For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
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.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court

REPLACEMENT COPY OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2025

Name Category Published
Jones v. Goodman
Defendant not entitled to attorney fees based on plaintiff's claims lacking legal merit, without further evidence that plaintiff subjectively acted in bad faith. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/1 Nov. 19, 2020
Castillo v. Bank of America
Plaintiff was properly denied class certification in wage and hour action against defendant, because large portion of proposed class was never underpaid. 		Civil Procedure 9th Nov. 19, 2020
People v. Bankers Insurance Company
Trial court implicitly found sufficient excuse for defendant's absence at two prior occasions when defendant failed to appear at pretrial hearings, so it properly forfeited bond when defendant failed to appear for trial. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/4 Nov. 18, 2020
KST Data v. Enterprise Services
Defendant was not required to file new answer to amended complaint reasserting its affirmative defenses when amended complaint contained same material allegations as complaint. 		Civil Procedure 9th Nov. 18, 2020
Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc.
Defendant failed to establish the amount-in-controversy by relying on unreasonable assumptions. 		Civil Procedure 9th Nov. 17, 2020
Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.
Under Class Action Fairness Act, court should use percentage-of-value, not lodestar, methodology for the portion of the settlement involving coupons. 		Civil Procedure 9th Nov. 11, 2020
Modification: Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare
Trial court erred by categorically denying defendant's attorney's fees incurred before July 12, 2016 as a result of plaintiff's abuse of the discovery process. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/3 Nov. 5, 2020
McCluskey v. Henry
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning plaintiff's counsel under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 because counsel's motion to lift the stay was indisputably without merit. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/3 Nov. 4, 2020
Pinto Lake MHP LLC v. County of Santa Cruz
Trial court properly concluded that residents of mobile home park were necessary parties to owner's lawsuit seeking rent increase but remand was necessary to determine whether lawsuit should proceed in residents' absence. 		Civil Procedure 6DCA Nov. 3, 2020
Levine v. Berschneider
Sanctions were proper against attorney who told court that he received no word from opposing counsel at hearing to enforce settlement agreement even though settlement was paid in full. 		Civil Procedure 2DCA/6 Nov. 2, 2020
Luxury Asset Lending v. Philadelphia Television Network
Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to vacate and set aside default judgment as untimely because defendant had limited resources and was facing litigation on three fronts. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/3 Nov. 2, 2020
Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare
Trial court erred by categorically denying defendant's attorney's fees incurred before July 12, 2016 as a result of plaintiff's abuse of the discovery process. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/3 Oct. 30, 2020
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm General Insurance Co.
Pretrial offer to compromise was effective to trigger cost shifting under Code of Civil Procedure Section 998. 		Civil Procedure 3DCA Oct. 30, 2020
Amended Opinion: Nutrition Distribution v. IronMag Labs
Appeal was untimely as to district court's judgment because motion for attorneys' fees did not extend time to appeal, and district court did not enter order extending time pursuant to Rule 58. 		Civil Procedure 9th Oct. 30, 2020
Modification: Gruber v. Yelp Inc.
Penal Code Sections 632 and 637.2 are primarily intended to protect the privacy of the communications of California residents, and therefore, apply to all recordings of such communications--whether one-sided or two-sided. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/3 Oct. 27, 2020
Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist.
Because plaintiff filed his complaint on the same day he applied to submit a late claim without waiting for public entity's response, Government Claims Act was not satisfied. 		Civil Procedure 2DCA/6 Oct. 23, 2020
Kramer v. Traditional Escrow
Lower court erred in granting equitable relief from default judgment to defendants because defendants were unaware of the amended complaint due to their own negligence. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/3 Oct. 22, 2020
Paul Blanco's Good Car Co. Auto Group v. Superior Court (People)
If the admission of the truth of the complaint might subject a corporation to criminal prosecution, the corporation does not have to verify its answer. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/5 Oct. 22, 2020
Modification: Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse
Plaintiff could not be awarded attorney fees under catalyst theory because claim on which it was based was objectively without legal merit. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/1 Oct. 21, 2020
Sensory Neurostimulation v. Azar
District court correctly held Medicare's administrative channeling requirement applied to eliminate subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. 		Civil Procedure 9th Oct. 19, 2020
Inteliclear v. ETC Global Holdings
Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff identified its trade secrets with sufficient particularity. 		Civil Procedure 9th Oct. 16, 2020
Gruber v. Yelp Inc.
Penal Code Sections 632 and 637.2 are primarily intended to protect the privacy of the communications of California residents, and therefore, apply to all recordings of such communications--whether one-sided or two-sided. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/3 Oct. 9, 2020
Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse
Plaintiff could not be awarded attorney fees under catalyst theory because claim on which it was based was objectively without legal merit. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/1 Oct. 7, 2020
Reales Investment, LLC v. Johnson
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance made on the first day of trial. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/2 Oct. 7, 2020
Hooked Media Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Broken promises regarding future conduct may be actionable as promissory fraud, but only if promisor did not actually intend to perform at the time the promise was made. 		Civil Procedure 6DCA Oct. 5, 2020
Simgel Co., Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
A trial court has the authority to correct a mistaken verdict under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663. 		Civil Procedure 2DCA/8 Oct. 5, 2020
Alborzi v. University of Southern California
Trial court erred by impliedly finding that hospital's decision to dissolve panel of physicians was quasi-legislative because it ignored plaintiff's factual allegations. 		Civil Procedure 2DCA/4 Oct. 1, 2020
Doe v. Google, Inc.
Because plaintiffs' claims addressed conduct affecting individual employees, as distinct from NLRA's focus on concerted activity, and because this state-court action posed no threat to NLRA's jurisdiction, local interest exception to preemption applied. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/4 Sep. 24, 2020
Heshejin v. Rostami
Plaintiffs' derivative claims were barred by compulsory cross-complaint rule because they existed in related cause of action. 		Civil Procedure 2DCA/7 Sep. 24, 2020
Koussaya v. City of Stockton
Summary judgment in favor defendants was proper because there was no triable issue of fact regarding whether officers unreasonably fired at robber during a high-speed chase. 		Civil Procedure 3DCA Sep. 23, 2020
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.