California Case Summaries

New California Civil Cases

by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

These recent cases summarized by Monty A. McIntyre are from his publication California Case Summaries™. Monty prepares short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published California civil and family law case that California lawyers can subscribe to on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. For more information go to https://californiacasesummaries.mykajabi.com. A California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995, Monty serves as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. handling cases in the areas of business, elder abuse, employment/wage & hour, insurance bad faith, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death. To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case manager Christopher Schuster at ADR Services, Inc. at (619) 233-1323 or christopher@adrservices.com. the clerk served a signed and filed copy of the ruling the same day.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Business and Professions Code

Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 4432623: Answering two questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court ruled that tortious interference with at-will contracts requires independent wrongfulness. Because plaintiff Ixchel Pharma, LLC (Ixchel) alleged that defendant Biogen, Inc. (Biogen) interfered with plaintiff’s at-will contract with Forward Pharma (Forward) to jointly develop a drug for the treatment ruled that plaintiff must allege that Biogen did so through wrongful means. The California Supreme Court also held that a rule of reason applies to determine the validity of a contractual provision by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business. Section 2.13 of the Biogen-Forward Agreement was such a restraint because it prevented Forward from collaborating with Ixchel or any other partner in the development of treatments containing the active ingredient dimethyl fumarate. The validity of this contract under section 16600 therefore should be evaluated based on a rule of reason. (August 3, 2020).

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Appeals

Marshall v. Webster (2020) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 5051525: The Court of Appeal dismissed, as untimely, plaintiff’s appeal from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16) and also affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant attorney fees of $79,000 out of the requested fees of $121,815. An order granting a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute is an appealable order. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16(i).) The order granting defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was filed on May 11, 2018, and

of a disorder called Friedreich’s ataxia, the California Supreme Court Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), the notice of appeal from that order had to be filed within 60 days of May 11, or by no later than July 10, 2018. Plaintiff’s appeal from that order, filed on October 25, 2018, was untimely, and the Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting attorney fees of $79,000, finding no abuse of discretion. (C.A. 3rd, partially published August 27, 2020, certified for full publication September 4, 2020.)

Arbitration

Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC (2020) _ Cal.App. 5th _ , 2020 WL 5035827: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in an employment action by plaintiff alleging sexual harassment and six other causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, section 12900 et seq.), and a claim for failure to reimburse business expenses. Plaintiff employee signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the employee handbook. In it, he agreed he was bound by the provisions of the handbook, and it was his responsibility to read and familiarize himself with all its provisions. The handbook contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes. The employer did not highlight or otherwise call the employee’s attention to the arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal held the employee demonstrated his assent to the arbitration clause by signing the acknowledgment, and the employer had no duty to call the arbitration agreement to the employee’s attention. It also found that provisions in the arbitration clause concerning arbitrator’s fees and costs and attorney fees were unenforceable, but they could be severed, and the rest of the agreement was enforceable. (C.A. 2nd, August 26, 2020.) Unlimited civil action, a final judgment or order from a de novo appeal to the superior court under Government Code section 53069.4 is reviewable on appeal to an intermediate appellate court. (C.A. 1st, March 10, 2020.) n