| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24-3659
|
Tohono O'Odham Nation v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior
District court erred in granting Bureau of Land Management's dismissal request when it only relied on its previous preliminary injunction ruling to determine if dismissal was appropriate. |
Civil Procedure |
|
M. Bennett | May 28, 2025 |
|
23-2807
|
Amended Opinion: Roe v. Critchfield
Because student's facial challenge to Idaho's anti-transgender school bathroom bill was deemed unlikely to succeed on the merits, preliminary injunction was properly denied. |
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Christen | May 27, 2025 |
|
H051407
|
Guracar v. Student Loan Solutions
Plaintiff had standing to sue, as the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, the Private Student Loan Collections Reform Act, and the Rosenthal Act do not require plaintiffs seeking statutory damages to show concrete harm. |
Consumer Law, Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bromberg | May 22, 2025 |
|
B340707
|
Modification: Sanders v. Superior Court (Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.)
Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98's 30-day time limit for arbitration fees. |
Arbitration, Civil Procedure |
|
G. Feuer | May 16, 2025 |
|
24-581
|
Yelp Inc. v. Paxton
Applying Younger doctrine, district court properly dismissed Yelp's motion to enjoin Texas' ongoing state court proceedings regarding Yelp's notifications for crisis pregnancy centers. |
Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bress | May 16, 2025 |
|
23-15759
|
Miroth v. County of Trinity
Rooker-Feldman doctrine limiting district courts' jurisdiction did not apply where plaintiffs were not challenging state-court judgment but rather seeking to redress alleged injury by adverse party in the state proceedings. |
Civil Procedure |
|
D. Bress | May 9, 2025 |
|
B340707
|
Sanders v. Superior Court (Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.)
Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98's 30-day time limit for arbitration fees. |
Arbitration, Civil Procedure |
|
G. Feuer | May 8, 2025 |
|
B332299
|
Tillinghast v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
School district forfeited jury instruction issues on appeal when it failed to raise the issue during trial. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Wiley | May 7, 2025 |
|
D085178
|
Reyes v. Hi-Grade Materials Co.
Death knell doctrine did not apply to order denying class certification where individual and representative Private Attorneys General Act claims remained pending even when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims. |
Employment Law, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Buchanan | May 1, 2025 |
|
A171241
|
Goebner v. Superior Court (McDonald)
Trial court erroneously dismissed demurrer to probate petition as time-barred under the Code of Civil Procedure, where relevant Probate Code provision should have been applied. |
Trust and Estates, Civil Procedure |
|
V. Rodriguez | May 1, 2025 |
|
24-241
|
Fallon v. Dudek
In social security context, district court properly refused revisiting its evaluation of medical experts' opinions settled in its first opinion and not part of remand proceedings under the law-of-the-case doctrine. |
Civil Procedure, Administrative Agencies |
|
D. Forrest | Apr. 25, 2025 |
|
B337874
|
Marino v. Rayant
Requests to seal civil harassment records were properly denied when defendant failed to meet California Rules of Court requirements for sealing records. |
Civil Procedure |
|
H. Bendix | Apr. 22, 2025 |
|
22-15815
|
Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.
Overruling prior precedent, expressly aimed conduct at the forum state for specific personal jurisdiction does not require differential targeting. |
Civil Procedure |
|
K. Wardlaw | Apr. 22, 2025 |
|
B336778
|
Carachure v. City of Azusa
Parties seeking to challenge constitutionality of city's sewer and sanitation fees did not need to pay under protest and exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action. |
Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
J. Segal | Apr. 17, 2025 |
|
A171441
|
1215 Fell SF Owner LLC v. Fell Street Automotive Clinic
Naming discrepancy in complaint did not automatically void judgment and jurisdiction of the trial court, and remand was required to determine if the defect could be cured by amendment. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Streeter | Apr. 16, 2025 |
|
22-16623
|
Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Balan
District court improperly asserted diversity jurisdiction to confirm arbitration award, where face of petition did not establish that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement had been met. |
Arbitration, Civil Procedure |
|
L. VanDyke | Apr. 15, 2025 |
|
24-215
|
AirDoctor LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co. Ltd.
Since complaint sought damages in amounts to be proven at trial, awarding those damages in default judgment would not differ in kind or amount from what was sought in the complaint. |
Remedies, Civil Procedure |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | Apr. 14, 2025 |
|
24A931
|
Trump v. J.G.G.
Action seeking to stop removal under Alien Enemies Act proclamation sounded in habeas, so the district of confinement was the proper venue for the action. |
Immigration, Civil Procedure |
|
P. Curiam (USSC) | Apr. 9, 2025 |
|
B326147
|
Modification: Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc.
Failure to provide an opposing statement or any excuse for not doing so was sufficient grounds for granting defendant's summary judgment motion on FEHA and Labor Code claims. |
Civil Procedure, Employment Discrimination |
|
D. Kim | Apr. 8, 2025 |
|
24A910
|
Department of Education v. California
Despite courts of appeals lacking appellate jurisdiction over appeals from temporary restraining orders, Supreme Court chose to construe district court's TRO as preliminary injunction and stay it. |
Civil Procedure |
|
P. Curiam (USSC) | Apr. 8, 2025 |
|
24-4624
|
In Re: Ex Parte Application of Gliner
District court abused its discretion in denying discovery request for website operator's name based on First Amendment concerns when it was unclear whether potential defendants were constitutionally protected. |
Civil Procedure |
|
C. Bea | Apr. 2, 2025 |
|
G064459
|
Modification: Montoya v. Superior Court (Fowler)
Burden of proof may be shifted to defendant doctor when the CT scan he delayed in ordering was crucial to establishing medical negligence causation. |
Torts, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Sanchez | Mar. 31, 2025 |
|
23-2940
|
Bigfoot Ventures Limited v. Knighton
Plaintiff could not adequately represent shareholders in derivative action that appeared to be waged as leverage in other litigation between the parties. |
Civil Procedure, Corporations |
|
R. Gould | Mar. 31, 2025 |
|
24-2141
|
SDVF, LLC V. Cozzia USA LLC
Registered judgment relied on underlying judgment for its enforceability, and vacatur of that underlying judgment meant the registered judgment could not be enforced. |
Civil Procedure, Remedies |
|
K. Lee | Mar. 27, 2025 |
|
G064459
|
Montoya v. Superior Court (Fowler)
Burden of proof may be shifted to defendant doctor when the CT scan he delayed in ordering was crucial to establishing medical negligence causation. |
Torts, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Sanchez | Mar. 25, 2025 |
|
B329889
|
Talbott v. Ghadimi
Client was entitled to mandatory relief from default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) because the default was caused by his counsel's calculated delay--not his own. |
Civil Procedure, Attorneys |
|
J. Segal | Mar. 20, 2025 |
|
23-2807
|
Roe v. Critchfield
Because student's facial challenge to Idaho's anti-transgender school bathroom bill was deemed unlikely to succeed on the merits, preliminary injunction was properly denied. |
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Christen | Mar. 21, 2025 |
|
S280598
|
Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America
While CCP 998 sets out a default rule for cost-shifting, parties remain free to agree to their own allocation of costs and fees as part of a settlement agreement. |
Civil Procedure |
|
C. Corrigan | Mar. 21, 2025 |
|
D085025M
|
Modification: Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical Group
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice was not an appealable final judgment, and it stripped the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
Civil Procedure |
|
M. Buchanan | Mar. 21, 2025 |
|
24-2199
|
Cahill v. Nike, Inc.
A district court had the power to order the return or destruction of confidential documents that were inadvertently disclosed by another party to an intervenor. |
Civil Procedure, Employment Discrimination |
|
L. VanDyke | Mar. 19, 2025 |
For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com