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://cacasesummaries.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.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure Rockefeller Technology etc. v. Changzhou SinoType Technology etc. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 1608906: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court held, consistent with United States Supreme Court authority, that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (Hague Service Convention or "the Convention") applies only when the law of the forum state requires formal service of process to be sent abroad. Because the parties' agreement provided for notice and "service of process" to each other through Federal Express or similar courier, it constituted a waiver of formal service of process under California law, and the Convention therefore did not apply. (April 2, 2020.)
Evidence Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 2563836: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which excluded as hearsay the testimony regarding defendant's invoices of witness John Glamuzina, the former supervisor of plaintiff when he worked at Christeve Corporation from September 1976 to March 1977, cutting and beveling and installing asbestos-cement pipes on a project in McKinleyville, California. Plaintiff and his wife sued defendant and other entities after he developed mesothelioma. The trial court admitted the testimony of Glamuzina, and the jury found for plaintiffs. Following apportionment of fault and settlements by other defendants, a judgment of $1,626,517.82 was entered against defendant. The California Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly concluded that Glamuzina's testimony was not hearsay because the name and logo were not offered to prove the truth 22
Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 203, 2020
of any statement contained in the invoice. Instead, Glamuzina's observations were circumstantial evidence of defendant's identity as the source of the pipes. (May 21, 2020.)
Government Nat. Lawyers Guild etc. v. City of Hayward (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 2761057: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision allowing respondent to charge petitioner for the time respondent's employees spent redacting videos requested under the California Public Records Act (PRA; Government Code, section 6250 et seq.). Interpreting recently added Government Code section 6253.9, the Supreme Court ruled that section 6253.9(b)(2) permits the shifting of costs uniquely associated with the production of electronic record copies—including the need to retrieve responsive data in order to produce a record that can be released to the public—but not the costs of redacting exempt information from the record. The trial court was correct to disallow respondent's charges for time its staff spent responding to petitioner's requests. (May 28, 2020.)
Insurance Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (2020) _ Cal.5th _ , 2020 WL 1671560: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication and affirming in part the trial court's grant of defendant insurers' parallel motion in a coverage action regarding excess policy coverage for policy periods from 1961 to 1985. Plaintiff claimed it was entitled to coverage under any relevant policy once it had exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period (vertical exhaustion). Defendants claimed plaintiff could only seek excess policy coverage after it had exhausted every lower level excess policy covering the relevant years (horizontal exhaustion). The California Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff, ruling that plaintiff was entitled to access otherwise available coverage under
