Sunday, June 30, 2019

Real Parties Can Seek Anti-SLAPP Relief

Rudisill v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, No. B289179 (D2d2 Jun. 5, 2019)

Real party in interest permit applicants in this administrative mandamus case against the Coastal Commission got sanctioned for filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court thought that a writ of mandate challenging official government actions is per se not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, so the motion was frivolous. But based on the way the writ was plead, Plaintiffs arguably also went after the real parties for the way they applied for their CCC permit. That could at least be the subject of an arguable anti-SLAPP motion, so the motion wasn’t so frivolous as to merit sanctions. And since the real parties didn’t appeal the merits of the motion, the Court doesn’t need to decide more than that.

Reversed.

Friday, June 21, 2019

Satisfied in Full

Wertheim, LLC v. Currency Corp., No. B277633 (D2d1 Jun. 6, 2019)

This case involves a 10 year saga to collect on a $40k judgment, since swollen to almost $300k in interest and enforcement costs. Between the underlying action and related collections actions, this is the fourth appeal of the matters. 

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Can I Get a Witness...

Doe v. Superior Court, No. D075331 (D4d1 Jun. 13, 2019)

The case deals with the no-contact rule, recently re-codified as Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2. Plaintiff is suing a College for sexual harassment. There’s another College Employee who was allegedly similarly harassed. Plaintiff’s Attorney reaches out to Employee #2 prior to her deposition. When the College learns about the contact, it moves to DQ Plaintiff’s Attorney under Rule 4.2. College argues that because Employee #2 was a College employee, Attorney made improper ex parte contact with a party represented in the litigation. The trial court granted the motion.


But that’s not right, and the Court of Appeal grants a writ.


Friday, June 14, 2019

First, I Assumed We Had a Theory...

Esparza v. Safeway, Inc., No. B287927 (D2d4 as modified June 28, 2019)

Having bobbed and weaved their way to get their class certified, Plaintiffs in this wage and hour case have a problem. Their class cert arguments were based on the idea that they did not need to show how many meal breaks were missed by each class member, since that would be subject to individual proof. Instead, they put up a theory that there was a “market value” to a job without a meal break and that that value was captured by Employer and thus a legit target for restitution under the UCL. It’s a less obvious theory than “I missed 42 meal breaks,” but it is at least theoretically more capable of classwide proof.


That is, until it comes time to prove it. 


Monday, June 10, 2019

Justice Cuellar's Law and Economics of Interestedness

FilmOn.com Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc., No. S244157 (Cal. May 6, 2019)

The California Supreme Court has granted review of a number of important cases dealing with Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(4)—the anti-SLAPP-statute’s “catchall” provision. This is a big one.

Bring on the Sandbag

Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court, No. A155119 (D1d2 Apr. 18, 2019)

The Code of Civil Procedure anticipates two rounds of expert disclosure: an initial round and then a supplemental round. In the supplemental round, parties can designate experts on topics that other parties designated in their initial rounds. But there’s an important caveat set out in a case called Fairfax v. Lords: No sandbagging. On a topic that the parties have “every reason to anticipate” will require expert testimony, the parties don’t get to hold back and wait to disclose only as a supplemental. 

The Jurisprudence of Signification

Wood v. Superior Court , No. A168463 (D1d2 Mar. 14, 2024). Yes. You can change your legal name to Candi Bimbo Doll if you want to. See Cod...