Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
iiverdictgreensheetsVolume32013SeealsoMortensenv.BresnanCommunicationsLLC9thCir.2013722F.3d1151applyingConcepcionandAmericanExpresstoholdthatFAApreemptsastateruleinvalidatingadhesivearbitrationagreementsunlesstheyareexplainedtoandinitialedbyconsumerswhiletheprinciplesunderlyingthisruleareonesofgeneralapplicabilitytheydisproportionatelyaectarbitrationagreementswheretheyarosefromstatecourtconsiderationofadhesivearbitrationagreementsandmostoftherulesapplicationshavebeentothoseprovisionstherebyinvalidatingthematahigherratethanothercontractprovisionsCompareChavarriav.RalphsGroceryCo.9thCir.2013733F.3d916armingorderdenyingmotiontocompelarbitrationunderCalifornialawwheretheagreementunconscionablypermittedemployertopickthepoolofpotentialarbitratorseverytimeemployeebringsaclaimrequiredthearbitratortoimposesignicantarbitratorfeesupfrontregardlessofthemeritsoftheemployeesclaimsandseverelylimitedthearbitratorsauthoritytoallocatethosearbitratorfeesintheawardtheFAAdidnotpreemptresultbecauseitdidnotdisfavorarbitrationandinsteadprovidedthatthearbitrationprocessmustbefairCaliforniacourtsapproachtoFAApreemptionofstatelawshostiletoarbitrationagreementscontinuestocontrastwiththeU.S.SupremeCourtand9thCircuitFederalCourtofAppealsaerConcepcionandAmericanExpressSeee.g.Sonic-CalabasasAInc.v.Moreno201357Cal.4th1109holdingthattheFAAasinterpretedbyConcepcionpreemptstheCaliforniaSupremeCourtspriorpublicpolicystandardcategoricallyprohibitinganarbitrationagreementfromwaivinganemployeesinformaladministrativehearingforwage-relatedclaimsbeforetheLaborCommissionerandmandatingarbitrationofthewagedisputebutleavingopenthepossibilitythatthiswaivermaybefoundtobeunconscionableonacase-by-casebasiswhereasonefactorintheunconscionabilityanalysisacourtconsidersavariantofthevindicationprinciplei.e.whethertheagreementsfailstoprovidetheemployeewithanaccessibleandaordableforumforresolvingwagedisputesSeealsoVargasv.SAIMonroviaB.reviewgrantedcaseno.S212033formerlypublishedat21bCal.App.4th1269trialcourtheldarbitrationagreementwasenforceableinactionbycarbuyerwhobroughtaputativeclassactionagainstadealerallegingviolationsoftheConsumersLegalRemediesActCLRAtheAutomobileSalesFinanceActtheUnfairCompetitionLawUCLtheSongBeverlyConsumerWarrantyActandtheCaliforniaTireRecyclingActtheCourtofAppealreversedwithdirectionstodenydefendantsmotiontocompelarbitrationandmotiontostriketheclassallegationsSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonAugust212013butorderedbriengdeferredpendingtheCourtsdecisioninSanchezv.ValenciaHoldingCo.LLCS199119.ForfurtherdiscussionofSanchezsee2012Greensheetsvol.1SeealsoBrownv.SuperiorCourtreviewgrantedcaseno.S211962formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1302trialcourtheldarbitrationagreementwasenforceableinemployeesputativeclassactionagainsttheiremployerforviolationsofCaliforniaswageandhourlawsseekingrestitutiondamagesandcivilpenaltiesonbehalfofthemselvesandallotheraggrievedemployeesasallowedbythePrivateAttorneysGeneralActPAGAtheCourtofAppealreverseddirectingthataneworderbeentered1grantingtheemployerspetitiontocompelarbitrationwithrespecttoallofplaintisclaimsexcepttheclaimforcivilpenaltiesunderPAGAand2stayingtheactionastoallofplaintisclaimsincludingtheclaimunderPAGApendingresolutionofthearbitrationSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonSeptember112013butorderedbriengdeferredpendingitsdecisioninIskanianv.CLSTransportationLosAngelesLLCS204032.ForfurtherdiscussionofIskaniansee2012Greensheetsvol.3.CIVILPROCEDUREOrdercompellingjudgmentdebtordiscoveryresponsesfromathirdpartyafterentryofjudgmentisimmediatelyappealable.Macalusov.SuperiorCourtLennarLandPartnersIILLC2013219Cal.App.4th1042.ejudgmentcreditorwhosoughttoenforceitsjudgmentissuedasubpoenatoathirdpartyMacalusotoobtaininformationaboutthejudgmentMacalusoappearedatajudgmentdebtorsexambutlargelyrefusedtoanswerquestionsandsubsequentlyrefusedtoprovidenancialdocumentsorderedbythetrialcourttobeproduced.AerMacalusotimelyappealedtheproductionorderthetrialcourtconcludedtheorderwasnotappealableandscheduledacontempthearing.Macalusoledawritpetition.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.OneheldtheordertoproducedocumentsatajudgmentdebtorexaminationheldpursuanttoCCPsection.110wasappealableunderCCPsection904.1a2whichprovidesthatanappeal...maybetakenfrom.........anordermadeaerajudgment....eorderrepresentedanaldeterminationthatoverruledthesubpoenaedpartysobjectionstothedocumentrequestandmandatedthatthematerialsdescribedinthesubpoenabeproducedandlenoissueforfutureconsiderationexceptthesubpoenaedpartyscomplianceornoncompliancewiththetermsoftheorder.Asection998offerthatgreatlyexceedsthedefendantsinsurancelimitsandabilitytopaymaynonethelessbereasonableifthedefendantsinsurerispotentiallyliableforanyfuturejudgmentinexcessofpolicylimits.Aguilarv.Gostischef2013220Cal.App.4th475.Inthispersonalinjuryactiontheplaintiattemptedtolearnthedefendantspolicylimitsinordertomakeasettlementdemandwithinpolicylimits.edefendantsliabilityinsurernotrespond.Whentheinsurerlateroeredits100000limitstheplaintirejectedtheoerandcounteredwithaCCPsection998settlementdemandfor700000tellingtheinsurerthatnotwithstandingcontinuedfrompageicontinuedonpageiiiiierictgreenseetsVoume32013SeelsoMortensenv.BresnanCommunicationsLL9thCir.2013722F.3d1151applyingConcepcionandAmericanExpresstoholdthatFAApreemptsastateruleinvalidatingadhesivearbitrationagreementsunlesstheyareexplainedtoandinitialedbyconsumerswhiletheprinciplesunderlyingthisruleareonesofgeneralapplicabilitytheydisproportionatelyaectarbitrationagreementswheretheyarosefromstatecourtconsiderationofadhesivearbitrationagreementsandmostoftherulesapplicationshavebeentothoseprovisionstherebyinvalidatingthematahigherratethanothercontractprovisionsompareChavarriav.RalphsGroceryCo.9thCir.2013733F.3d916armingorderdenyingmotiontocompelarbitrationunderCalifornialawwheretheagreementunconscionablypermittedemployertopickthepoolofpotentialarbitratorseverytimeemployeebringsaclaimrequiredthearbitratortoimposesignicantarbitratorfeesupfrontregardlessofthemeritsoftheemployeesclaimsandseverelylimitedthearbitratorsauthoritytoallocatethosearbitratorfeesintheawardtheFAAdidnotpreemptresultbecauseitdidnotdisfavorarbitrationandinsteadprovidedthatthearbitrationprocessmustbefairaliforniacourtsapproachtoFAApreemptionofstatelawshostiletoarbitrationagreementscontinuestocontrastwiththeU.S.SupremeCourtand9thCircuitFederalCourtofAppealsaerConcepcionandAmericanExpressSeee.g.onic-CalabasasAInc.v.Moreno201357Cal.4th1109holdingthattheFAAasinterpretedbyConcepcionpreemptstheCaliforniaSupremeCourtspriorpublicpolicystandardcategoricallyprohibitinganarbitrationagreementfromwaivinganemployeesinformaladministrativehearingforwage-relatedclaimsbeforetheLaborCommissionerandmandatingarbitrationofthewagedisputebutleavingopenthepossibilitythatthiswaivermaybefoundtobeunconscionableonacase-by-casebasiswhereasonefactorintheunconscionabilityanalysisacourtconsidersavariantofthevindicationprinciplei.e.whethertheagreementsfailstoprovidetheemployeewithanaccessibleandaordableforumforresolvingwagedisputesSeealsoVargasv.SAIMonroviaB.reviewgrantedcaseno.S212033formerlypublishedat21bCal.App.4th1269trialcourtheldarbitrationagreementwasenforceableinactionbycarbuyerwhobroughtaputativeclassactionagainstadealerallegingviolationsoftheConsumersLegalRemediesActCLRAtheAutomobileSalesFinanceActtheUnfairCompetitionLawUCLtheSongBeverlyConsumerWarrantyActandtheCaliforniaTireRecyclingActtheCourtofAppealreversedwithdirectionstodenydefendantsmotiontocompelarbitrationandmotiontostriketheclassallegationsSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonAugust212013butorderedbriengdeferredpendingtheCourtsdecisioninSanchezv.ValenciaHoldingCo.LLS199119.ForfurtherdiscussionofSanchezsee2012Greensheetsvol.1SeelsoBrownv.SuperiorCourtreviewgrantedcaseno.S211962formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1302trialcourtheldarbitrationagreementwasenforceableinemployeesputativeclassactionagainsttheiremployerforviolationsofCaliforniaswageandhourlawsseekingrestitutiondamagesandcivilpenaltiesonbehalfofthemselvesandallotheraggrievedemployeesasallowedbythePrivateAttorneyseneralActPAGAtheCourtofAppealreverseddirectingthataneworderbeentered1grantingtheemployerspetitiontocompelarbitrationwithrespecttoallofplaintisclaimsexcepttheclaimforcivilpenaltiesunderPAGAand2stayingtheactionastoallofplaintisclaimsincludingtheclaimunderPAGApendingresolutionofthearbitrationSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonSeptember112013butorderedbriengdeferredpendingitsdecisioninIskanianv.CLSTransportationLosAngelesLLS204032.ForfurtherdiscussionofIskaniansee2012Greensheetsvol.3.IVILPREDRErdercompellingjudgmentdebtordiscoveryresponsesfromathirdpartyafterentryofumentsmmeateaeaae.Macalusov.SuperiorCourtLennarLandPartnersIILLC2013219Cal.App.4th1042.ejudmentcreditorwhosouhttoenforceitsjudmentissuedasubpoenatoathirdpartyMacalusotoobtaininformationaboutthejudmentMacalusoappearedatajudmentdebtorsexambutlarelyrefusedtoanswerquestionsandsubsequentlyrefusedtoprovidenancialdocumentsorderedbythetrialcourttobeproduced.AerMacalusotimelyappealedtheproductionorderthetrialcourtconcludedtheorderwasnotappealableandscheduledacontempthearin.Macalusoledawritpetition.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.OneheldtheordertoproducedocumentsatajudmentdebtorexaminationheldpursuanttoCCPsection.110wasappealableunderCCPsection904.1a2whichprovidesthatanappeal...maybetakenfrom.........anordermadeaerajudment....eorderrepresentedanaldeterminationthatoverruledthesubpoenaedpartysobjectionstothedocumentrequestandmandatedthatthematerialsdescribedinthesubpoenabeproducedandlenoissueforfutureconsiderationexceptthesubpoenaedpartyscomplianceornoncompliancewiththetermsoftheorder.Asection998offerthatreatlexceedsthedefendantsinsurancelimitsandabilittoamanonethelessbereasonableifthedefendantsinsurerisotentiallliableforanfutureudmentinexcessofoliclimits.Aguilarv.Gostische2013220Cal.App.4th475.Inthispersonalinjuryactiontheplaintiattemptedtolearnthedefendantspolicylimitsinordertomakeasettlementdemandwithinpolicylimits.edefendantsliabilityinsurernotrespond.Whentheinsurerlateroeredits100000limitstheplaintirejectedtheoerandcounteredwithaCCPsection998settlementdemandfor700000tellingtheinsurerthatnotwithstandingontinuedromaeicontnueonae