trial court’s discretion to tie an attorney fee award to the amount of the prevailing buyer/plaintiff’s damages or recovery in a Song-Beverly Act action, or pursuant to another consumer protection statute with a mandatory fee-shifting provision. (C.A. 4th, December 12, 2018.)


Modisette v. Apple Inc. (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6584127: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, in an action for wrongful death and serious personal injuries caused by a driver using the FaceTime application on his iPhone who crashed into plaintiff’s car on a Texas highway. The Court of Appeal ruled that defendant did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care. Considering the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was not a “close” connection between defendant’s conduct and the plaintiffs’ injuries and that the extent of the burden to defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach would be too great if a duty were recognized. The Court of Appeal also concluded that plaintiffs could not establish that defendant’s design of the iPhone constituted a proximate cause of the injuries they suffered. (C.A. 6th, December 14, 2018.)

Copyright © 2018 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field