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
viverdictgreensheetsVolume32013repeatedlyviolatedfairdebtcollectionstatutes.ecomplaintwasnotbarredbythelitigationprivilegeeventhoughthepartiesdidnotdisputethatthecomplaintwasbasedsolelyoncommunicationsandcommunicativeactsrelatedtojudicialproceedingstheunfaircompetitionlawcauseofactionwaspredicatedonconductspecicallyprohibitedbyfederalandstatedebtcollectionlawsandanexceptiontothelitigationprivilegemustberecognizedinsuchcircumstancesbecausetheCaliforniaActandtheFederalActaremorespecicthantheprivilegeandwouldbesignicantlyorwhollyinoperableiftheprivilegeapplied.CASESPENDINGINTHECALIFORNIASUPREMECOURTAddressingliabilityinsurersabilitytoseekreimbursementofexcessivefeesfromCumiscounselwhowasretainedtodefendinsuredinunderlyingaction.J.R.MarketingL.L.C.v.HartfordCasualtyInsuranceCompanycaseno.S211645formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1444.InthisactionbyaliabilityinsureragainstcounselretainedtodefendaninsuredtheinsurerarguedthatthelegalfeeschargedwereexcessiveinviolationofCivilCodeSection2860.atstatuteregulatesthequalicationsforCumiscounselandtheratestheymaychargeandprovidesforbindingarbitrationoffeedisputes.etrialcourtfoundthattheprovisionsofsection2860didnotapplyandtheinsurersonlyremedyforunreasonableorexcessiveattorneyfeeswasanactionforreimbursementfollowingthecloseoftheunderlyinglitigationaerthedefensecostswerepaid.einsureraccordinglybroughtthereimbursementactionauthorizedbythetrialcourtandarguedithadacommon-lawquasi-contractualrighttobringtheactiondirectlyagainstCumiscounselaswellasitsinsureds.HoweverboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealFirstDistrictDivisionreesaidthattheinsurermayseekreimbursementonlyfromitsowninsuredsandnotfromthelawyerswhohadreceivedthefeepayments.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonSeptember182013todecidethefollowingissueDotheprinciplesarticulatedinBussv.SuperiorCourt199716Cal.4th35andtheestablishedcommon-lawremediesformoneywrongfullyreceivedgiveaninsureracommon-lawquasi-contractualrighttomaintainadirectactionagainstCumiscounselforreimbursementofunreasonableandunnecessarydefensefeesandcostsAddressingelderabuseliabilityonthepartofaphysicianwhodoesnothavecustodialcontroloverapatientandwhofailstoreferthepatienttoaspecialist.Winnv.PioneerMedicalGroupInc.caseno.S211793formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th875.Aerthedeathoftheir83-year-oldmotherplaintissueddefendantphysiciansforelderabusebasedondefendantsrepeateddecisionsnottorefertheirmothertoavascularspecialist.Defendantscontendedtheycouldnotbeliableforelderabusebecausetheytreateddecedentasanoutpatientandliabilityforelderabuserequiresassumptionofcustodialobligations.etrialcourtdismissedtheelderabuseactionndingthatplaintisfailedtoallegethatpetitionersdeniedtheirmotherneededcareinarecklessmanner.InsteadrelyingonDelaneyv.Baker199920Cal.4th23thecourtruledthatthesuitamountedtonothingmorethanprofessionalnegligencewhichclaimplaintishadassertedinaseparatelyledlawsuit.AdividedCourtofAppealreversedholdingthatacustodialrelationshipwiththedecedentwasnotrequiredtostateanelderabuseclaim.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonAugust142013toaddressthefollowingissues1.WhetheraphysiciancanbeliableforelderabuseneglectwherethepatientwasacompetentautonomousadultwhovoluntarilysoughtoutpatientmedicaltreatmentfromthephysicianonaperiodicbasisorwhetherliabilityundertheElderAbuseandDependentAdultCivilProtectionActdependsuponthatphysicianhavingcustodialobligationsforprovidingthebasicneedsandcomfortsoftheelderpatient.2.Whetheraphysiciancanbeliableforelderabuseneglectwherethephysicianmadeamedicalerrorinfailingtorecognizetheneedforspecializedcareorwhetherthephysicianmusthaverefusedtoprovidefortheelderlypatientsbasicneedsandcomforts.AddressingtherightofaprevailingdefendantinaFEHAcasetocollectordinarycosts.Williamsv.ChinoValleyIndependentFireDistrictcaseno.S213100formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th73.PlaintilostaFEHACaliforniaFairEmploymentandHousingActGov.Code12900etseq.caseinwhichhehadsuedChinoValleyIndependentFireDistrictforemploymentdiscrimination.WhentheDistrictsoughttorecoveritscostsattheendofthatcasethetrialcourtgrantedplaintismotionstotaxcostsinpartgrantingtheDistrictcostsof5368.88.Plaintiappealedcontendingthatnocostsshouldhavebeenallowed.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.Twoarmedholdingthatordinarycostsarerecoverablebyaprevailingdefendantasamatterofright.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober162013todecidethefollowingissueIsaprevailingdefendantinanactionundertheFairEmploymentandHousingActGov.Code12900etseq.isrequiredtoshowthattheplaintisclaimwasfrivolousunreasonableorgroundlessinordertorecoverordinarylitigationcosts.SeealsoMunizv.UnitedParcelServiceInc.9thCir.2013___F.3d___2013WL6284357adividedappellatepanelheldthefederaldistrictcourtinFEHAcasedidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawardingtheprevailingplainti697971.80inattorneysfeeswherethejuryawardedheronly27280indamagesCalifornialawdidnotrequirethedistrictcourttoreducethefeeawarddespitesuchathedisparitytocompensatorydamagescontinuedfrompagevierictgreenseetsVoume32013repeatedlyviolatedfairdebtcollectionstatutes.ecomplaintwasnotbarredbythelitigationprivilegeeventhoughthepartiesdidnotdisputethatthecomplaintwasbasedsolelyoncommunicationsandcommunicativeactsrelatedtojudicialproceedingstheunfaircompetitionlawcauseofactionwaspredicatedonconductspecicallyprohibitedbyfederalandstatedebtcollectionlawsandanexceptiontothelitigationprivilegemustberecognizedinsuchcircumstancesbecausetheCaliforniaActandtheFederalActaremorespecicthantheprivilegeandwouldbesignicantlyorwhollyinoperableiftheprivilegeapplied.AEPENDININTHEALIFRNIAPREMERTAddressinliabilitinsurersabilittoseekrimrmnfxivffrmCumisnlwhwrinfninrinunernacton.J.R.MarketingL.L.C.v.HartfordCasualtyInsuranceCompanycaseno.S211645formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th1444.InthisactionbyaliabilityinsureragainstcounselretainedtodefendaninsuredtheinsurerarguedthatthelegalfeeschargedwereexcessiveinviolationofCivilCodeSection2860.atstatuteregulatesthequalicationsforCumiscounselandtheratestheymaychargeandprovidesforbindingarbitrationoffeedisputes.etrialcourtfoundthattheprovisionsofsection2860didnotapplyandtheinsurersonlyremedyforunreasonableorexcessiveattorneyfeeswasanactionforreimbursementfollowingthecloseoftheunderlyinglitigationaerthedefensecostswerepaid.einsureraccordinglybroughtthereimbursementactionauthorizedbythetrialcourtandarguedithadacommon-lawquasi-contractualrighttobringtheactiondirectlyagainstCumiscounselaswellasitsinsureds.HoweverboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealFirstDistrictDivisionreesaidthattheinsurermayseekreimbursementonlyfromitsowninsuredsandnotfromthelawyerswhohadreceivedthefeepayments.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonSeptember182013todecidethefollowingissueDotheprinciplesarticulatedinBussv.SuperiorCour199716Cal.4th35andtheestablishedcommon-lawremediesformoneywrongfullyreceivedgiveaninsureracommon-lawquasi-contractualrighttomaintainadirectactionagainstCumiscounselforreimbursementofunreasonableandunnecessarydefensefeesandcostsressneerauseatonteartofahsicianwhodoesnothavecustodialcontroloveraatientandwhofailstorefereatenttoasecast.Winnv.PioneerMedicalGroupInc.caseno.S211793formerlypublishedat216Cal.App.4th875.Aerthedeathoftheir83-year-oldmotherplaintissueddefendantphysiciansforelderabusebasedondefendantsrepeateddecisionsnottorefertheirmothertoavascularspecialist.Defendantscontendedtheycouldnotbeliableforelderabusebecausetheytreateddecedentasanoutpatientandliabilityforelderabuserequiresassumptionofcustodialobligations.etrialcourtdismissedtheelderabuseactionndingthatplaintisfailedtoallegethatpetitionersdeniedtheirmotherneededcareinarecklessmanner.InsteadrelyingonDelaneyv.Bake199920Cal.4th23thecourtruledthatthesuitamountedtonothingmorethanprofessionalnegligencewhichclaimplaintishadassertedinaseparatelyledlawsuit.AdividedCourtofAppealreversedholdingthatacustodialrelationshipwiththedecedentwasnotrequiredtostateanelderabuseclaim.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonAugust142013toaddressthefollowingissues.WhetheraphysiciancanbeliableforelderabuseneglectwherethepatientwasacompetentautonomousadultwhovoluntarilysoughtoutpatientmedicaltreatmentfromthephysicianonaperiodicbasisorwhetherliabilityundertheElderAbuseandDependentAdultCivilProtectionActdependsuponthatphysicianhavincustodialobliationsforprovidinthebasicneedsandcomfortsoftheelderpatient.2.Whetheraphysiciancanbeliableforelderabusenelectwherethephysicianmadeamedicalerrorinfailintoreconizetheneedforspecializedcareorwhetherthephysicianmusthaverefusedtoprovidefortheelderlypatientsbasicneedsandcomforts.Addressintherihtofarevailindefendantnacasetocoectornarcosts.Williamsv.ChinoValleyIndependentFireDistrictcaseno.S213100formerlypublishedat218Cal.App.4th73.PlaintilostaFEHACaliforniaFairEmploymentandHousinActov.Code12900etseq.caseinwhichhehadsuedChinoValleyIndependentFireDistrictforemploymentdiscrimination.WhentheDistrictsouhttorecoveritscostsattheendofthatcasethetrialcourtrantedplaintismotionstotaxcostsinpartrantintheDistrictcostsof5368.88.Plaintiappealedcontendinthatnocostsshouldhavebeenallowed.eCourtofAppealFourthDist.Div.Twoarmedholdinthatordinarycostsarerecoverablebyaprevailingdefendantasamatterofright.eCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewonOctober162013todecidethefollowingissueIsaprevailingdefendantinanactionundertheFairEmploymentandHousingActGov.Code12900etseq.isrequiredtoshowthattheplaintisclaimwasfrivolousunreasonableorgroundlessinordertorecoverordinarylitigationcosts.SeelsoMunizv.UnitedParcelServiceInc.9thCir.2013___F.3d___2013WL6284357adividedappellatepanelheldthefederaldistrictcourtinFEHAcasedidnotabuseitsdiscretioninawardingtheprevailingplainti697971.80inattorneysfeeswherethejuryawardedheronly27280indamagesCalifornialawdidnotrequirethedistrictcourttoreducethefeeawarddespitesuchathedisparitytocompensatorydamagesontinuedromaev