|
Decisions Rendered
Arbitration
California Supreme Court: The court sided with CJAC's brief and overruled the trial and appellate courts which had found that an insurance contract was unconscionable and therefore invalid because it included a provision requiring the insured to pay half the costs of a future arbitration
(Boghos v. Lloyds of London, 07/18/2005, S117735)
Arbitration
U.S. Supreme Court: The Court denied a petition to hear a Colorado case ruling that arbitration agreements between health plans and their members are not protected by the Federal Arbitration Act because they concern insurance regulation. The CJAC brief urged review be granted because of the conflict between the Colorado Supreme Court's holding and that of federal appellate courts.
(Allen v. Pacheco, 06/09/2003, 01SC744)
Attorney Fees
California Supreme Court: By a 4-3 vote, the Court went against CJAC's recommendation and endorsed the "catalyst theory" of awarding attorney fees to a plaintiffs' attorney in a private attorney general lawsuit that won no relief but arguably changed a defendant's behavior. The plaintiffs were awarded $800,000 for filing a lawsuit (most of the award was for litigating for fees) over a truck owner's manual towing capacity misprint. The company had months earlier begun correcting the error and dealing with buyers. The lawsuit was dismissed 18 days after its filing, but the judge awarded the fees, ruling that the lawsuit caused the company to start a buy-back program. While the Supreme Court majority ruled that the plaintiff must make a reasonable attempt to convince the defendant to change its practices before filing suit, no definition of this "attempt" was provided except that it need not involve an attorney. The court also said attorney fees awarded for fee litigation should be lower than the fees for the underlying litigation.
(Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 12/02/2004, S112862)
Class Action
Court of Appeal, 3rd District: Overturning a trial court's denial of class action certification, the court ruled a class action was appropriate under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the UCL in a suit alleging that a roofing tile company failed to disclose that the color in its tiles would deteriorate much earlier than the "50-year/permanent life" representations made to buyers. Contrary to CJAC's amicus argument, the court found that "an 'inference of common reliance' -- as opposed to requiring a showing of 'actual reliance' -- may...be applied to a UCL class that alleges a material misrepresentation consisting of a failure to disclose a particular fact."
(McAdams v. Monier Inc., 05/30/2007, C051841)
Class Action
California Supreme Court: The Court overruled the trial and appellate court in upholding the requirement that in class action cases the question of whether class certification is appropriate should be answered before deciding on the merits of the case. The unanimous opinion found that while this rule is subject to exceptions, they did not apply in this case involving motor vehicle loans. The CJAC brief supported the basic "certification-decision first" requirement.
(Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 04/16/2007, S139171)
Class Action/Employment
California Supreme Court: The Court unanimously ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted class certification in a lawsuit claiming overtime pay for 1,400 employees in 300 retail stores. The CJAC brief supported the Appellate Court's finding that the employees' tasks and other individual factors at the various stores did not permit the commonality of issues necessary to justify a class action lawsuit.
(Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 07/26/2004, S106718)
Confidentiality
California Supreme Court: The Court unanimously concluded, contrary to CJAC's arguments, that insurance rate determination information required to be filed with the State Department of Insurance is not protected from public disclosure as a trade secret.
(State Farm v. Harry Low, 04/26/2004, S102251)
Construction
Court of Appeal, 2nd District: In a complex construction defect case involving numerous plaintiffs and defendant contractors and subcontractors, the court found that there may be facts triggering an exception to the 10-year limit for filing a construction defect lawsuit. The case was sent back to superior court to make that determination. The CJAC brief argued that the exceptions did not apply.
(Acosta/Chaidez, et al. v. Glenfed Development Corp., 04/29/2005, B163118)
Employment
California Supreme Court: The Court denied a request from CJAC and others to grant review of a case to determine whether due process permits damages owed employees for overtime claimed to be awarded against the employer in the aggregate based on a "statistical sampling" of what is claimed without an evidentiary hearing as to the hours and responsibilities actually worked by individual employees comprising the class.
(Bell v. Farmers Insurance, 05/12/2004, S123477)
Jury Waiver
California Supreme Court: The CJAC brief supports pre-dispute agreements to waive a jury trial. The case focuses on whether such agreements violate the California Constitution.
(Grafton Partners v. Superior Court PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 10/19/2005, S123344)
Medical Injury
Court of Appeal, 1st District: While not adopting CJAC's argument that MICRA applies to a medical group employing doctors, the court unanimously reached the same ultimate result that the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages in a medical malpractice case cannot be exceeded by suing the group instead of the doctors. The court used the long-standing common law rule of vicarious liability to put the group in the shoes of the doctors for both liability and limit purposes, stating that: "Exempting vicariously liable defendants from the $250,000 damages cap would undermine the legislative goal of replacing unpredictable jury awards with an across-the-board limit."
(Lathrop v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, 01/21/2004, A098487)
Medical Injury
Court of Appeal, 4th District: Although oral argument was held on October 20, 2003, on this effort of personal injury lawyers to deny the protections of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) to a medical group, the parties later settled and the case was dismissed before a decision was rendered. The CJAC brief argued that MICRA was intended to apply to physicians, whether practicing individually or as a group.
(Allen v. American Continental Insurance Co., 01/13/2004, G029035)
Proposition 35
California Supreme Court: A unanimous decision endorsing CJAC's view that Californians who voted yes on Proposition 35 wanted to put designers and equipment operators to work, not lawyers. The Court affirmed that Proposition 35 allows the state to contract out with private architects and engineers for services on public works projects.
(Professional Engineers in Government v. Kempton, 04/12/2007, S139917)
Proposition 64
California Supreme Court: In a long-awaited decision, the Court ruled that Proposition 64 applies to a lawsuit attempting to force the California Dental Association to rewrite its information on dental amalgam fillings. The CJAC brief supported the Dental Association in the case, which was sent back to the appeals court to be disposed of under Proposition 64's requirements.
(Kids Against Pollution v. California Dental Association, 09/13/2006, S117156)
Proposition 64
California Supreme Court: The Court unanimously granted voters the full effect of their ballot box decision to choose "their own legal representatives for cases brought ostensibly on their behalf" and ruled that Proposition 64 applies to lawsuits filed before the initiative's effective date. The Civil Justice Association filed briefs urging that ruling in both cases.
(Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's L.L.C. and Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan, 07/24/2006, S131798 & S132433)
Proposition 64
Court of Appeal, 2nd District: Siding with the CJAC brief in a case involving Listerine advertising labels, the Court ruled that Proposition 64 fully applies to class action lawsuits and to allegations of misleading advertising.
(Pfizer v. Superior Court, 07/11/2006, S145775)
Proposition 64
Court of Appeal, 4th District: In a "not to be published" opinion, court sided with CJAC and confirmed its ruling in an earlier case that Proposition 64 applies to cases in which no final judgment had been entered by the initiative's effect date.
(Boling v. Santa Maria, et al., 03/14/2005, G033691)
Punitive Damages
California Supreme Court: The Court unanimously ruled that the safeguards against excessive punitive damage claims which have been in medical malpractice law for nearly three decades do not apply to punitive damage claims brought under the new "Elder Abuse Act."
(Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court, 03/25/2004, S098817)
Securities
Court of Appeal, 1st District: Siding with CJAC's position, the court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences in requiring that derivative plaintiffs make a demand on the corporation's board of directors before filing a lawsuit on behalf of the corporation.
(Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Superior Court,, 10/06/2004, A107587)
Summary Judgement
California Supreme Court: In a case the CJAC brief says is critical to the future viability of California's summary judgment law, the association asks the court to review an appellate ruling that an alleged civil conspiracy can be prosecuted in reliance solely upon inferences from conduct that is consistent with legal competition.
(San Diego Gas & Electric v. Superior Court, 12/21/2004, S130375)
Unfair Competition Law
California Supreme Court: The Court chose not to grant review of a case in which CJAC filed a letter brief urging the Court to determine whether an appellate opinion conflicts with Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. in finding purposeful intent to "target" minors is satisfied, as a matter of law, by inference from general knowledge that minors are certain to be exposed to cigarette advertisements in national consumer magazines marketed to adult readers; and whether the injunction is unconstitutionally vague.
(People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 06/09/2004, S124430)
Unfair Competition Law
California Supreme Court: The Court unanimously ruled that the Attorney General and district attorneys may use the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code 17200) to sue a utility over its statements about its services, despite the ongoing jurisdiction of the State Public Utility Commission. However, the decision made it clear the court was not approving 17200's use by private attorneys in these situations. In its brief CJAC argued that the PUC's jurisdiction was exclusive, blocking all 17200 use in these matters.
(State of California v. Pacific Bell, 12/15/2003, S099131)
| 
