California Case Summaries: January 2019

 

California Case Summaries™:
In the video above I discuss my two new California civil cases published in January 2019. These summaries are also shown below. Beware: there were 48 more published civil and family law cases this month!

I’ll bring you two new free civil case summaries next month.

My online publication California Case Summaries™ is the fast affordable way that California lawyers, judges, mediators and arbitrators 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 christopher@adrservices.com.

Do well and be well™.

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

 

 

CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARIES™
The Fast Affordable Way to Know New CA Case Law™
Free | Monthly | Quarterly | Yearly
California Case Summaries

 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.)

Copyright © 2019 Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field