In a personal injury action, the trial court granted defendant’s Motion in Limine and excluded three of plaintiff’s proposed witnesses as an evidence sanction for failure to respond completely to an interrogatory. Defendant had sent form interrogatory 12.1 asking about witnesses who witnessed “the incident,” and plaintiff responded with the name and address of one witness.
A man who was fired by a school district requested documents under the Public Records Act [Government Code section 6250, et seq.], but the school district refused to produce them. The superior court denied his petition because the man already has the documents. The Court of Appeal agreed with the man’s argument that he seeks production under the Public Records Act so he may release the documents to the public without being subjected to claims of improperly disclosing confidential information.
A judgment was entered against a man for unpaid credit card charges in a limited civil case. The man’s original debt was owed to a bank. The bank sold the account to a receivables company. The receivables company assigned the account to plaintiff. The declaration of plaintiff’s custodian of records, with attached bill of sale, assignment and monthly billing statements, was used at trial to prove the debt.
In 1999, City issued a conditional use permit [CUP 4153] permitting development of two hotels near Disneyland by some developers. At that time, the City intended to build an overpass on a portion of the property owned by the developers. In exchange for taking that portion of the property, the City promised to build a parking structure. Relying on the City’s promises and representations, the developers reduced the number of hotel rooms and made other design changes.
A man was falsely accused of sexual activity and held to answer after a preliminary hearing during which a fabricated lab report was used as evidence. After the charges were dismissed, the man sued a City and a police officer for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Immediately prior to trial, the parties settled the dispute and the man sought attorney fees in the amount of $1,448,397 based on 2,249.9 hours of compensable attorney hours and costs of $72,255. The trial court awarded $436,807.50 for fees and $23,935.07 for costs.
The parents of a kindergartener filed a complaint, with the mother as guardian ad litem for the child, alleging the child was sexually molested by another kindergartener at school. The school district sought an order compelling the plaintiff kindergartener to submit to a mental examination, which would include personal interviews of the child and his parents by a psychiatrist.
While driving a GMC pickup truck owned by her father, a 17-year-old got into an accident. However, even though the daughter was the only one to drive the pickup, the father had excluded his daughter from insurance coverage in order to save money on premium payments. The daughter’s mother, who is the ex-wife of the father, had insurance on her own vehicles, but not the GMC.
In 2000, law firm #1 sent a letter to a lawyer offering him employment; the letter contained an arbitration provision. In 2006, law firm #2, which had subsumed law firm #1 in a merger, and the lawyer signed a termination agreement/resignation letter. Later, the lawyer sued law firm #2 for breach of the termination agreement. Law firm #2 petitioned for arbitration, and the lawyer contended the 2006 termination agreement, which did not contain an arbitration provision, constituted a novation of the offer letter.
The original action, which included claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68], was filed in 1993 against multiple defendants. The foreign defendants were dismissed from the action based upon forum non conviens, and, after two decades in a Singapore arbitration against those foreign defendants, plaintiff was awarded $9 million, which award was fully paid. Thereafter, plaintiff, the manufacturer and distributor of semiconductor products, proceeded in federal court against the defendants for relief under RICO’s treble damages provision.
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