Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A153241
|
Corrinet v. Bardy
Trial court abused discretion by dismissing case for failure to prosecute despite plaintiff's participation in discovery and attestation of readiness to try the case with trial one month away. |
Civil Procedure |
|
A. Tucher | May 10, 2019 |
G054496
|
Mercury Insurance Co. v. Lara
Trial court's ruling that Insurance Companies' 'broker fees' were not premium because they were charged for separate services was barred by collateral estoppel; thus, writ of mandate vacated. |
Insurance |
|
D. Thompson | May 10, 2019 |
G054496
|
Modification: Mercury Insurance Co. v. Lara
Modification |
|
May 10, 2019 | ||
B284446
|
Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre International
Summary adjudication was improper on one of plaintiff's breach of contract claims because alleged details of the oral contract did not conflict with her previous allegations or statements. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Wiley | May 9, 2019 |
C077711
|
People v. Warner
Trial court did not err in finding that there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant intended to kill under 'kill zone' theory and to so instruct the jury. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
C. Blease | May 9, 2019 |
B283979
|
Modification: Key v. Tyler
Anti-SLAPP statute applies to petition seeking enforcement of no contest clause, and movant's presentation of an underlying ruling provided sufficient evidence demonstrating probability of success on movant's No Contest Petition. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
E. Lui | May 9, 2019 |
18-1286
|
In Re Antoinette Michelle Maxwell
Because of the design of the benefits system, State reasonably relied on debtor's benefit applications, which misrepresented her full income, and State had no affirmative duty to investigate truthfulness. |
Bankruptcy |
|
F. Kurtz | May 9, 2019 |
19-15716
|
Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan
Applicants for admission who are placed in regular removal proceedings under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) may be returned to the contiguous territory from which they arrived under Section 1225(b)(2)(C); thus, stay of preliminary injunction granted. |
Immigration |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | May 9, 2019 |
17-15966
|
Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures
Parties in prior bankruptcy proceeding did not intend settlement to extend to subsequent claims; thus, claim preclusion did not bar plaintiff's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act claim. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Gould | May 9, 2019 |
17-16847
|
COMCAST v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission
Comcast's lawsuit to recover security deposit was barred by 47 U.S.C. Section 555a(a) because it arose from cable regulation, specifically, the cable franchising agreement between Comcast and defendant. |
Utilities |
|
N. Smith | May 9, 2019 |
16-16321
|
Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma
Regulation allowing union organizers access to agricultural employees at employer worksites under specific circumstances did not effect a Fifth Amendment taking; regulation significantly limits organizers' access to plaintiffs' property. |
Constitutional Law |
|
R. Paez | May 9, 2019 |
C086471
|
People v. Bates
Because defendant was unaware of victim's prior threatening conduct, such conduct was not relevant to show defendant's state of mind for purposes of self-defense; thus, trial court properly declined defendant's requested instruction. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
P. Krause | May 8, 2019 |
B292416M
|
People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.
Demurrer based on vagueness should not be sustained to complaint that stated a cognizable theory of liability under the statute which clearly applied to some or all of defendants' conduct. |
Constitutional Law |
|
N. Manella | May 8, 2019 |
17-17373
|
Superseding Opinion: WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio
US Forest Service did not abuse discretion when creating off-road motorized vehicle plan that allowed for such vehicles in most of Kaibab National Forest, since other limitations in plans were present. |
Environmental Law |
|
M. Smith | May 7, 2019 |
17-55373
|
Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds
Order |
|
May 7, 2019 | ||
17-56324
|
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law
For-cause removal restriction protecting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Director does not 'impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty' to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. |
Constitutional Law |
|
P. Watford | May 7, 2019 |
S244157
|
FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc.
Statements that concerned a matter of public interest, but were only issued privately to paying clients and did not contribute to any public debate, did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
M. Cuéllar | May 7, 2019 |
S243294
|
Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb
Code of Civil Procedure Section 580d did not preclude creditor holding two deeds of trust on same property from recovering deficiency judgment on junior lien extinguished by nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the senior. |
Real Property |
|
G. Liu | May 7, 2019 |
A152827
|
Modification: Taniguchi v. Restoration Homes
Under Civil Code Section 2924c, borrower can cure default of loan and reinstate loan by paying amount of the default, including fees and costs, rather than entire accelerated balance; thus, summary judgment reversed. |
Real Property |
|
M. Miller | May 6, 2019 |
E067578
|
People v. Salcido
The Immigration Consultant Act was not preempted by Department of Homeland Security regulations 8 C.F.R. Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 292.1 (2018) as to defendant. |
Immigration |
|
M. Ramirez | May 6, 2019 |
11-99013
|
Amended Opinion: Hernandez v. Chappell
Although failure to present mental health evidence to support a diminished capacity defense was ineffective assistance of counsel, ample evidence of defendant's specific intent to rape and kill supported the jury's verdict. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Nguyen | May 6, 2019 |
15-99018
|
Bradford v. Davis
California Supreme Court's conclusions regarding admissibility of defendant's post-arrest statements were not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law; thus, district court's grant of conditional writ vacating death sentence reversed. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Smith | May 6, 2019 |
16-73801
|
C.J.L.G. v. Barr
Immigration Judge erred by failing to advise petitioner about his apparent eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile status; thus, petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals' decision was granted. |
Immigration |
|
A. Hurwitz | May 6, 2019 |
18-71347
|
In Re Boon Global Ltd.
District court erred in summarily concluding that it had jurisdiction over third parties to compel arbitration, but it did not commit clear error; thus, writ of mandamus petition denied. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Nelson | May 6, 2019 |
A153133
|
People v. Fox
Defendants seeking to avoid specific firearm enhancement term while maintaining their plea agreement may seek resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 only if certificate of probable cause is first obtained. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Humes | May 6, 2019 |
S254938
|
Conservatorship of B. (O.)
Order |
|
May 3, 2019 | ||
B287190
|
McFadden v. L.A. County Treasurer
Appellant's new argument in her fourth complaint against the City regarding condemnation and demolition of her property was barred by res judicata; thus, appeal was dismissed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
V. Chaney | May 3, 2019 |
18-35119
|
Garvin v. Cook Investments NW
Defendant met the requirements of 11 U.S.C Section 1129(a); thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in confirming the seconded amended Chapter 11 plan. |
Bankruptcy |
|
M. McKeown | May 3, 2019 |
18-15369
|
BOKF, NA v. Estes
Defendant's corporate trust department was not within the registered meaning of municipal securities dealer; thus, district court erred in denying defendant's motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration. |
Securities |
|
M. Berzon | May 3, 2019 |
17-16509
|
Media Rights Technologies v. Microsoft
Claims arising from common nucleus of operative fact with claims in a prior action against the same defendant were barred by claim preclusion, but post-filing copyright infringement claims were not. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Gould | May 3, 2019 |