More than a year after plaintiff’s employment was terminated, he brought an action against his employer for common law wrongful termination against public policy, contending he was treated unfairly and discriminated against because he suffered a work-related injury and was disabled. Defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff’s action is barred by the exclusivity doctrine under Workers’ Compensation statutes and the one-year statute of limitations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
Previously we reported: County Granted Summary Judgment On Dangerous Condition Of Public Property Claim.
A husband and wife were injured in an auto accident and brought an action against another motorist as well as the county for dangerous condition of public property. The complaint alleged the other driver was unable to see the plaintiffs as they pulled out from one road onto another. The county moved for summary judgment based upon design immunity and the plaintiffs opposed, contending the county disregarded its own methodology regarding sight distance.
SCOTUS Says Federal Policy Favors Arbitration.
A California consumer brought a class action against a satellite television service for unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, false advertising and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The consumer had signed an agreement waiving rights to bring class action claims, and the agreement further stated that if “the law of your state would find this agreement to dispense with class arbitration procedures unenforceable, then this entire Section 9 is unenforceable.”
No Age Discrimination By Athletic Club.
An athletic club offers a range of membership levels, providing various privileges at one or more locations. The Young Professional program—at issue in this litigation—offers a reduced-cost membership for individuals ages 18 to 29, in recognition of the reduced financial resources of the under-30 age group. Launched in 2003, the program is offered at all but two of defendant’s facilities, and restricts access hours at two of defendant’s other facilities.
Shame On The Legal Profession.
In a breach of contract/breach of fiduciary duty/elder abuse action, a lawyer representing himself threatened opposing counsel with pepper spray and a stun gun at a deposition. When defendants moved for terminating sanctions, the lawyer plaintiff included in his opposition that the trial judge was a “former D.A. currently masquerading as a Superior Court Judge” and was defense counsel’s “pet dog.”
Statutory Interpretation.
The general rule is that statutes, including those clarifying existing law, do not operate retrospectively. In Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 933 P.2d 507], the California Supreme Court held that, despite that general rule, when the Legislature promptly reacts to the emergence of a novel question of statutory interpretation by the courts, “[a]n amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act, where the amendment was adopted soon after the controversy arose concerning the proper interpretation of the statute.”
“One Of These Days, Alice….Pow…Straight To The Moon!,” Ralph Kramden. (but spousal battery is no longer funny . . and no longer tolerated.)
Indirect touching is sufficient to constitute a battery. A criminal defendant [the hubby] contended there was no indirect touching of his wife because the only thing that happened was that his car collided with another car being driven by his wife.
Judgment Reversed After Trial Court Adopted Referee’s Recommendations.
A matter concerning environmental cleanup was tried before a referee pursuant to stipulation and judgment was entered by the trial court adopting the referee’s recommendations. Finding numerous errors, the Court of Appeal reversed. First, the appellate court found extrinsic evidence should not have been introduced in interpreting the contract. ng Second, the appellate court concluded […]
Even When Privilege Log Is Inadequate, Judicially Forced Waiver Of Privileged Documents Not Authorized.
May a trial court find a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine when the objecting party submits an inadequate privilege log that fails to provide sufficient information to evaluate the merits of the objections?
For Asylum Purposes, Persecution Because A Person Has “Membership In A Particular Social Group” May Include The Person’s Family.
asylum relief, a petitioner is required to establish refugee status, i.e., that he is an alien unwilling or unable to return home “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- …
- 183
- Next Page »