Our Amicus Committee works hard on behalf of ASCDC members, submitting multiple amicus curiae briefs and letters each year in cases pending in state and federal courts. The Committee supports selected petitions seeking California Supreme Court review, and identifies appropriate cases in which to request publication of unpublished California appellate opinions that are of interest to our members.
If you have a matter that you wish to bring to the attention of the Amicus Committee, please contact the Chair, Steven Fleischman at Horvitz & Levy, (818) 995-0800 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Below are links to briefs and letters the Committee has filed since 2000, compiled in a searchable database.
Showing page 1
: Total Records: 139
Sakai v. Massco Investments
Addressing whether premises owner owed duty of care to plaintiff injured by rapidly exiting vehicle
Ford v. Superior Court
Regarding trial court`s refusal to issue protective order covering potential trade secret
Tighe v. Chino Valley School District
Determining whether Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from secretly obtaining admissions other than those establishing liability
Romero v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., et al.
Addressing the petition for an award of attorney fees to determine whether MICRA applies and, if necessary, order disgorgement of any fees paid in excess of the statutory limit
Munoz v. State Farm General Insurance Company
Addressing impact of insured's refusal to submit to supplemental examination under oath
Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker
Addressing the propriety of submitting evidence with a reply brief in support of a motion for summary judgment.
Kin v. Sun
Addressing application of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk in the context of a skiing accident.
Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn.
Addressing propriety of Court of Appeal's ruling that defendant volunteer youth soccer leagues had a duty to run criminal background checks on volunteer coaches.
Stueve et al. v. Nemer et al.
Does "brought to trial" for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 include the commencement of jury voir dire?
Nam v. Regents of the University of California
Addressing prong one of the anti-SLAPP statue in the context of an employment action brought against a public employer
Frisk v. Cowan
Vasilenko v. Gracy Family Church
B.C. v. Contra Costa County et al.
B.C. v. Contra Costa County, Nos. A143440 & A144041. In this medical malpractice case the trial court refused to allow evidence reflecting that the plaintiff had recourse to various future collateral source benefits, e.g., government programs, health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. ASCDC has filed an amicus brief supporting the appellant healthcare provider. It argues that Civil Code section 3333.1 coupled with the reality-based outlook of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, should allow a defendant to offer evidence of future collateral source benefits that potentially may be available to a plaintiff. In particular, a defendant should be placed in no more disadvantaged position in predicting future collateral source benefits than a plaintiff is in predicting future medical expenses.
City of Petaluma v. The Superior Court of Sonoma County
Publication request granted in case involving discoverability of employee complaint investigations by outside counsel and the application of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine where retention of outside counsel expressly excluded the rendering of any legal advice or opinion.
T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Addressing whether a defendant can be liable for damages to consumers who purchase products manufactured and supplied by someone other than the defendant, after the defendant has divested it's interest in the product line.
Perry v Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC et al.
Addressing whether Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300, which requires a trial court to exclude the expert opinion of any witness offered by a party who has unreasonably failed to comply with the rules for exchange of expert witness information, applies to motions for summary judgment or adjudication.
Hernandezcueva et al. v. American Standard Inc. et al.
Garcia v. Jukes
S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District
Sherman et al. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.
Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, LLP et al.
Beck v. Blum Collins
Addressing whether a tolling agreement signed by a partner in his individual capacity is binding on the partner's law firm
Los Angeles v. Superior Court (ACLU)
Agreeing with ASCDC's position, holding that bills sent by defense counsel to client are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Lee v. Haney
Addressing whether the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 applies to fee disputes between lawyers and clients.
Izell v. Union Carbide Corp
Addressing whether punitive damages must be retried when the compensatory award is reduced on appeal.
Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Addressing the scope of employer liability for acts of an employee following employee's consumption of alcohol
MacQuiddy v. Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC
Addressing the assessment of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 costs in Lemon Law action
Moore v. Mercer
Addressing whether Howell v. Hamilton Meats Provisions. Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 applies to a receivable purchased by a medical finance company.
Hudson v. Fresno
Addressing plaintiff’s counsel use of “Reptile” theory in argument.
Hamp v. Harrison Patterson OConnor & Kinkead, et al
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez
Castaneda v. The Ensign Group, Inc.
Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. et al.
Straass v. DeSantis
Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Company
Addressing whether a plaintiff could state a “bad faith” claim based on insurer’s decision to dispute UM claim and demand arbitration.
Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation
Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group
Addressing whether the MICRA statute of limitations applies in alleged elder abuse action
Kesner v. The Superior Court of Alameda County
Amicus brief on the merits addressing whether a plaintiff can maintain a "take home" asbestos claim.
Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC
Addressing whether the one-year statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 applies to malicious prosecution claims brought against attorneys.
Dodd v. Cruz
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC
Purton v. Marriott International, Inc.
Addressing an employer’s vicarious liability for an act that occurs after the employee returns home from a work-sponsored event.
Varela v. Birdi
ASCDC supports view that Howell limitations apply to future damages.
Malin v. Singer
Addressing whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies to pre-lawsuit settlement demands and procedural issues regarding the illegality exception to the anti-SLAPP statute
Thompson v. Automobile Club of Southern California
Schaefer v. Elder
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair LP
Addressing the primary assumption of risk doctrine in a case where the plaintiff was injured on a bumper car ride.
Reichert v. State Farm Gen’l Ins. Co.
Addressing the applicability of a “law or ordinance” exception in a homeowners insurance policy.
Comstock v. Aber
Addressing the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion in an employment case.