California Case Summaries

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice (https:// cacasesummaries.com). Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available, as well as annual Practice Area subscriptions in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. He currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. conducting Zoom hearings throughout California (to use Monty contact his case manager Haward Cho, haward@adrservices. com, (619) 233-1323). Monty also helps lawyers improve their skills and practices with his Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services (for info visit Monty’s web at https:// montymcintyre-law.com).

Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 1672918: The California Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal awarding plaintiff attorney fees of $169,602 after a jury found for plaintiff in her action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code, section 1790 et seq.) and awarded her $21,957.25 in damages. Resolving a dispute among the Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that the FTC’s Holder Rule, requiring consumer credit contracts to include language permitting a consumer to assert against third-party creditors all claims and defenses that could be asserted against the seller of a good or service, and stating that “recovery hereunder by the debtor shall not exceed amounts paid by the debtor hereunder” (16 C.F.R. section 433.2(a) (1975)), does not prevent a prevailing consumer from recovering attorney fees to the full extent allowed by state law. The California Supreme Court disapproved of the contrary decisions of Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 398, 418–419, and Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal. App.5th 151, 159–163. (May 26, 2022.)

Leshane v. Tracy VW, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1283276: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ petition to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleging violations of the Labor Code solely as representatives of the state under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code, section 2698 et seq.). The trial court properly denied defendants’ petition to compel arbitration finding plaintiffs’ claim under PAGA was not subject to arbitration under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. The Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ argument that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 should be construed broadly to allow defendants to still compel arbitration after the plaintiffs, by amending their complaint, no longer maintained any action in any forum based on arbitrable claims. There was no longer any action for defendants to counter by filing a petition under section 1281.2 for specific enforcement of the arbitration provision. (C.A. 3rd., April 29, 2022.)

Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1468016: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The

trial court concluded that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting 13 months after the filing of the lawsuit to move to compel arbitration, and by engaging in extensive discovery during that period. The Court of Appeal disagreed because the California Supreme Court has made clear that participation in litigation alone cannot support a finding of waiver, and fees and costs incurred in litigation alone will not establish prejudice on the part of the party resisting arbitration. (St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1203.) This rule had particular force in this case where plaintiff admitted he incurred no costs in litigation that he would not otherwise have expended had the case gone to arbitration earlier. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s unreasonable delay in asserting the right to arbitrate prejudiced plaintiff. (C.A. 2nd., May 10, 2022.)

People ex rel. City of San Diego v. Experian Data Corp. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1222870: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to disqualify three private law firms hired by plaintiff City of San Diego (City) on a contingency fee basis to help it sue defendant, on behalf of the People of the State of California, for violating the Unfair Competition Law. (UCL, Business & Professions Code, section 17200 et seq.) The trial court properly denied the motion. The contingency fee arrangements between the City and the private law firms in a UCL action filed by the City’s attorneys did not violate the prosecutor’s duty of neutrality and did not require disqualification. Moreover, the agreements to pay the private law firms twenty-five percent of any penalties recovered from defendant did not violate Business and Professions Code section 17206’s requirement that all funds recovered in a UCL action be paid to the City’s treasurer. (C.A. 4th, April 26, 2022.)

Soleimany v. Narimanzadeh (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 915: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment for defendants and its award of $59,780 in attorney fees and $2,082.65 in costs to defendants, following a bench trial and the granting of defendants’ motion for judgment in an action where plaintiffs sued defendants to recover amounts due on two promissory notes. One note was unsecured and the other note was secured by a deed of trust. The trial court properly ruled the 16% interest rate on the loans was usurious and that each note was payable at maturity without the specified interest, and this issue was not appealed. The trial court properly ruled that the unsecured note should bear interest at 10% per annum after the breach pursuant to Civil Code section 3289(b). The trial court erred in awarding no interest after the breach of the secured note. The Court of Appeal ruled that even though Civil Code section 3289(b) did not apply to the secured loan because it was secured by a deed of trust on real property, the plaintiffs were nonetheless entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid principal at the date of maturity at the rate of seven percent, the default rate of prejudgment interest provided in article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution, which applies except when a statute provides otherwise. (C.A. 2nd, May 17, 2022.)

Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1210643: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action for wrongful death due to exposure to asbestos. The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs could not invoke Code of Civil Procedure section 474 because they “knew or should have known” facts establishing a cause of action against defendant when they first filed their complaint so their action was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.2. The Court of Appeal ruled that compliance with section 474 is determined by the facts that a plaintiff actually knew at the time the complaint is filed, not the facts plaintiff should have known. (C.A. 1st, April 25, 2022.)

Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1010252: The Court of Appeal primarily affirmed the trial court’s rulings and the judgment for plaintiffs, awarding plaintiff Samantha B. $3.75 million in noneconomic damages and plaintiff Danielle W. $3 million in noneconomic damages, punitive damages of $50,000 each, and allocating 35 percent fault to defendant acute psychiatric hospital Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC (Aurora), 30 percent fault to the owner of Aurora, defendant Signature Healthcare Services, LLC (Signature), and 35 percent fault to Aurora’s employee Juan Valencia, in plaintiffs’ action alleging Elder Abuse and medical malpractice as a result of the sexual abuse of plaintiffs by defendant Valencia. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders granting defendant Aurora’s motion for nonsuit on plaintiffs’ causes of action for vicarious liability under respondeat superior and ratification. The judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed because the MICRA damages cap in Civil Code section 3333.2 does not limit noneconomic damages awarded for Elder Abuse (Welfare & Institutions Code, section 15600 et seq.), clear and convincing evidence supported the jury’s findings of neglect and recklessness, the trial court properly instructed the jury, and the jury correctly attributed 70 percent of the fault to defendants Signature and Aurora. The trial court erred in granting the motion for nonsuit, and this portion of the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issues of respondeat superior and ratification. (C.A. 2nd, April 5, 2022.) n