Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co., Inc., G042073, involved a plaintiff’s negligence suit against a general subcontractor and a subcontractor, claiming that defendants negligently, carelessly and unlawfully allowed excavated dirt, located in a vacant lot next to his office, to be in a dangerous, defective, and unlawful condition so as to cause plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and damages when he breathed the particles from the excavated dirt.  In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that the defendants met their burden of proof that it was only a possibility, not a reasonable medical probability, plaintiff contracted Valley Fever by inhaling an airborne Cocci spore that originated from the soil at the site.  Further, the trial court properly sustained the evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s experts’ speculative conclusions about causation.

 

HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n, B213373, involved a residential nursing facility’s suit against California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for breach of contract and for violating the Insurance Code for refusing to provide plaintiffs with defense counsel and indemnification for underlying lawsuits for elder abuse.  In affirming the judgment in favor of defendant, the court held that, as a creature of statute, and not of contract, in some instances CIGA may not be responsible for an insured loss to the same extent as the insolvent insurer might be under the terms of its insurance contract.  Also, Pennsylvania’s liquidation order imposed a June 30, 2005 deadline for filing against an insurer and because plaintiff did not meet the deadline, CIGA may not honor their claims.

Doe v. Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist., C062554, involved a plaintiff-teacher’s suit against a school district and various school officials, seeking a writ of mandate to compel the defendants to initiate proceedings under Education Code section 44942.  In affirming the trial court’s conclusion that the school district was required to initiate section 44942 proceedings before placing plaintiff on involuntary sick leave and ordering defendants to pay plaintiff’s full salary during the period she was forced to use sick leave credits and to reinstate any other accumulated benefits lost during the period, the court held that the defendants’ standing argument is not well taken and they have forfeited any other argument they may have regarding plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name.

Critzer v. Enos, H033913, involved a plaintiffs’ suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner’s upstairs bathroom.  In reversing the trial court’s order enforcing the parties’ settlement, the court held that the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment.  The court went on to hold that, because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

Ajaxo Inc. v. ETrade Fin. Corp., H033631, concerned a challenge to the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for award of reasonable royalties, in plaintiff’s suit against ETrade Financial Corporation (ETrade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act.  In reversing, the court remanded the matter as, given the jury’s finding that ETrade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not “provable” within the meaning of section 3426.3.  Also, since ETrade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff’s actual losses are not provable, ETrade is estopped from arguing otherwise now.  Lastly, because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

  • Full text of Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co., Inc., G042073
  • Full text of In re R.R., B221140
  • Full text of HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n, B213373
  • Full text of Doe v. Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist., C062554
  • Full text of Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp., H033631
  • Ful text of Critzer v. Enos, H033913

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules