The First District holds that a divorce settlement awarding one spouse the marital home ‘and all debts thereon’ does not implicitly require removing the other spouse from the mortgage, reinforcing that such obligations must be explicitly stated.
The First District affirms that a CEQA challenge to the Bay Bridge’s Bay Lights 360 LED installation is time-barred, holding that a subsequent Caltrans encroachment permit does not create a new project or restart the limitations period, and issue preclusion bars relitigating questions resolved
The First District Court of Appeal held that California plaintiffs may pursue statutory damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act without proving concrete injury, departing from the Fifth District’s Limon decision and reversing a class decertification order.
The First District held that under the Song-Beverly Act, a component manufacturer that warranties only its component is obligated to replace or reimburse only that component — not the entire consumer product in which it is incorporated.
The First District affirmed a $24.7 million verdict against a foster family agency, holding that FFAs have a duty to protect foster children from abuse they knew or should have known about, but rejecting both an unlimited protective duty and one requiring actual knowledge.
First District holds that a ratepayer’s Proposition 218 challenge to water rates is permanently barred after she failed to participate in the water district’s validation action within the 120-day window set by Government Code section 53759.
The First District holds that San Francisco has discretion to develop a fishing program and complete CEQA review before applying for a water supply permit to open the Calaveras Reservoir to public fishing.
The First District reverses the denial of compassionate release for a prisoner whose severe medical deterioration — complete loss of lower extremity function, fused spine, and incontinence — made any realistic possibility of future harm impossible.
California’s First District Court of Appeal holds that the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements, reversing a trial court that dismissed a toxic-substances lawsuit for failing to identify a responsible individual by name in the notice.
First District affirms bail bond forfeiture, holding that a trial court’s on-the-record acknowledgment of an off-the-record explanation for a defendant’s nonappearance suffices to retain jurisdiction over the bond under Penal Code section 1305.1.