California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com) which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available, as well as annual Practice Area subscriptions in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. He currently works as a fulltime mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. conducting Zoom hearings throughout California (to use Monty contact his case manager Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323). Monty also helps lawyers improve their skills and practices with his Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services (for info visit Monty’s website at https://montymcintyre-law.com).
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure Olson v. Doe (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 121309: The California Supreme Court granted review to decide under what circumstances the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47(b) applies to contract claims, and whether an agreement following mediation between the parties in an action for a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure, section 527.6, in which they agree not to disparage one another, can lead to liability for statements made in a later unlimited civil lawsuit arising from the same alleged misconduct. The California Supreme Court held that the mediation agreement as a whole and the specific context in which it was reached—a section 527.6 proceeding—precluded defendant/ cross-complainant’s broad reading of the nondisparagement clause. As a result, in opposing plaintiff/cross-defendant’s antiSLAPP motion to strike his cross-complaint, defendant/crosscomplainant could not show the requisite “minimal merit” on a critical element of his breach of contract claim—plaintiff/crossdefendant’s obligation under the agreement to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation — and therefore he could not defeat plaintiff/cross-defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. (January 13, 2022.)
Torts Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 6111380: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s denial 26
Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 222, 2022
of a writ petition challenging the trial court’s denial of defendant/ petitioner’s demurrer to a complaint filed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seeking to recover from defendant over $12 million spent suppressing a wildfire, investigating the fire’s cause, and pursuing reimbursement for the expenses it incurred in doing so. Petitioner argued that it could not be held vicariously liable, under Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, for a fire negligently started by one of its employees. The California Supreme Court held that sections 13009 and 13009.1 incorporate the common law theory of respondeat superior, and a corporation like petitioner can be held vicariously liable for the cost of suppressing fires that its agents or employees negligently or unlawfully set or allowed to escape. (December 27, 2021.)
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 6144075: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against defendant, alleging it routinely enrolled online consumers like them in automatic renewal membership programs without providing “clear and conspicuous” disclosures and obtaining their “affirmative consent” as mandated by the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL; Business & Professions Code, section 17600 et seq.). Defendant filed a petition to compel individual arbitration claiming that plaintiffs agreed to the “Terms of Service,” which included a
