Civil Procedure
A mutual settlement for consideration reached by both parties which expressly preserved certain claims for appeal constitutes a valid final judgment.
Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc. - filed Dec. 7, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 16-15377
Full text click here >
A consent judgment, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, is not appealable absent an acknowledgment that the parties were expressly contemplating further court proceedings on a discrete issue that was not resolved at the time of entry of judgment. A trial court's authority under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 does not allow it to summarily enforce the terms of a settlement agreement as applied to new disputes that arise after a final judgment is entered.
Howeth v. Coffelt - filed Nov. 30, 2017, publication ordered Dec. 8, 2017, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 6053
Full text click here >
Constitutional Law
A property owner seeking to profit from facilitating and providing a commercial space for weddings was a wedding "vendor" with standing to bring a facial First Amendment challenge a county zoning ordinance requiring it to obtain a conditional use permit to use its property for weddings. The zoning ordinance--which imposed no definite standards on permit decisions nor any limitation on the time period within which a permit must be approved--provided unbridled discretion on permitting officials in violation of the First Amendment.
Epona, LLC v. County of Ventura - filed Dec. 7, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 17-55472
Full text click here >
Family Law
The statute of limitations set forth in Family Code Sec. 1101 applies to breach of fiduciary duty claims filed after the death of a spouse instead of the general statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 366.2 and Sec. 366.3.
Yeh v. Tai - filed Dec. 21, 2017, Second District, Div. Five
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 6386
Full text click here>
Real Property
When a complaint seeks a temporary stay of foreclosure pending review of a loan modification application pursuant to the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, neither the value of the property nor the amount of the indebtedness constitutes the amount in controversy related to that injunctive relief.
Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing - filed Dec. 27, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-16574
Full text click here >
|