Fourth District holds that a guarantor’s procedural dismissal of an arbitration confirmation petition for lack of personal jurisdiction did not make him the prevailing party on the contract for attorney fees but did entitle him to costs.
Fourth District holds that the State Fund rule applies when a law firm receives privileged emails that a former executive improperly took from the company, and reverses the trial court’s denial of disqualification motions.
Fourth District holds that the Royal Globe joinder rule does not bar an additional insured city from suing both its contractor’s insurer and the contractor in the same action arising from a fatal pedestrian accident.
First District extends its warning about AI-generated fake citations to self-represented litigants and reverses a child support order for failing to include the obligor’s bonus and restricted stock unit income.
Third District holds that a memory care facility’s selection of the FAA does not displace California’s section 1281.2(c) procedural provisions, allowing the trial court to deny arbitration of survivor and wrongful death claims based on the risk of conflicting rulings.
Fourth District holds that the Secretary of State cannot relitigate the merits of an underlying fraud claim in a Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund proceeding but enforces the $50,000 per claimant statutory cap on awards.
Fifth District enforces a janitorial worker’s mutual arbitration agreement and explains how trial courts should distinguish, but document their departures from, binding California Court of Appeal precedent like Cook v. USC.
Second District affirms denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in a family corporation dispute and reaffirms that orders denying related attorney fee motions are not separately appealable, deepening a split with other appellate divisions.
Fourth District holds that California’s one-year statute of frauds applies to oral and implied joint venture agreements and affirms summary judgment for Scripps scientists in a biotech startup dispute with a venture capitalist.
Third District holds that an attorney with a competing lien can bring a single declaratory relief action against both the client and the prior attorney to resolve the validity, amount, and priority of all attorney liens on settlement proceeds.