CA Pub. Decisions

Rejection of proposed jury instruction that compliance with government standards cannot be considered as a basis for assessing the safety of a product in a design defect claim was not error; trial court correctly told jurors that "FDA action or inaction, though not dispositive, may be considered to show whether a product is safe or not safe." In determining whether to allow defendant drug manufacturer to challenge the validity of study relied on by plaintiff by presenting evidence that some of the cases in the study were misclassified, trial court was not required to follow Kelly standards for admission of scientific evidence, since the evidence was not based on new scientific methodology, but rather was a challenge to the professionalism with which the methodology was applied. Trial court properly precluded plaintiffs from offering into evidence minutes of defendant's "project team" meetings where such minutes were prepared months after the meetings, and thus did not fall within hearsay exception for business records, and did not constitute admissions since the persons whose comments were memorialized were not authorized to speak for defendant.

Rejection of proposed jury instruction that compliance with government standards cannot be considered as a basis for assessing the safety of a product in a design defect claim was not error; trial court correctly told jurors that "FDA action or inaction, though not dispositive, may be considered to show whether a product is safe or not safe." In determining whether to allow defendant drug manufacturer to challenge the validity of study relied on by plaintiff by presenting evidence that some of the cases in the study were misclassified, trial court was not required to follow Kelly standards for admission of scientific evidence, since the evidence was not based on new scientific methodology, but rather was a challenge to the professionalism with which the methodology was applied. Trial court properly precluded plaintiffs from offering into evidence minutes of defendant's "project team" meetings where such minutes were prepared months after the meetings, and thus did not fall within hearsay exception for business records, and did not constitute admissions since the persons whose comments were memorialized were not authorized to speak for defendant.

In calculating child support, depreciation on rental properties is not deductible from annual gross income.

In calculating child support, depreciation on rental properties is not deductible from annual gross income.

Where custodian of records did not produce the entire personnel file for the court's review in response to discovery request and record did not indicate that trial court actually reviewed the list submitted by city attorney in support of the custodian's decision to produce no records for the court's examination, a new Pitchess hearing is required in which custodian must establish on the record what documents or category of documents were included in the complete personnel file and, if not readily apparent from the nature of the documents that they are nonresponsive or irrelevant to the discovery request, explain the decision to withhold them.

Allegations by plaintiff, the liquidator of an insolvent insurer, that defendant, the parent company of the insolvent insurer and of another subsidiary, misappropriated net operating losses of the insolvent insurer in order to reduce its own tax liability without compensating insolvent insurer, stated cause of action for conversion. Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act creates a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement and a judicial remedy to enforce administrative action. Subsidiary insurer allegedly injured by violation of act's provision requiring that parent treat its affiliates fairly and reasonably lacks a cause of action for damages under that provision of the act. Allegations that defendant made improper "distributions" of the assets of plaintiff and another subsidiary within the meaning of Insurance Code Sec. 1215.16 by misappropriating funds in the manners alleged stated a cause of action for recovery of the alleged improper distributions.

Allegations by plaintiff, the liquidator of an insolvent insurer, that defendant, the parent company of the insolvent insurer and of another subsidiary, misappropriated net operating losses of the insolvent insurer in order to reduce its own tax liability without compensating insolvent insurer, stated cause of action for conversion. Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act creates a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement and a judicial remedy to enforce administrative action. Subsidiary insurer allegedly injured by violation of act's provision requiring that parent treat its affiliates fairly and reasonably lacks a cause of action for damages under that provision of the act. Allegations that defendant made improper "distributions" of the assets of plaintiff and another subsidiary within the meaning of Insurance Code Sec. 1215.16 by misappropriating funds in the manners alleged stated a cause of action for recovery of the alleged improper distributions.

Allegations by plaintiff, the liquidator of an insolvent insurer, that defendant, the parent company of the insolvent insurer and of another subsidiary, misappropriated net operating losses of the insolvent insurer in order to reduce its own tax liability without compensating insolvent insurer, stated cause of action for conversion. Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act creates a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement and a judicial remedy to enforce administrative action. Subsidiary insurer allegedly injured by violation of act's provision requiring that parent treat its affiliates fairly and reasonably lacks a cause of action for damages under that provision of the act. Allegations that defendant made improper "distributions" of the assets of plaintiff and another subsidiary within the meaning of Insurance Code Sec. 1215.16 by misappropriating funds in the manners alleged stated a cause of action for recovery of the alleged improper distributions.

Where plaintiff brought a defamation suit against a former film school colleague and others involved in the production of a movie portraying a "rebellious slacker" with plaintiff's name and addressing issues facing "Generation X" individuals in the 1990s, trial court properly denied defendants' anti SLAPP motion on ground that conduct at issue was not in furtherance of defendants' exercise of their constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

A criminal defendant has a personal and fundamental right to admit a probation violation even if his attorney disagrees with the decision to do so.

Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and unfair competition law, an individual's statutory right to sue in a representative capacity may not be assigned to a third party. Sec. 17203 of the unfair competition law, as amended by Proposition 64, providing that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," means that private representative claims must meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits.

Under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and unfair competition law, an individual's statutory right to sue in a representative capacity may not be assigned to a third party. Sec. 17203 of the unfair competition law, as amended by Proposition 64, providing that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," means that private representative claims must meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits.

Under Civil Code Sec. 2988.9 which provides that a defendant in a vehicle lease contract action is deemed to be the prevailing party for the purpose of an attorney's fee award if defendant "alleges in his or her answer that he or she tendered to the plaintiff the full amount to which he or she was entitled, and thereupon deposits in court, for the plaintiff, the amount so tendered, and the allegation is found to be true" tender and deposit are not required for an award of attorney's fees where the defendant denies any liability and prevails in the trial court. Trial court properly granted defendant's attorney fee motion pursuant to Sec. 2988.9 after it dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice on the first day of trial for lack of evidence.

Where defendant was prosecuted on different charges in two different counties based on evidence obtained as a result of a single arrest, and court in first case ruled that probable cause existed for his arrest which ruling was affirmed on appeal he was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating probable cause issue.