Anti-SLAPP case 422
April 4th, 2012 
admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Grewal v Jammu 191 Cal.App.4th 977 (½) (2011) Yet another anti-SLAPP case, but this time affirming denial of the motion. G, a Sikh court interpreter, brought libel action against J for publicly and frequently alleging G, inter alia, was a Muslim terrorist. J brought 206-page anti-SLAPP motion which G countered with substantial evidence showing the published statements are provably false.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com J replied, only saying that G has only put the matters at issue, rather than proving they are false. [1] “However efficacious the anti-SLAPP procedure may be in the right case, it can be badly abused in the wrong one, resulting in substantial cost–and prejudicial delay.” At substantial length court points out over use and abuse of anti-SLAPP motions and asks for Legislature to fix this. [Legislature, I hope you’re listening.] [2] G met his anti-SLAPP burden “as [J] essentially conceded.” [3] Various criticism of quality of appeal (“Our reaction? Disbelief.” “J’s “briefs miss the point.” Statement of facts: 21 pages on losing side’s evidence, 20 lines on prevailing part’s. “Such advocacy is not to be condoned.” “The brief is, in a word, unhelpful.” “appeal that is utterly lacking in merit.”) [4] G not a public figure and no public interest involved, even were that a material issue. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
998 demand 421
April 4th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Najera v Huerta 191 Cal.App.4th 872 (5) (2011) N served $50K CCP § 998 demand concurrently with complaint, and got $728K verdict. Trial court properly granted motion to tax costs in that the § 998 demand was not made in good faith. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Where N and lawyer did not have preexisting relationship w/H and her insurer and there was no free flow of information before or during the 998 period, finding absence of good faith is w/in trial court discretion. Distinguishable from Barba 166 CA4th 444 permitting an immediate 998 recovery where there had been a free flow of information (and impliedly criticizing Barba noting the dissent there had the better argument.) San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Horse injury 420
April 4th, 2012 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Eriksson v Nunnink 191 Cal.App.4th 826 (4/2) (2011) Equestrian riding coach N knew horse had recent injury, but not told horse otherwise unfit for competition. N reassured her student ME and ME’s parent KE the horse was safe to ride. KE signed releases.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com MSJ granted on express contractual and primary assumption of risk. Reversed. [1] Coaches who push and challenge have no liability except where coach intended injury or acted totally outside scope of ordinary coaching activity. [2] To defeat negligence claim, N had to show that she had no control over horse or rider or that horse not unfit, both of which N failed to do–partly due to deficient MSJ Separate Statement. [3] Release–even if properly presented in the Separate Statement–could be defeated by showing gross negligence, “a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard.” Some facts suggesting N unreasonably increased the inherent risk of injury and concealed horse’s unfitness from KE, “could well equate to gross negligence.” (Extensive discussion of case law.) Review petition pending. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off