Public Documents

 
Public Documents - Litigation

Complaint against local Portland area nursing home company.
Posted by Michael Stevens on 9.5.15 in Litigation - Pleadings.
In 1923, Frye v. United States established a threshold for the admittance of an expert's testimony that was linked to the most established and accepted ideas proffered by the larger professional or academic community of which that expert was a member. Since then, the standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony have been constantly evolving on a state-by-state basis. This exploration of the Frye and Daubert standards illustrates past trends, present dispositions, and forecasts for the future, as these influential decisions continue to shape American litigation.
Posted by Joe O'Neill on 5.7.14 in Litigation - Expert Reports.
Case was removed from trial court to arbitration. Later, some parties came to court seeking sanctions under CCP 128.7, because plaintiff's claims were frivolous. Held: Since case was removed, and the Court did not retain further jurisdiction over the parties, court cannot hear sanctions motion.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 11.26.13 in Litigation.
A California corporations rights and privileges are suspended when it fails to pay any tax, penalty or interest due and payable to the California Franchise Tax Board. Here, judgment creditor (a suspended corporation) executed an assignment of judgment. Trial court refused to honor the assignment. Court of appeals affirmed: suspended corporation did not have power to assign its judgment.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 11.8.13 in Litigation - Appellate.
Under California law, a money judgment is enforceable for 10 years. Unless the judgment is renewed prior to the 10-year period, it will become unenforceable. Here, a law firm obtained a judgment in favor of its client. Client allowed the judgment to expire and then sued law firm for malpractice. California Court of Appeal reversed judgment in favor of law firm, because there was no evidence showing judgment could have been collected from judgment debtor.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.30.13 in Litigation.
California Code of Civil Procedure ยง 657, subd. (1), allows a new trial to be granted if there was an irregularity in the proceedings. Here, a jury trial was conducted and the jury was poled about their verdict, but the jurors never signed the verdict form. Defendant brought motion for new trial and the trial court granted the motion. California Court of Appeal affirmed.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.30.13 in Litigation - Verdicts.
A party to lawsuit made a "press release" claiming the other party was under criminal investigation by the FBI. The other party sued for defamation. Issuer of press release brought a special motion to strike under Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (Anti-SLAPP). Held: contents of press release were not protected by litigation privilege, so the lawsuit was not subject to Anti-SLAPP.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.9.13 in Litigation - Court Decision.
Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, governs offers of compromise in litigation. Here, the Court held that a Section 998 offer need not provide the offeree certain paperwork to sign to indicate acceptance. Rather, a statutory offer that directed the offeree to file with the Court their own Notice of Acceptance if they accept the offer was sufficient under the statute.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.9.13 in Litigation - Settlements.
Section 904.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure allows appellate courts to hear appeal from a final judgment. In this case, the California Supreme ruled that parties to a litigation in which some of the issues are not yet adjudicated cannot make the case appealable by dismissing without prejudice the unadjudicated issues while the parties agree to toll the statute of limitation on the dismissed causes.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.4.13 in Litigation.
Recovery of costs on appeal is governed by Rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court. In a recent amendment, this Rule now allows the prevailing party on appeal to recovery cost of interest on borrowed funds for the purpose of appeal. This case held that, under the older version of this Rule previously in effect, interest costs were not recoverable.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 10.1.13 in Litigation - Appellate.