Defense Litigation Insider Helping you navigate a clear path through complex litigation.

Category Archives: California Courts

Subscribe to California Courts RSS Feed

U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh In on Personal Jurisdiction as State Courts Have Gone Rogue

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends

Ever since the United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), in which the Court held that general personal jurisdiction exists over a corporation only where the corporation is fairly regarded as “at home,” many plaintiffs and state courts have attempted to distinguish Daimler in an effort… Continue Reading

Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Apple’s Responsibility or an Attempt to limit Drivers’ Personal Responsibility?

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

On December 23, 2016 in Santa Clara, California, in Modisette v. Apple, Inc., 16CV304364, the family of a five-year-old girl killed in a car crash on Christmas Eve 2014 filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that Apple’s FaceTime application distracted a driver and caused the death of Moriah Modisette.  Like the majority of distracted driver… Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Recognizes a Duty of Care to “Take-Home” Plaintiffs

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

Last month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two coordinated “take-home” asbestos exposure cases, in which it held that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care to protect an employees’ household members from exposure to asbestos through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers on their work clothing and/or… Continue Reading

CA Supreme Court Offers Interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction Decision

Posted in California Courts, Uncategorized

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 571 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), has played a significant role this year in cases pending in Delaware and Rhode Island. Most recently, the California Supreme Court has weighed in, changing what we thought we knew about personal jurisdiction, at least in California…. Continue Reading

Court Orders “One-Star” Yelp Review of Attorney Removed but Non-Party Yelp Refuses

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends, Professional Liability

How one small San Francisco case may cause significant change for the Internet and its users Ever rely on a negative review on Yelp? Ever write a negative review on Yelp?  Well, one small dispute in San Francisco has set precedent in place that such a review can be found defamatory and ordered removed by… Continue Reading

New Trend Emerging From Pending California Take-Home Exposure Decision?

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

California has become a hub for asbestos litigation.  Its plaintiff-friendly law and juries have attracted plaintiffs from both California and across the country.  A case currently pending in the Supreme Court of California concerning whether a duty is owed to a plaintiff who alleges “take-home” asbestos exposure could have a major impact on whether California… Continue Reading

Calif. Supreme Court Takes On ‘Take-Home’ Asbestos

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Premises Liability

Specifically, the court granted preferential review of the issue:   “If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?”   As background, recent California… Continue Reading

Defense Verdict Obtained Via Independent Rebuttal Witnesses in Living Mesothelioma Case Brought by Medical Expert Dr. Richard Luros

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Toxic Tort

On July 12, 2013 an Alameda jury returned a defense verdict in the living mesothelioma asbestos case Richard Luros v. Amcord, Inc., Alameda Superior Court Number RG11600370. (Luros complaint pdf download). The California defense asbestos bar had been watching the case with interest since it was filed in October 2011, as the Plaintiff, Dr. Richard… Continue Reading

Insurers Hold Attorney-Client Privilege in Instances where Bankrupt Corporation with No Officers or Directors is the Insured

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends

In Melendrez v. Superior Court (download), 214 Cal.App.4th 1343 (2013), the California Court of Appeals, Second District, recently resolved the issue of who may verify discovery responses on behalf of a bankrupt entity with no directors or officers.  The decision also reaffirms prior cases which hold that attorneys cannot waive the attorney-client privilege on behalf of… Continue Reading

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PUBLISHES ANOTHER OPINION LIMITING POOL OF DEFENDANTS AVAILABLE TO PLAINTIFFS IN CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS LITIGATION

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Toxic Tort

The California Supreme Court recently resolved conflicting opinions from state appellate intermediary courts on the subject of whether, or under what circumstances, a plaintiff may sue a dissolved out of State corporation in California. In Greb v. Diamond International Company, 56 Cal. 4th 243 (2013) the Court held that dissolved foreign corporations are not subject… Continue Reading

Are California Food Manufacturers Prepared for Proposition 37: Imposed Labeling Mandates For Genetically Modified Organisms?

Posted in California Courts, False-Labeling Claims, Foodborne Illness, Litigation Trends

California’s Secretary of State recently announced that the California Right to Know Labeling Initiative will be Proposition 37 on this November’s state ballot. If passed, this initiative would require labeling by food manufacturers of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). GMOs made their first public appearance in 1994, when… Continue Reading

California’s Long Awaited Brinker Decision on Meal and Rest Period Obligations

Posted in California Courts, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends

  The California Supreme Court recently released its long awaited decision in the class action case Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), S166350, in which a class of approximately 60,000 restaurant employees alleged their employer failed to provide meal and rest periods as required under California law. Class action litigation has increased exponentially in California, with meal… Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Says Equipment Manufacturers Not Liable For Injuries Caused By Asbestos-Containing Replacement Parts

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

Co-authored by Brian Gross  After years of inconsistent rulings in the trial and appellate courts, the California Supreme Court recently decided the issue of whether plaintiffs in asbestos litigation may pursue claims against equipment manufacturers for injuries caused by asbestos-containing replacement component parts they neither manufactured nor supplied. For the reasons below, the Court expressly rejected this theory of liability and affirmed judgment in… Continue Reading