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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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 […]
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?
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.”
Respondent Carol Sachs is a resident of California who purchased in the United States a Eurail pass for rail travel in Europe. She suffered traumatic personal injuries when she fell onto the tracks at the Innsbruck, Austria, train station while attempting to board a train operated by the Austrian state-owned railway. She sued the railway in Federal District Court, arguing that her suit was not barred by sovereign immunity because it is ‘based upon’ the railway’s sale of the pass to her in the United States.
Defendant is a large herb-growing operation with multiple farms throughout California. Most of the farms use conventional growing methods, but one of them uses organic processes. Nonetheless, when it comes time for distribution, defendant packs the conventionally and organically grown herbs in the same packing and labeling facility, processes them together and labels them “Fresh Organic.”