Primary practice area
Third District holds plaintiffs who lost their CEQA challenge cannot recover catalyst-theory attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 when the agency’s later action came years after final defeat in court.
Fourth District holds that even under independent judgment review, a trial court cannot uphold a Section 8 termination on grounds the housing authority’s hearing officer never adjudicated.
First District holds that an arbitrator’s merits-based finding that an employee did not suffer Labor Code violations preclusively destroys the same employee’s PAGA standing in the companion court action.
First District holds the First Amendment ministerial exception does not categorically bar a Zen Center worker’s wage-and-hour claims, but Labor Code section 98.2’s appeal bond is required only of the employing entity, not individuals also liable under section 558.1.
Second District affirms a trial-court ruling declaring an inactive California attorney a vexatious litigant and barring his future pro per suits absent pre-filing approval and posted security, in light of a long history of dismissed federal cases and frivolous filings.
Fourth District affirms a $9.4 million wrongful-death judgment against two brothers who falsely reported their deceased mother missing to police, triggering a phone call to a recovering-alcoholic brother whose resulting relapse caused his death.
Fourth District reverses a five-year DVRO for the second time, holding the trial court again denied the incarcerated respondent meaningful access to the courts by issuing the order without addressing his request to appear telephonically.
Second District conditionally affirms a $6.85 billion verdict in a five-month trial over the Jogani brothers’ real-estate partnership, but orders a remittitur because Shashi Jogani’s damages expert testified to an undisclosed lost-profits opinion exceeding $1.9 billion.
Fourth District affirms a bench-trial finding that commercial tenants rebutted Civil Code section 1945’s presumption of month-to-month tenancy after their lease expired during COVID-19, where the tenants paid one month as a goodwill gesture and never agreed to continue.
Fourth District holds Proposition 65’s pre-suit notice regulation is directory rather than mandatory, and that substantial compliance — not strict compliance — governs the validity of the 60-day notice for private-enforcement actions.