Civil Action with Brian & Shant

46. Civil Procedure Cases Pt. 1

Zehia v Sup Court of San Diego County (4^th DCA)

Personal Jurisdiction in the Electronic Defamation Action

Torres v Design Group Facility Solutions (2^nd DCA)

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Disguised as a Motion for Reconsideration

Grande v Eisenhower Medical Center and Flexcare (4^th DCA) 

Scope of Release Under the Dual Employer Theory

Dumas v LA County Board of Supervisors (2^nd DCA)

Meet and Confer Requirement for Demurrers

45. Consumer Protection Cases Pt. 1

Cases this week:

Schaeffer v Califia Farms LLC (2^nd DCA)

What Constitutes A False Statement in a False Advertising Case

Rincon EV Realty LLC v CP III Rincon Towers (1^st DCA) 

Overlap Between Legal Claims and Equitable Claims

Walker v Fred Meyer Inc. (9^th Circuit)

Disclosure Requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Campbell v Facebook (9^th Circuit)

Overruling Objection to Settlement with Facebook.

44. Guest Interview w/ Attorney & Arbitrator Lee Straus

Brian and Shant have an in-depth discussion with attorney and arbitrator Lee Straus about a case reviewed on a prior Civil Action podcast. Mr. Straus breaks down the subtleties of the case and further explains the purpose and reasoning behind his ruling. They also discuss Straus’ involvement and development in the State Bar’s Mandatory Fee Arbitration program where he is heavily involved.

Please note:  Mr. Straus would like to clarify that all fee disputes between an attorney and client(s) require the attorney to send the State Bar approved Notice of Client’s Right to Fee Arbitration form to the client(s) pursuant to B&PC § 6201.

43. Guest Interview w/ Attorney Ellen Pansky

Brian sits down with ethics attorney Ellen Pansky, remotely, to discuss COVID-19 and its impact on virtual court and other legal proceedings and her work as an advocate for matters involving the state bar’s regulations on professional conduct. 

42. Guest Interview w/ Restaurateur Philip Camino

Brian and Michael Childress sit down with Philip Camino of Camino Industries.  Philip owns and operates Fellow (www.fellow.la) among other hospitality venues in Los Angeles and nationally, including The Hudson, Earthbar, and Stout.  Philip shares his perspective on the hospitality industry pre and post-COVID, and looks to the future with a positive lens.  A person of immediate action, Philip wasted no time in making crucial business decisions to help preserve his restaurants and seek the assistance of an experienced team to help him address his business interruption concerns.

41. COVID-19 and Its Impact on the July 2020 CA Bar Exam

Brian and guest host, Serena Vartazarian speak with Loyola law student and Kabateck LLP law clerk, Gary Partamian about COVID-19, its effect on his final semester as a law student.  Gary gives his impressions on the impact the pandemic has on the California Bar Exam, and what he’s doing to prepare for either postponement or an altogether cancellation until COVID-19 concerns have been further alleviated.  

40. Browsewrap Arbitration Agreements; Finding a 3rd Party Beneficiary; the Inability to Use an Arbitration Award in a Previous Matter; Condo Associations, Arbitration Provisions & Unconscionability.

Wilson v. Huuuge Inc.

Brian and Shant discuss a class action based on a browsewrap arbitration agreement’s requirements.  Seemingly hidden, the consumer would have had to vigorously search through the website to find the agreement’s terms.  Accessibility to the terms dictate the determination of the outcome here.

 

Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc.

Brian and Shant discuss an additional named insurer added at the request of a named insurer to determine whether it can seek indemnification from the added party.  The added insurer argues that because the named original insurer denied coverage indemnification does not apply.

 

Barranco v. 3D systems Corp

Brian and Shant discuss the purchase agreement between two companies where one requested to introduce the prevailing arbitration award in their prior contract action.  The request was denied by the trial court and the appeals court reviewed the denial as an abuse of discretion and ultimately upheld trial court’s decision. 

 

Aloca Dos Vientos v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. 2^nd DCA

Brian and Shant discuss condominium associations and the arbitration agreements that are at issue in construction defect litigation.  Covenants Conditions & Restrictions require that if an action is brought against the builder it must be done through arbitration.  Generally, builders and HOAs have been granted a number of protections that must be considered prior to bringing an action.

39. Consumer Cases – False Advertising; Debt Fairness Act; Lemon Laws; The Privacy Act

Becerra v. Dr. Pepper

Brian and Shant discuss the use of the word “diet” and whether it misled consumers to believe that diet soda would likely promote weight loss.  Multiple dictionaries were used to understand what the word “diet’ is meant to convey, but the determination is based on the reasonable consumer test.

 

Stimpson v. Midland Credit Management

Brian and Shant discuss defaulted payment to a creditor.  The debt went into collections and the resulting action analyzed the statute of limitations of a debt in credit report.  A time-barred debt although not actionable in court, is not discharged.

 

Patel v. Mercedes Benz USA

Brian and Shant discuss the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  The trial court discovered that the named plaintiff was not making the payments but rather another party.  Attorney fees were recoverable although the prevailing party was not the named party to the action.

 

Smith v. LoanMe, Inc

Brian and Shant discuss the legality of recorded telephone calls with business entities.  The CA Privacy Act, Section 632.7 specifically does not allow the recording of a phone call without consent.  What’s perplexing is that the legislative intent seems to imply that the Act was implemented to require consent of all parties and prevent eavesdropping.

 

38. Past Recollection Recorded; a Unique Exception to the Hearsay Rule; Sister State Money Judgment Act & Res Judicata; Attorney Fees & When an Allocation is Appealable

People v. Royal

Brian and Shant discuss the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule and the elements that trigger the exception.  They court examined the time element and determined that too much time had expired from the event itself to the time the recollection was recorded.

 

McDermott Ranch v. Connolly Ranch

Brian and Shant discuss a case arising out of a property dispute stemming from a real estate transaction from 1958.  They unwrap a carved-out hearsay exception based on the statements being made in connection with the boundary of land of real property. 

 

Blizzard Energy v. Schaefers

Brian and Shant discuss the Sister State Money Judgment Act, taking a judgment from one state and enforcing it in another state.  The rule preserves the Res Judicata principle, in that once a matter is fully litigated, the parties are precluded from relitigating absent additional requirements. 

 

PG&E San Bruno Fire Cases

Brian and Shant discuss the allocation of attorney fees from the determination of a special master.  The agreement stated that the determination was not appealable but the language was introduced only once in the document leading to a dispute between the parties.

 

37. Discussion with Harry Chamberlain II

Brian and Shant sit down with appellate attorney Harry Chamberlain to discuss the origins of the of the Anti-SLAPP statute, protecting the free speech of lawyers, and tips for preserving a good record for appeal.  Harry is certified as an Appellate Specialist by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, handling hundreds of appeals across the country, including numerous cases before California Supreme Court such as Rubin v. Green (absolute litigation privilege), Jarrow Formulas v. LaMarche (First Amendment protections under the anti-SLAPP statute), Temple Hospital and Cedars Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (the “spoliation” cases) and Lee v.Hanley (defining a lawyer’s “professional services” for purposes of the one-year statute of limitation).