The Journey of Litigation
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
In CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (2025), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside), issued a published opinion that clarifies a recurring procedural dilemma in civil litigation:...more
The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside) in RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) issued a significant published decision. The California Court of Appeal addressed a previously...more
GRSM’s Construction Group is pleased to publish the latest issue of our Construction Law Update, a quarterly take on trends of interest to design professionals, contractors, and developers throughout the country....more
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six - Plaintiff Easterling brought this claim based on his diagnosis of lung cancer, which he attributes to asbestos exposure during his work as...more
We previously wrote about conflicting decisions from New York federal courts on whether alleged economic damages establish Article III standing under a price premium theory in baby food toxic metals class actions. See New...more
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court recently revived a medical device lawsuit (Bennett v. C.R. Bard)1 centered on a fact issue regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of a product defect as the cause of his condition. The case shines...more
In their recent Law360 guest article titled "Reconciling 2 Smoke Coverage Cases From California," the authors described a California appellate court's Feb. 7 opinion in Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co. as an...more
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. An age-old adage that now provides critical guidance for insurers seeking to protect themselves in the face of bad faith failure to settle claims....more
A recent court ruling raises questions and concerns over the scope of liability owners and contractors may face when a subcontractor's employee is involved in an off-site accident during the course of construction. ...more
A recent decision from a California federal district court should make patent prosecutors and their clients more alert when looking at recent prior art references: they may refer to patent applications filed by competitors...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a district court erred in declaring on summary judgment that an attorney had no ownership interest in a winery because the alleged agreement was made orally. The Ninth...more
The Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a lower court ruling that wildfire debris on an insured’s property did not qualify as “direct physical loss” within the meaning of a homeowners...more
With an increasing trend of nuclear excess verdicts around the country against individuals unable to pay millions of dollars, third-party bad faith lawsuits are on the rise. Frequently, attorneys will represent a plaintiff in...more
Often, in litigation between an owner and their homeowners association (HOA), there is a question regarding the nature and the extent of the duty owed by the HOA to an owner (or even to a tenant of an owner). The answer to...more
Employers wanting to create a more equitable and legally compliant workplace while also reducing their risk of litigation may want to pay particular attention to the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Wawrzenski....more
On July 18, 2023, the California Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that a public interest advocacy organization maintains standing to bring claims under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), if it has incurred...more
Art Teacher’s Age Discrimination Case May Not Be Barred By “Ministerial Exception” - Atkins v. St. Cecilia Catholic Sch., 2023 WL 3142316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) - Frances Atkins was a long-term employee of St. Cecilia...more
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), employers generally are strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassment, even where the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s alleged bad actions. While this left...more
While neutral rounding policies have historically been approved by California courts, the Sixth District California Court of Appeal recently held in Camp v. Home Depot, 84 Cal.App.5th 638 (2022), that employers who utilize...more
After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more
A unanimous three-judge panel reached a decision in the case of Bijon Hill v. Walmart. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Walmart classified a freelance model, Bijon Hill, as an...more
In Scheer v. Regents of the University of California, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to claims asserted pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5....more
On April 1, 2022, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Crest v. Padilla, a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code, a...more
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 20STCV37513 (Cal. Super. Apr. 1, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Green, J.) declared that Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code is unconstitutional...more