Case Summaries

Family Law

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[05/05] Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.

[05/02] Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.

[04/30] Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Koch
An arbitration award need not be vacated on grounds that the arbitrator refused to disqualify him or herself after receiving a timely notice of disqualification, when the notice was based on the disclosure of information the arbitrator was not required to disclose but nonetheless revealed out of an abundance of caution.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

[04/29] Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.

[04/29] Gibson v. Moskowitz
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law action brought by the estate of a mentally disabled inmate who died from severe dehydration, a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the estate is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to show deliberate indifference on the part of defendant-psychiatrist; 2) the evidence supported the compensatory and punitive damages awards; 3) the punitive damages award was not constitutionally excessive; 4) claims of evidentiary errors are rejected; 5) there was no error in applying Michigan's "high tier cap" on non-economic damages for medical malpractice; but 6) a remand was required as the district court failed to state a reason as to how it allocated the award between the statutorily capped malpractice claim and the deliberate indifference claims.

More...

Health Law

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

[05/07] Trujillo v. PacifiCorp
In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ERISA, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs raised the necessary inference of discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination through evidence that defendant monitored plaintiffs' son's health care costs, and that defendant was concerned to cut down on overall health care costs; 2) there was temporal proximity between the relapse of the plaintiff's son's cancer and the investigation by defendant for time theft; 3) defendant was not able to present a legitimate business reason since it treated similarly-situated employees differently; and 4) there were several irregularities in defendant's investigation of plaintiffs for time theft.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

More...