In the past, I have posted more than one blog about the very fine line between puffing and misrepresentation in the course of negotiations. The audience I had in mind was both the parties and their counsel. ( See aslo, 2014 blog.) A recent appellate decision indicates that my earlier post [Read More]
With the fast approaching end of the United States Supreme Court’s 2015-2016 term, the Supreme Court has been (and will be) issuing a flurry of decisions. One of them caught my attention because unlike all of its other decisions, it did not decide the matter but rather suggested engaging in alternative [Read More]
A few weeks ago, some rulings of the Honorable Holly E. Kendig, Judge of Los Angeles County Superior Court, made the headlines in the local legal newspapers. Those rulings which among other things dismissed the case, were predicated on an earlier ruling which answered the question, “who is a mediator” and discussed [Read More]
Two developments occurred regarding mediation confidentiality during the first week of February. First, on Monday, February 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Craig Milhouse v. Travelers Commercial Insurance, Case Nos. 13-56959 and 13-57029. Dr. and Mrs. Milhouse suffered the total loss of their home [Read More]
In January 2016, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal decided a case in which the issue was essentially caused by the Legislature’s refusal to fund the judiciary. In Castillo v DHL Express (USA) et al, Case No. B25843, ( B258432 ) plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging [Read More]
In November 2015, I discussed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision- Campbell Ewald Company v Gomez, 768 F. 3d 781 (9th Cir. 2014)- in which that court held that where Plaintiff rejects Defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 68 Offer of Judgment offering plaintiff all of the relief [Read More]
Californians have a reputation for being litigious; for making mountains out of mole hills. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals minces no words on this point. A very small “tiff” got very much out of hand apparently because neither party had the courage (or common sense?) to [Read More]
On August 3, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in Sanchez v Valencia Holding Company, LLC (Case No. S199119) holding that an automobile retail installment sales contract was NOT unconscionable and thus reversed the rulings of the lower courts that had held it to be unenforceable. [Read More]
