This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Weekly Appellate Report #19

By Brian Cardile | Sep. 2, 2016

Appellate Practice

Sep. 2, 2016

Weekly Appellate Report #19

Sharon Arkin (Arkin Law Firm) chats specific jurisdiction after Monday's Bristol-Myers CASC ruling; Michael Newman (Hinshaw & Culbertson) on a hotel worker wage order escaping NLRA preemption; and Gerry Mooney (Rutan & Tucker) on quiet title actions of void ab initio deeds


This week's show regards three major recent rulings, one on the contours of specific personal jurisdiction, one on a Los Angeles wage order courting NLRA preemption, and one resolving an uncertain real estate law issue on statutes of limitation application to quiet title actions against 'void ab initio' legal instruments.

First, Sharon Arkin (Arkin Law Firm) joins to chat about Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, a case from the Cal. Supreme Court broadly construing specific personal jurisdiction. Ms. Arkin penned am amicus brief for the real parties in interest and considers the state high court's latest interpretation of the doctrine.

Then Michael Newman (Hinshaw & Culbertson) discusses the Ninth Circuit's ruling in a recent case considering whether a citywide wage ordinance pertaining to hotel workers, which had an exemption for unionized workers, should have been preempted by the NLRA. The panel held it should not be so preempted; Mr. Newman isn't as sure.

Finally, Gerry Mooney (Rutan & Tucker) chats a recent Fourth District real estate ruling, which resolved an uncertain question of property law; namely, whether statutes of limitation apply in quiet title actions challenging legal instruments that were 'void ab initio.'

Don't forget to find the link below and complete a short true/false test for one hour of CLE credit. And, if you have an idea for the show or would like to be a guest, contact me at


Brian Cardile

Rulings Editor, Podcast Host, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reporter

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor: