| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
B157751
|
Santa Monica Rent Control Board v. Pearl Street LLC
Rent control board's lawsuit against apartment owner was not strategic lawsuit against public participation. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Dec. 4, 2003 | |
|
B160257
|
McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp.
Arbitration agreements of securities organizations that employee was required to execute under federal and state law are enforceable. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 26, 2003 | |
|
B162210
|
Net2Phone Inc. v. Superior Court (Consumer Cause Inc.)
Consumer group suing to enforce state's business laws is bound by contract's forum selection clause. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 26, 2003 | |
|
B161477
|
Lieberman v. KCOP Television Inc.
Although secret recordings were in connection with public interest, denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion was proper. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 26, 2003 | |
|
B147480
|
Palmer v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
A defective offer under Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 extinguishes any prior offers. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 26, 2003 | |
|
G030298
|
Moulton Niguel Water District v. Colombo
Court was required to evaluate evidence independently to determine whether party was entitled to litigation expenses. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 26, 2003 | |
|
G031415
|
Do v. Superior Court (Nguyen)
Attorney representing client pro bono may still seek monetary sanctions for discovery violations. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
G029968
|
Colt v. Freedom Communications Inc.
Lawsuit against newspaper was properly struck as strategic lawsuit against public participation. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
G030377
|
Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange Inc.
Because telemarketer was pitching product and not information of public interest, plaintiff's suit was not subject to anti-SLAPP statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
E032144
|
Brutoco Engineering & Construction Inc. v. Superior Court (United Engineering Technology Inc.)
Court was not required to consider proposed arbitrators who were not certified by Public Works Arbitration Committee. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
B156776
|
Basurco v. 21st Century Insurance Co.
Class is not certified because common questions of law and fact did not predominate and class action is not superior to individual lawsuits. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
C041189
|
California Teachers Assn. v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Teacher isn't entitled to addresses of witnesses named in confidential investigative report. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 21, 2003 | |
|
02-16199
|
Soranno v. Clark County
Plaintiff's lawsuit against county for its failure to issue him permits for sidewalk newsracks is moot. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 18, 2003 | |
|
A091787
|
Jackson Plaza Homeowners Assn. v. Alcal Roofing and Insulation
Limitations period may be tolled during period of attempted repair of construction defects. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 17, 2003 | |
|
02-15547
|
Bankston v. White
Federal employee who voluntarily dismissed administrative complaint for age bias was entitled to file lawsuit. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 17, 2003 | |
|
02-56457
|
Way v. County of Ventura
Because district court did not arrive at final decision on issue of qualified immunity, appellate jurisdiction does not exist. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 12, 2003 | |
|
99-5222
|
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Brooks Fiber Communications of Oklahoma
Federal court has jurisdiction to review telecommunications agreement using 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Nov. 11, 2003 | |
|
B166781
|
Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.)
Party failed to show overriding interest in filing its motion under seal. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 31, 2003 | |
|
B166081
|
Universal City Studios Inc. v. Superior Court (Unity Pictures Corp.)
Contractual agreement to keep arbitration confidential is insufficient to compel court to seal litigation records. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 29, 2003 | |
|
S098660
|
Lantzy v. Centex Homes
Ten-year statute of limitations for latent construction defects is not subject to equitable tolling while promises to repair are pending. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 29, 2003 | |
|
C041087
|
Weinberg v. Feisel
Causes of action arising out of false allegations of criminal conduct are not subject to anti-SLAPP statute. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 28, 2003 | |
|
B166721
|
Bagration v. Superior Court (People)
Person subject to civil commitment as sexually violent predator cannot move for summary judgment. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 28, 2003 | |
|
03-35457
|
Foster v. Carson
Court dismisses judicial budget case for mootness after funding is restored for defense counsel appointments. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 28, 2003 | |
|
B163040
|
Hernandez v. Superior Court (Acheson Industries Inc.)
Trial court has broad discretion to fashion suitable methods of practice in order to manage complex litigation. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 27, 2003 | |
|
A098122
|
Aquino v. Asiana Airlines Inc.
Federal law does not pre-empt state lawsuit arising from airline's refusal to allow elderly passenger to board plane. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 26, 2003 | |
|
C037787
|
Thompson v. Miller
Court erred in denying defendant's motion for attorney fees and in denying expert fees. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 26, 2003 | |
|
01-35887
|
Champion Produce Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co. Inc.
Party that refused settlement offer and then obtained judgment for lesser amount is liable for post-offer costs. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 22, 2003 | |
|
01-15970
|
Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
Right to rescind contract expires when property is sold; damages provision leaves sole cause of action, one year statute of limitations has expired. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 21, 2003 | |
|
02-15742
|
Theofel v. Farey-Jones
Defendants violated federal electronic privacy statute when they used patently unlawful subpoena to gain access to plaintiffs' e-mail. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 21, 2003 | |
|
00-35988
|
Noel v. Hall
Pending suit in state superior court does not prevent plaintiff from pursuing fiduciary duty claim simultaneously in federal court. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Oct. 21, 2003 |