Employer lawsuit 419
October 7th, 2011 
admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Rutti v Lojack Corp. Inc. 596 F.3d 1046 (9Cir 2010) [1] Employee R’s commuting in employer L’s car not compensable under Employee Commuter Flexibility Act 25 USC 254, even if condition of employment.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com [2] Conditions placed on use of L’s car does not change the conclusion. Activity preliminary to commuting also not compensable, unless it is a “principal activity” of employer. Planning day’s routes and jobs is presumptively non-compensable and, here, is also de minimis; likewise, uploading daily report at end of day. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two 418
October 6th, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v City of Santee 182 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2010) (4/1) M claimed rent control ordinance when retroactively applied deprived M of right to petition, since unconstitutional ordinance foreclosed that right. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Held, no private right of action for money damages for claimed violation of right to petition under Cal. Const. art. I, § 13. Limited to declaratory and injunctive relief. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Alleged sheriff deputies over-detained 417
October 3rd, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Avalos v Baca 596 F.3d 583 (9Cir 2010) § 1983. A. alleged sheriff deputies over-detained him due to others’ administrative error.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com [1] Named Ds not personally involved, so action against Ds inofficial capacity only. a must show Ds had Monell official policy or practice of over-detaining, which A. did not allege. [2] A. alleged Ds coerced him into $500 settlement and claim waiver. No freestanding right to be free of coerced waiver, but rather is affirmative defense to Ds’ waiver argument. Therefore no clearly established right sufficient to defeat Ds’ qualified immunity. [3] Conspiracy claims properly dismissed where underlying claims were dismissed. [4] RICO claims fail in that predicate acts (1 & 2 above) were not violations of the law. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
FDA product liability 416
September 21st, 2011 admin Product liability is anther area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
McGuan v Endovascular Technologies, Inc. 182 Cal.App.4th 974 (2010) (6) Products liability claim against FDA-approved medical device. [1].San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Claims the device was unsafe or the warnings were inadequate are preempted by federal law. FDA determines the design and labeling (i.e., warnings) and California products law would impose requirements different form or in addition to federal law. [2] A fraudulent concealment claim would also require the jury to find the FDA-approved warnings were inadequate, again imposing an additional or different standard than FDA’s. [3] Fraud on the FDA claim (that D withheld injury and defect reports from FDA) also preempted as it would interfere with FDA’s fraud policing function. Buckman, 531 US 341. [4] State law remedies for violating federal requirements would be permissible, but not where FDA specifically found no violations, To allow state action then would conflict with FDA’s fraud-policing function. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Coito lawsuit 415
September 21st, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Coito v Superior Court 182 Cal.App.4th 758 (2010) (5) Review granted D’s investigator took recorded statements from four witnesses.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Neither absolute nor qualified work-product privileges apply to recorded verbatim witness statements orto list of witnesses from whom statements taken. Privilege does apply to notes made by attorney or investigator. Dissent: statements should be protected by qualified work-product privilege, and trial court should balance whether factors favor disclosure. Dissent agrees witness list is discoverable as in Form Rog 12.3. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
House destroyed by fire 414
September 21st, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Abdelhamid v Fire Ins. Exchange 182 Cal.App.4th 990 (2010) (3) Insurance bad faith claim. A’s house destroyed by fire, possible arson.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com FI requested A provide information, including her financial status. A refused to provide some information, and repeatedly refused to answer questions. FI’s denial for failure to cooperate and for breach of condition precedent proper as her breach was material. A later supplied partial information, but still incomplete, thereby prejudicing F’s investigation. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Insurance liability 413
September 21st, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Selzer v Barnes 182 Cal.App.4th 953 (2010) (1/5) rev denied Anti-SLAPP CCP 425.16. Prior case, HOA sued S on two theories, one covered by insurance the other not. S’s carrier’s attorney settled covered claim.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Attorney S sued attorney B for fraud and emotional distress, claiming B’s “secret negotiation” was fraudulent and caused emotional distress. Once covered claim dismissed, insurer refused further defense. Anti-SLAPP granted in that B’s conduct wholly w/in litigation, therefore protected activity. Because all conduct privileged CC § 47, no ‘probability of prevailing.’ Court dispatches S’s “several poorly developedarguments” that B’s negotiation violated B&PC § 6128 (deceit), Pen C § 550 (fraudulent ins. claim), CC § 2860 (Cumis codification). San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Freedman v Brutzkus lawsuit 412
September 21st, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Freedman v Brutzkus 182 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2010) (2/4) Prior settlement: lawyers F&B signed “approved as to form & content.”San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com This approval only means that the lawyer asserts the settlement is in the proper form and that it embodies the settlement deal struck by the parties. Attorneys are not therefore made liable to the opposing attorneys. Court explicitly does not consider whether lawyer could be liable to other lawyer’s client. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Freedman b Brutzkus lawsuit 411
September 19th, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Freedman v Brutzkus 182 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2010) (2/4) Prior settlement: lawyers F&B signed “approved as to form & content.” San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.comThis approval only means that the lawyer asserts the settlement is in the proper form and that it embodies the settlement deal struck by the parties. Attorneys are not therefore made liable to the opposing attorneys. Court explicitly does not consider whether lawyer could be liable to other lawyer’s client. San Diego personal injury attorney.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Conspiracy lawsuit 410
September 19th, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Central Concrete Supply Co. v Bursak 182 Cal.App.4th 1092 (2010) (1/5) Prior 2003 case: C sued S for fraud (embezzlement); S enjoined from transferring any property. But S sold property in 2006 and brought 2007 motion todissolve injunction, concealing from the court S’s sale.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com C claimed B (S’s lawyer) engaged in conspiracy to evade the injunction, fraudulent transfer, etc. [1] B’s anti-SLAPP denied but motion to strike under Civ C § 1714.10 properly granted (to bring conspiracy action against an attorney, must first file petition to permit action togo forward. Petition not required where exempt actions, including conspiracy to violate legal duty for attorney’s financial gain 1714.10(c)(2)). [2] Permissible for trial court to grant leave to amend after granting motion to strike. Rutter Practice Guide’s assertion that court lacks such power rejected as simply wrong and certainly not supported by case Rutter cites. San Diego personal injury attorney.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off