Personal Service Required

Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC, No. S242799 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2019)

This case concerns a procedural issue in limited civil cases. But it arises in a federal debt collection case where the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff in that case contends that the failure to comply with the the procedure made Defendant’s debt collection process deceptive under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

So That's What Those Are For

Morgan v. Davidson, No. E068.44 (D4d2 Nov. 27, 2018)

This is a battery case arising from a fight between neighbors. Plaintiff prevailed and obtained a substantial punitive damages award. There’s two procedural issues.

A $32.5 Million Discovery Mistake

Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., No. B252995 (D2d4, as modified August 20, 2015)

Although some law-and-economics attuned federal judges have doubted the rationale behind the rule,* in California, the defendant’s economic condition and ability to pay are matters a jury must assess in awarding punitive damages. Indeed, the California Supreme Court considers them so important that if the trial record doesn’t contain meaningful evidence of the defendant’s economic condition, punitive damages can’t be awarded. See Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 112 (1991).