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 (one paragraph), organized by legal topic, of every new published California civil and family law case that California lawyers can subscribe to on either a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Monty also offers specialized practice area annual summaries in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. For more information go to https://cacasesummaries.com. A California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, a past president of the SDCBA and San Diego ABOTA, and also an expert Zoom user, Monty serves as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. handling cases throughout California in the areas of business, elder abuse, employment/wage & hour, insurance bad faith, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death. Web: https://www. adrservices.com/neutrals/mcintyre-monty/ To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case manager Haward Cho, (619) 233-1323 or haward@adrservices.com.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure Shalabi v. City of Fontana (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 2908526: The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal concluding that plaintiff’s action under 42 United States Code section 1983, for the wrongful death of his father, was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff was a minor when his father was killed. Code of Civil Procedure section 352(a) provides that when a minor is injured, the statute of limitations for any claim arising from the injury is tolled until the minor reaches age 18. The California Supreme Court ruled that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 12, an individual’s 18th birthday is excluded when calculating the applicable limitations period. The California Supreme Court also ruled that its earlier decision in Ganahl v. Soher (1884) 2 Cal.Unrep. 415 (Ganahl I) was not binding because the California Supreme Court granted a hearing in bank in Ganahl I and issued a subsequent superseding decision, thereby vacating Ganahl I. (July 12, 2021.)
Employment Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 2965438: The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal concluding that the employer did not have to include nondiscretionary payments when calculating the amount to pay their employee for noncompliant meal or rest breaks in accordance with her “regular rate of compensation” as required by Labor Code section 226.7(c). The California Supreme Court held that the term “regular rate of compensation” in section 226.7(c) has the same meaning as “regular rate of pay” in Labor Code section 510(a) and encompasses not only hourly 24
Attorney Journals Orange County | Volume 187, 2021
wages but all nondiscretionary payments for work performed by the employee. (July 15, 2021.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 3240276: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order vacating an arbitration award in favor of claimant awarding it simple interest in the amount of $778,351 and costs and attorney fees in the amount of $838,864 as the prevailing party. Respondent had borrowed $2.4 million from claimant to finance her probate litigation. After respondent prevailed in that litigation, she repaid claimant the principal of $2.4 million but refused to pay interest claiming the loan was a consumer loan that violated the California Financing Law (Financial Code, section 22000 et seq.). A panel of three arbitrators found that some of the loan terms were invalid but otherwise enforced the loan agreement. The panel served the modified award on September 18, 2019. On October 1, 2019, claimant filed a petition to confirm the award. Respondent filed a motion to vacate the award 130 days after the service of the modified award, claiming the arbitrators exceeded their authority by finding that the loan was a consumer loan but nevertheless enforcing some of the terms of the loan agreement rather than finding it void. Nine days later, respondent filed a response to claimant’s petition to confirm the award that raised the same argument. The Court of Appeal ruled that both respondent’s motion to vacate the award and her response to the motion to confirm the award were untimely because they were not filed within 100 days of the service of the award as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1288 and 1288.2. (C.A. 2nd, July 30, 2021.)
