California Case Summaries: Free™
Five New California Civil Cases Published In
January 2019
By Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | National ABOTA Board Member | Ca. Attorney since 1980
For ADR Services, Inc. scheduling, contact my case manager Christopher Schuster
Phone: (619) 233-1323. Email: christopher@adrservices.com
Monty’s cell: (619) 990-4312. Monty’s email: monty@montymcintyre.com
Warning: this free issue is missing 45 other summaries of every new California civil and family law case that was published this month.
2018 Annual Summaries: We offer our short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published in 2018 in California Case Summaries: Annual 2018™ for $499.99 per year per attorney/judge/neutral. There is no other annual publication like this. To subscribe to the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer multi-user issues for law firms, superior courts and ADR providers so they can buy the right to give a copy to every attorney, judge or neutral. To get the right 2018 multi-user option for your organization, click here.
Quarterly Summaries: We also offer our short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil and family law decision published in the prior quarter in California Case Summaries: Quarterly™ for $99.99 per quarter per attorney/judge/neutral. There is no other quarterly publication like this. To subscribe the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer multi-user issues for law firms, superior courts and ADR providers so they can buy the right to give a copy to every attorney, judge or neutral. To get the right multi-user issue for your organization, click here.
Monthly Summaries: To get our summaries of every new civil and family decision published each month, subscribe to our online publication California Case Summaries: Monthly™ for $24.99 per month per attorney/judge/neutral. There is no other monthly publication like this. To subscribe to the single-user issue today, click here. We also offer law firm, superior court, and ADR provider multi-user options. To buy the right multi-user option for your firm, court or ADR service today, click here.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration
Vasquez v. San Miguel Produce, Inc. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 364268: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs were hired by Employer’s Depot, Inc. (EDI), a staffing agency, and they agreed in writing to arbitrate all disputes that may arise within the employment context. EDI assigned plaintiffs to pack produce for defendants San Miguel Produce, Inc. et al. Plaintiffs later sued defendants for labor law violations, and defendants cross-complained against EDI. The Court of Appeal ruled that arbitration was mandated even though plaintiffs did not name EDI as a defendant. Defendants and EDI were co-employers with an identity of interests and mutual responsibility for complying with state law governing employers in the produce packing industry. Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all disputes arising from their employment and at all relevant times EDI was their employer. (C.A. 2nd, filed January 3, 2019, published January 30, 2019.)
Attorney Fees
Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 290982: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request for attorney fees after defendants accepted plaintiff’s Code of Civil Procedure, section 998 offer to settle her complaint alleging violations of the California Disabled Persons Act (DPA; Civil Code, section 54 et seq.) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act; Civil Code, section 51 et seq.). The 998 offer included the language “attorney’s fees allowed by law as determined by the court.” The trial court properly ruled that both the Unruh Act and the DPA require a finding of liability under the statutes for an award of attorney fees. Because the 998 offer was silent as to liability under the statutes, plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees. (C.A. 1st, January 23, 2019.)
Civil Procedure
Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 117310: The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment, following a lengthy jury trial, finding for defendant on plaintiff’s complaint for breach of contract because defendant did not breach the contract or any implied covenant, and finding for defendant on its cross-complaint but holding that defendant was not harmed by plaintiff’s breach. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in awarding defendant, as costs, $6,486.25 for deposition fees paid to plaintiff’s expert witnesses. California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5 (b)(1) clearly provides that fees of experts not ordered by the court are not allowable costs, “except when expressly authorized by law.” (C.A. 5th, January 7, 2019.)
Court Reporters
Dogan v. Comanche Hills Apartments (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 275564: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for nonsuit in a personal injury/premises liability action. Plaintiff was granted a fee waiver on grounds of indigency. Based upon then-existing court policy, plaintiff’s later request for a waiver of court reporter fees was denied. Based upon the California Supreme Court decision in Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, holding that the San Diego Superior Court’s policy on providing court reporters was invalid as applied to fee waiver recipients, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial at which an official court reporter is to be provided. (C.A. 4th, January 22, 2019.)
Employment
Furry v. East Bay Publishing (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 6930903: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s judgment, after a bench trial, concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to damages in a wage and hour action because his testimony was too uncertain to support a just and reasonable inference that he performed work for which he was not paid, and finding that plaintiff was provided with uninterrupted meal and rest breaks as required by law. The Court of Appeal held it was error to completely deny plaintiff relief on his overtime claim because imprecise evidence by an employee can provide a sufficient basis for damages when the employer fails to keep accurate records of the employee’s work hours. It ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to premium or regular pay for missed meal breaks because he failed to demonstrate that defendants reasonably should have known he was working through authorized meal breaks. (C.A. 1st, filed December 12, 2018, published January 4, 2019.)
Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
Leave A Response