The Pick Three Rule in Practice, Again

IIG Wireless v. Yi, No. G053393 (D4d3 Apr. 23, 2018)

This is another one of those grab bag cases where everyone raises way too many issues after a trial and everything gets affirmed. It’s some kind of partnership dispute over a cell phone retail business.

Briefly:

A Demand for Everything Is Apparently Not an Offer of Compromise

Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., No E061677 (D4d2, as modified, Jan. 23, 2018)

First things first. A footnote at the beginning of this 95-page opinion says “We certify this opinion for publication under California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, except for parts I.B., I.C., I.D., I.E., I.F., I.G., II.A.1., II.A.2., II.A.4., II.A.5., II.A.6., II.B., II.C., II.D., II.E., II.F., and II.I.” (On a publication request the court struck II.C from the footnote.) So to figure out what is actually being published, you’ll need to make a list (like literally write it down) then scroll through the opinion and figure out by process of elimination what’s not excluded.

Say It Again: RFA Responses Are Not Evidence

Victaulic Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., No. A146617 (D1d2 Feb. 26, 2018)

This is an insurance coverage dispute over some product liability claims. During trial on declaratory judgment and bad faith claims, the court permitted Plaintiff to examine Ms. Finberg, one of the carrier’s adjusters, about some RFA responses she verified denying that there was any potential for coverage.