California Case Summaries Civil™ Organized Succinct Summaries of New Civil Cases by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Below are some recent cases summarized by Monty A. McIntyre in his publication California Case Summaries Civil™, which provides organized succinct summaries, every other Monday, of every new published California civil case for only $7.99 a month. (Go to http:// montymcintyre.com/mcintyre/) Monty has been a civil trial lawyer since 1980, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad variety of civil cases, and has more than 17 years of experience as a mediator and arbitrator. He has been a member of ABOTA since 1995 and is the past president of the San Diego County Bar Assn. and the San Diego Chapter of ABOTA. Monty mediates and arbitrates at ADR Services, Inc., where he handles cases in the areas of business, commercial, elder abuse, employment/wage & hour, insurance coverage/bad faith, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death. To schedule a mediation or arbitration, contact his case manager Kelsey Carroll at ADR Services, Inc. at (619) 233-1323 or kelsey@adrservices.org.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Code National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. State of California (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2018 WL 3150950: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal finding that Penal Code section 31910(b)(7)(A) was unenforceable under Civil Code section 3531 because compliance with the Penal Code section was impossible. Plaintiff alleged that dual placement microstamping technology was impossible to implement. The California Supreme Court ruled that Civil Code section 3531’s maxim that the “law never requires impossibilities” is an interpretive aid that occasionally authorizes an exception to a statutory mandate in accordance with the Legislature’s intent behind the mandate, but the maxim is not a ground for invalidating a statutory mandate altogether. (June 28, 2018.)
Civil Procedure Samara v. Matar (2018) _ Cal. 5th _, 2018 WL 3097960: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision reversing the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant in a dental malpractice action. Plaintiff sued defendant and defendant Dr. Stephen Nahigian (Nahigian) for malpractice regarding a tooth implant, claiming defendant was vicariously liable for the conduct of Nahigian. The trial court granted Nahigian’s motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and lack of causation. Plaintiff appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on the timeliness issue but declined to address the causation issue. The trial court later granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that the earlier no-causation decision precluded vicarious liability against defendant. Addressing the 10
Attorney Journal San Diego | Volume 180, 2018
issue of claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), the California Supreme Court ruled that, when a conclusion relied on by the trial court is challenged on appeal but is not addressed by the appellate court, the preclusive effect of the judgment should be evaluated as though the trial court had not relied on the unreviewed ground. It overruled the earlier inconsistent decision of People v. Skidmore (1865) 27 Cal. 287. (June 25, 2018.)
Construction United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) _ Cal. 5th _, 2018 WL 2188916: The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The “dispute exception” to prompt payment in California Civil Code section 8814(c) excuses payment only when a good faith dispute exists over a statutory or contractual precondition to that payment, such as the adequacy of the construction work for which the payment is consideration. Controversies concerning unrelated work or additional payments above the amount both sides agree is owed will not excuse delay. A direct contractor cannot withhold payment where the underlying obligation to pay the specific monies is undisputed. (May 14, 2018.)
Insurance Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (2018) _ Cal. 5th _, 2018 WL 2470975: When a third party sues an employer for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an employee who intentionally injured that third party, does the suit allege an “occurrence” under the employer’s commercial general liability policy? The California Supreme Court answered yes to the question above posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants were sued in a state court action because an assistant superintendent that they