Case Decisions of Interest
Copyright © 1999-2011 All rights reserved
-Torts-
Trial court did not commit reversible error in precluding expert from testifying at trial that defendant’s treatment of plaintiff fell below the standard of care where expert did not state this opinion during his designation deposition, and plaintiff did not comply, or even substantially comply, with requirements for expert witness designation.
Dozier v. Shapiro - filed September 27, 2011, publication ordered October 19, 2011, Second District, Div. One
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 5721
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1011%2FB224316
-Torts-
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act limit of $250,000 on damages for non-economic injury does not violate the state or federal constitutional right to equal protection of the laws or the state constitutional right to a jury trial.
Stinnett v. Tam - filed September 1, 2011, Fifth District
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 4989
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0911%2FF057784
OUCH!!
-Torts-
When a tortiously injured person receives medical care for her injuries, and the provider of that care accepts as full payment, pursuant to a preexisting contract with the injured person's health insurer, an amount less than that stated in the provider's bill, the injured person may not recover from the tortfeasor--as economic damages for past medical expenses--the undiscounted sum stated in the provider's bill but never paid by or on behalf of the injured person. This is because the injured plaintiff did not suffer any economic loss in that amount. The collateral source rule precludes certain deductions against otherwise recoverable damages but does not expand the scope of economic damages
to include expenses the plaintiff never incurred.
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. - filed August 18, 2011
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 4563
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0811%2FS179115
-Civil Procedure-
A party need not move to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1281.2 if another party refuses to participate. Arbitration clause, which provided that unless the claimed damages fell within the jurisdiction of small claims court, any dispute "shall be resolved pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, at its Los Angeles Office," was sufficiently comprehensive to make it self-executing. An averment on the basis of personal knowledge is not required before a declaration is made admissible under Evidence Code Sec. 702.
Tutti Mangia Italian Grill, Inc. v. American Textile Maintenance Company - filed July 18, 2011, Second District, Div. Four
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 3953
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0711%2FB227191
-Torts-
Husband of woman who suffered a debilitating injury that impaired her mobility and limited her independence suffered a cognizable loss of consortium even though wife's mobility and independence were limited before the incident, since her condition deteriorated considerably as a result of the incident, leaving her unable to provide the same conjugal society, comfort and moral support that she once could. Husband's testimony that he and his wife loved each other as much as before, and that the changes in their lives as a result of her injury had not harmed their relationship, did not negate the tangible impact of his wife's injury and thus did not negate his prima facie case for loss of consortium. Substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that husband suffered no compensable emotional distress as a result of witnessing wife's fall, since he did not describe any severe emotional reaction to the event.
Mealy v. B-Mobile - filed May 24, 2011, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as B226243
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0511%2FB226243
-Trusts and Estates-
The beneficiary of a trust who did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under the trust may not be compelled to do so.
Diaz v. Bukey - filed May 10, 2011, Second District, Div. Six
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 2450
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0511%2FB225548
-Intellectual Property-
Copyright law does not preempt an implied contractual claim to compensation for use of an idea embodied in a copyrighted script submitted to a producer for consideration.
Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television Inc. - filed May 4, 2011
Cite as 08-56954 -- NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0511%2F08-56954
-Torts-
Plaintiff was a special employee of production company that hired him through his loan-out company, paid him a fixed weekly wage over the course of seven months, had a right to control the manner and method of plaintiff's work, and provided the place of work and all equipment necessary; workers' compensation exclusivity rule therefore precluded any tort remedy against production company and company which provided stunt equipment. Company financing film did not assume a duty to ensure that production complied with occupational safety regulations by providing safety advisors where financing company had a contract with production company in which the production company expressly agreed to comply with all applicable occupational safety laws and to implement a safety program; financing company did not affirmatively contribute to plaintiff's injury since company did not participate in the design or coordination of the stunt which injured plaintiff.
Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Company - filed February 24, 2011, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 1135
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0211%2FB219946
-Evidence-
Attorney-client communications in connection with a mediation were inadmissible in client’s malpractice action against attorneys based on their representation of him at the mediation unless the confidentiality of a particular communication was expressly waived. All discussions conducted in preparation for a mediation as well as all mediation-related communications that take place during the mediation itself are protected from disclosure, even if these do not occur in the presence of the mediator or other disputants.
Cassel v. Superior Court (Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, L.L.P.) - filed January 13, 2011
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 253
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0111%2FS178914
-Torts-
Risking of foreseeable harm was unreasonable where professional truck driver--who had received professional training that included or should have included the need to take other drivers’ sight lines into account when parking--parked an extremely large commercial vehicle near an intersection in a manner that blocked the view of oncoming traffic on a major highway thoroughfare with a high posted speed limit even though a safer parking spot was readily available. Driver was not excepted from the duty he would ordinarily bear to exercise due care in the operation of his vehicle simply because he was parked legally, and the issue of his negligence in choosing where to park was properly submitted to a jury.
Lawson v. Safeway Inc. - filed December 30, 2010, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2011 S.O.S. 69
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0111%2FA125209
-Civil Procedure-
Trial court ruling that defendant who prevailed in arbitration, in which plaintiff prevailed on other claims, could not be added--as an additional debtor under the alter ego doctrine--to judgment confirming arbitration award was error where that defendant was not a party to the claim as to which plaintiff claimed defendant was alter ego of the party found liable. Although a trust is not subject to the alter ego doctrine because it is not a legal entity, a trustee may be added as a judgment debtor, enabling the judgment creditor to reach the assets of the trust. Deposition transcripts need not be lodged in advance to be offered at a motion to amend judgment to add additional debtors. No authority requires a party in a law-and-motion matter to respond to evidentiary objections in the trial court or waive an appellate challenge to the trial court's rulings.
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC - filed December 30, 2010, Second District, Div. One
Cite as B222539
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0111%2FB222539
-Trusts and Estates-
Beneficiaries of decedent's trust who had already been paid the amounts they were owed under the trust were not "interested persons" for purposes of pursing an elder abuse action after decedent's death pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 15657.3(d); beneficiaries' status as beneficiaries of decedent's trust never gave them standing to pursue the elder abuse action because the beneficial interest they had in the trust estate was not one that could have been "affected by" the elder abuse action. The only way beneficiaries would have standing would be as decedent's successors in interest under subdivision (d)(1)(B) if the requirements of Probate Code Sec. 259 were met as to the residuary beneficiaries. Since defendants' summary judgment motions were based on the premise that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue any cause of action that belonged to decedent because they could not show defendants were disinherited under Sec. 259, defendants did not have to separately address plaintiffs' claims or make a prima facie showing as to those causes of action. Even though liability for abuse under Sec. 259 could be premised on aiding and abetting abuse by another or on a conspiracy to commit the act of abuse, it still must be shown that the person who is liable for the abuse acted in bad faith and was reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate prejudicial error in the denial of their motion to compel one defendant to respond to discovery since they did not show that defendant's answers would have led to admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant acted in bad faith and engaged in reckless, malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct.
Lickter v. Lickter - filed October 27, 2010, Third District
Cite as C061782
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1010%2FC061782
-Intellectual Property-
Even if a domain name was put up innocently and used properly for years, a person is liable under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(d) if he subsequently uses the domain name with a bad faith intent to profit from the protected mark by holding the domain name for ransom; evidence sufficiently supported jury's verdict that defendant did so where he used domain name as leverage to get the money he said plaintiff owed him. Evidence was sufficient to support jury's conclusion that designer plaintiff's "EQ" mark was a distinctive mark and that the domain name "www.eq-Italy.com" was confusingly similar to plaintiff's mark in the context of men's shirts. Sufficient evidence supported $152,000 damages award where damages for the expense of re-creating the Web site was a natural and foreseeable consequence of defendant holding the original site for ransom, and where remaining amount for lost profits was reasonable based on plaintiff's financial statements.
DSPT International, Inc. v. Nahum - filed October 27, 2010
Cite as 08-55062
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1010%2F08-55062
-Civil Procedure-
Trial court properly denied special motion to strike where complaint arose from a business dispute between the parties, and the asserted protected activities were examples of alleged mismanagement by defendant. Where issue of whether an anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted is properly before the appellate court, that court also has jurisdiction over issue of whether an attorney fee award was proper. Any reasonable attorney should be aware that a business dispute that simply mentions incidental protected activity is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.
Baharian-Mehr v. Smith - filed October 15, 2010, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 5908
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1010%2FG043068
-Trusts and Estates-
Where trust instrument provided that trustee would make certain distributions upon trustor’s death, trustor must have contemplated ongoing management until a final distribution, at the trustee’s discretion, to a then-living beneficiary. Where trustee/beneficiary died without having fully distributed trust property to herself, remaining property did not pass to her heir, and successor trustee properly distributed it to the contingent beneficiary.
Weinberger v. Morris - filed September 24, 2010, Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 5573
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0910%2FB215819
-Business and Corporations Law-
Finding that member of mutual benefit corporation had a proper purpose in seeking to inspect and copy membership list pursuant to Corporations Code Sec. 8330 was supported by substantial evidence where member repeatedly asserted in his communications to corporation his intent to use the membership information solely to contact other members regarding his proposed petition to amend the corporation’s bylaws. Evidence that one of the 36 members who signed an endorsement of plaintiff’s petition was employed by a competitor of the corporation did not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff wanted the list for an improper purpose. Corporation’s proposed alternative to inspection and copying--the use of a third-party mail house to send plaintiff’s petition by conventional mail--was unreasonable where it would have cost plaintiff $260,000 and where corporation did not propose the alternative until eight days before scheduled meeting. Records that may be inspected and copied include e-mail addresses where corporation regularly communicates with members by e-mail. Single member may exercise right of inspection and copying.
Worldmark, The Club v. Wyndham Resort Development Corporation - filed August 23, 2010, Third District
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 4998
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0810%2FC061019
-Intellectual Property-
Plaintiff--who produced, directed, and starred in certain motion pictures, and was the sole owner and employee of the production company that owned the copyrights--had standing to sue for infringement. Where plaintiff had standing to sue for copyright infringement, his right of publicity claim under California law was preempted.
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc. - filed August 16, 2010
Cite as 08-55075
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0810%2F08-55075
-Torts-
Trial court erred in reducing plaintiff’s award for medical expenses to the amount actually accepted by plaintiff’s medical providers as payment in full under their contracts with plaintiff’s private health insurers. Amounts written off by a health care provider pursuant to its contract with a private insurer may be recovered as damages under the collateral source rule.
Yanez v. Soma Environmental Engineering, Inc. - filed June 24, 2010, First District, Div. One
Cite as A123893
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.
http://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?i=1730709&l=7BLFN4L
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision refusing registration of the University of South Carolina’s (South Carolina) “SC” design mark and granting summary judgment in favor of the University of Southern California (Southern Cal), while denying a counterclaim cancellation action filed by South Carolina attempting to cancel Southern Cal’s registration for its standard character “SC” mark.
Under 17 U.S.C.A. Sec. 411(a), copyright holders must register their works as a precondition to filing a copyright claim. A copyright holder’s failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick - filed March 2, 2010
Cite as 08-103
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0310%2F08-103
In a rising market, a seller may not retain buyer's deposit after buyer breached sales agreement if seller cannot establish any damages caused by buyer's breach, even if sales agreement specifies that deposit was nonrefundable.
Kuish v. Smith - filed February 3, 2010, publication ordered February 10, 2010, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2010 SOS 843
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0210%2FG040743
In a landmark piracy case that had been followed closely around the world, the film industry has lost a copyright battle against Australian internet service provider IINET. The case, involving major studios such as Warner Brothers, Disney, Paramount, Columbia and Twentieth Century Fox, was seen as an ambitious attempt to force ISPs to act against piracy. But the Australian Federal Court found the company was not responsible for the copyright violations of its users.
Plaintiffs, who settled with several defendants and later obtained a damage award against nonsettling defendants in an amount less than the settlement proceeds, resulting in a zero judgment, were not the prevailing parti[ies] for purposes of cost-recovery and fee-shifting statutes.
Goodman v. Lozano - filed February 4, 2010
Cite as 2010 SOS 663
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0210%2FS16265
Adventure travel company’s form agreement on binding arbitration and limitation of liability, which was presented to consumers on a take-it-or-leave basis, together with the explanation that all other such companies required the same agreement, was sufficiently oppressive to be procedurally unconscionable. Arbitration and limitation-of-liability agreement that guaranteed plaintiffs could not possibly obtain anything approaching full recompense for their harm by limiting any recovery they could obtain to the amount they paid defendant for their trip, required out-of-state plaintiffs to mediate and arbitrate in California, and required plaintiffs to indemnify defendant for its costs and attorney fees for defending any claims--while offering no reciprocal benefit to plaintiffs--was substantively unconscionable. In view of procedural and substantive unconscionability that permeated agreement, trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying petition to compel arbitration rather than severing remainder of arbitration agreement from the unconscionable provisions.
Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. - filed January 29, 2010, First District, Div. Three
Cite as A123725
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0210%2FA123725
Wage and hour laws protect unwaivable statutory rights that are supported by strong public policy, so provision in employment contract shortening limitation period is unenforceable with respect to causes of action based on such laws, including claims for failure to comply with Labor Code provisions pertaining to overtime compensation, commissions, meal periods, and itemized wage statements, and unfair competition claims based on same violations. Where defendants pled affirmative defense that plaintiffs were administrative employees exempt from the Labor Code provisions on which their claims were based, trial court's decision to try equitable issues related to unfair competition claim first--with legal issues to be tried to jury thereafter--and subsequent ruling that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the affirmative defense, did not violate defendant's constitutional right to trial by jury. Implied finding that plaintiffs were not administrative employees within meaning of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission order was supported by substantial evidence that plaintiffs' duties as account executives for defendant, a temporary staffing agency, were not directly related to management policies because they instead constituted sales work; such evidence included testimony that account executives were trained in sales, worked directly with clients, did not supervise employees once they were placed, did not formulate policy and performed their duties in a manner specified by the employer, and corporate headquarters had departments that provided administrative support so that plaintiffs could focus on sales.
Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc. - filed January 28, 2010, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as G039985
Where complaint failed to state the amount of damages sought, resultant default judgment for damages was void. Constructive notice of potential liability does not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 580.
Stein v. York - filed January 25, 2010, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2010 SOS 369
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2FG040457
Code of Regulations, title 10, Sec. 2695.4(a) requires an insurer to notify insured of contractual limitations provisions and other policy provisions that may apply to a claim regardless of whether insured is represented by counsel. Insurer who fails to provide such notice may be equitably estopped from relying on the provision if insured had no actual knowledge of it, and insured’s failure to discover provision by other means was reasonable. Undisputed evidence of a material misrepresentation made in insured’s application invalidated policy and entitled insurer to summary judgment in its favor. Absent a valid policy, there was no basis for a duty on the part of insurer to disclose its familiarity with drayage business and therefore no basis for a fraudulent concealment claim.
Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corporation of New York - filed January 21, 2010, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as B204878A
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2FB204878A
Insurer was entitled to rescission as a matter of law where insured failed to disclose material information about her medical condition and treatment on her application; evidence showing that insured lacked any intent to defraud failed to create a triable issue of fact. Insurer had no statutory duty to show that insured’s application had been physically attached to insurance policy or to conduct further inquiries during underwriting process to ascertain truthfulness of insured’s representations before issuing policy. Because insurer’s operative summary judgment motion addressed an issue not raised by its first motion, trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reach question of whether operative summary judgment motion relied on the same facts and law presented in prior motion; regardless, a trial court has authority to reconsider sua sponte an earlier interim ruling on a motion for summary judgment even though the moving party may not have asserted any new issues or newly discovered facts or law that would support the filing of a second or renewed motion for summary judgment. Where insured had sufficient notice of and an opportunity to respond to insurer’s motion asserting that her fraud justified rescission, insured suffered no prejudice by responding to the motion on the merits.
Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company- filed January 19, 2010, Second District, Div. Two
Cite as 2010 SOS 226
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2FB214669
A non-relative petitioning for appointment of a guardian for a minor’s estate must establish standing under Probate Code Sec. 1510(a) by pleading ultimate facts demonstrating financial misconduct or alleging other information sufficient to warrant court intervention in the management of minor’s money or other property. Test for determining whether a nonrelative has standing to file a petition for appointment of a guardian is the same as test for determining whether petition’s allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Probate court erred by ordering an investigation without providing mother with notice or an opportunity to be heard before issuing its order.
Suleman v. Superior Court (Petersen) - filed January 8, 2010, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as G042509
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0110%2FG042509
There is no requirement that plaintiff suing for misappropriation under California Uniform Trade Secrets Act own the trade secret at time of suit, so trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff who sold trade secret while retaining right to sue for misappropriation lacked standing.
Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.) - filed December 29, 2009, Sixth District
Cite as H034441
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2FH034441
Where plaintiffs asserted a cause of action for breach of contract alleging that plaintiffs, while having no enforceable contract, conferred a benefit on defendant that defendant has knowingly accepted under circumstances that make it inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without paying for its value, plaintiffs' complaint fully raised all facts and circumstances in which equity could contemplate a quasi-contractual remedy of unjust enrichment. Allegation that defendants "took full control of the Business from Plaintiffs without paying the agreed purchase price, or any price at all" was sufficient to support claims for conversion and trespass.
Hernandez v. Lopez - filed November 30, 2009, modification published December 28, 2009, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite asG040956
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2FG040956
-Civil Procedure-
As a matter of public policy, a medical lien against the recovery in a personal injury lawsuit is not equal in equity to an attorney lien for fees and costs created by a retainer agreement to litigate the lawsuit regardless of which was first in time. Where complaint alleged defendants were aware of plaintiff’s lien but was devoid of any allegations showing an agency, trust, joint venture, partnership, or other traditionally recognized fiduciary relationship, defendants did not have any contractual duty to plaintiff.
Gilman v. Dalby - filed August 10, 2009, Third District
Cite as 2009 SOS 4803
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0809%2FC050294
-Business and Corporations Law-
Where licensed general contractor and responsible managing employee disassociated himself from partnership with defendants before defendants entered into a contract with plaintiff to perform home repairs and began work, defendants were not acting in substantial compliance with licensing requirements because defendants were never licensed prior to time contract was entered into and work commenced.
Oceguera v. Cohen - filed March 24, 2009, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2009 SOS 1834
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0309%2FB205608
-Insurance-
Where insurer’s policy provided that it would pay "[a]ll costs taxed" against insured in a lawsuit, costs taxed could include attorney fees paid in a settlement. Where settlement did not specifically identify prevailing party, party who received payment was prevailing party. Where insurer stood to gain if independent counsel successfully challenged coverage, it was equitable for such insurer to share in cost of counsel’s fees.
Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company- filed November 19, 2008, publication ordered December 17, 2008, Second District, Div. Two
Cite as 2008 SOS 6798
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1208%2FB204550
-Civil Procedure-
Where plaintiff’s settlement with joint tortfeasors provided for payment to plaintiff, who then obtained jury verdict against non-settling defendant, but amount of verdict was less than settlement, reducing net judgment against defendant to zero, plaintiff categorically qualified as a prevailing party for attorney fees determination. Where defendants were husband and wife sued as a result of their joint sale of a home, and jury verdict was against husband but in favor of wife, their unity of interest prevented wife from categorically qualifying as a prevailing party.
Wakefield v. Bohlin - filed December 15, 2006, Sixth District
Cite as 2006 SOS 6043
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1206%2FH028310
-Civil Procedure-
Arbitrator had no duty to disclose his prior service in superior court program as an uncompensated mediator in another matter where plaintiff’s attorney represented a party who had nothing to do with the present case. Trial court did not err in refusing to vacate the arbitration award based on arbitrator’s failure to disclose his prior service.
Guseinov v. Burns - filed December 15, 2006, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2006 SOS 6056
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1206%2FB188984
Where parties entered into agreement for binding mediation with no clearly agreed upon definition of a what that meant and later entered into settlement agreement but disagreed as to its implementation, mediator’s determination as to how settlement agreement should be enforced was not enforceable by court under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6.
Lindsay v. Lewandowski - filed May 31, 2006, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2006 SOS 2775
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0606%2FG033173
California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state hotels that conduct no business and have no bank accounts or employees in California, but which advertise heavily in the state and obtain a significant percentage of their business from state residents, and solicit reservations from state residents through the Internet and toll-free phone numbers.
Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. - filed June 6, 2005
Cite as 2005 SOS 2672
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0605%2FS124286
Arbitrator did not exceed authority by awarding attorney fees pursuant to statute, and trial court’s conclusion that arbitrator had misapplied case law interpreting the statute was not a proper basis on which to vacate the award. Any such misapplication would have been an error of law, not subject to judicial review, rather than an act in excess of authority.
Taylor v. Van-Catlin Construction-filed June 29, 2005, Sixth District
Cite as 2005 SOS 3285
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0705%2FH027703
Evidence plaintiff paid his own medical bills is admissible to rebut inference that plaintiff incurred unnecessary expenses or is malingering. Exclusion of such evidence under Evidence Code Sec. 352 was an abuse of discretion absent specific findings as to how jury was confused or misled, and was prejudicial where jury awarded plaintiff less in damages than his total medical expenses.
Smalley v. Baty
filed April 26, 2005, Third District
Cite as 2005 SOS 2075
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0405%2FC047658
Legislation extending limitations period for personal injury action from one year to two years applies to all claims as to which one-year period had not yet expired when legislation took effect on January 1, 2003.
Andonagui v. May Department Stores Company
filed April 13, 2005, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2005 SOS 1870
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0405%2FB176544
Copyright © 1999-2011 All rights reserved