Case Updates

On June 20, 2019, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California in Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies Inc. issued an order containing four primary holdings: (1) granting without prejudice Uber’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) granting Uber’s motion to dismiss Diva’s claim under California’s Unfair Practices Act; (3) granting in part and denying in part Uber’s motion to dismiss Diva’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law; and (4) denying without prejudice Diva’s motion for partial summary judgment on its Unfair Competition Law claim. Significantly, the court recognized the competitive advantage that Uber derives from classifying drivers as independent contractors and commented that this classification undermines the spirit, if not the letter, of the California Labor Code. Read more

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, and currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. (ADR) in ADR’s offices in San Diego, Irvine, and Los Angeles. California Case Summaries™provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case so California lawyers can easily and affordably keep up with the new case law in their practice areas. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available. Read more

A single member Limited Liability Company is dissolved when its sole member dies unless either of the following two exceptions apply:
(1) The operating agreement allows the continuation of the LLC and provides a method for determining the successor to the deceased member; or
(2) The heirs, successors, and assigns of the deceased member’s interest elect to continue the LLC within 90 days of the sole member’s death. Read more

Residue of a special needs trust must reimburse DHCS for Medi-Cal payments to deceased beneficiary. Read more

Generally, non-competes are not enforceable in California as set forth in California Business and Professions Code section 16600 which states that, “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” There are some limited exceptions to this rule. One of those exceptions is when an owner of a business sells the company’s goodwill or interests. Read more

Kisor v. Wilkie (US 18-15 6/26/19) Agency Deference Doctrine. Upholding Auer deference doctrine, whereby courts defer to an agency’s reasonable reading of the agency’s own ambiguous regulations. Read more

Summary: Although a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement under the Bankruptcy Code breaches the contract, such action does not rescind it. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, rejection of the license in bankruptcy does not deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided First Circuit and resolved a circuit split. Read more

The California Department of Health Care Services prepared a Medi-Cal audit of Hoag Hospital’s 2009 cost report, determining that Hoag had to pay more than $2.4 million in reimbursements mandated by Assembly Bills (AB) 5 and 1183, which reduced the amount of certain Medi-Cal payments. Hoag filed a timely administrative appeal contesting the legality of the Assembly bills and the reimbursement deductions based on federal and state laws and constitutions. Hoag later filed a second appeal requesting that its existing appeal also address an alleged $620,903 calculation error to be corrected if AB 5 and 1183 were lawful. The ALJ dismissed Hoag’s first appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed its calculation error appeal as untimely. Read more

Ethan Lomeli’s guardian sued medical care providers for his birth injuries. Through Medi-Cal, the California Department of Health Care Services paid for his medical care before and during the lawsuit. After Lomeli settled with defendants for $4 million, the Department moved to impose a $267,159.60 lien on the settlement, seeking reimbursement for the care it provided. The trial court granted the motion, and Lomeli appealed. Read more

In an unpublished memorandum decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in In re Miller, BAP No. CC 18-1267-SFL, filed March 11, 2019, reversed the bankruptcy court’s award of Rule 9011 sanctions in the amount of $50,875 because the claimant lacked standing to seek a recovery of his attorney’s fees. Read more