KF&C California Law Blog

August 3, 2023 | Business Litigation

Trial Courts Have No Obligation to Cure Defects in an Overbroad Anti-SLAPP Motion

Trial Courts Have No Obligation to Cure Defects in an Overbroad Anti-SLAPP MotionTrial courts are not required to take on the moving party’s burden of identifying specific claims or allegations susceptible to a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law. When defendants file an anti-SLAPP motion that seeks to strike the entire complaint but does not identify specific claims or allegations that should be stricken even if the entire complaint is not, the trial court can properly deny the motion so long as it concludes that the complaint presents at least one claim that did not arise from anti-SLAPP protected activity.
Read More

June 12, 2023 | Business Litigation

Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment Motion After Excluding the Only Causation Expert’s Opinion for Lack of Reliable Methodology

Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment Motion After Excluding the Only Causation Expert’s Opinion for Lack of Reliable MethodologyAn expert’s opinion is properly excluded when the opinion does not contain a reliable methodology for weighing the evidence. While a court may not weigh an expert opinion’s probative value or persuasiveness, it must consider whether the opinion is logically sound, i.e., whether the matter relied on can provide a reasonable basis for the opinion and is not a leap of logic or conjecture.
Read More

April 3, 2023 | Business Litigation

California Appellate Court Holds Trial Courts Do Not Have Discretion to Refuse to Hear a Party’s Timely Filed Motion for Summary Judgment

California Appellate Court Holds Trial Courts Do Not Have Discretion to Refuse to Hear a Party’s Timely Filed Motion for Summary JudgmentWhen a party files a motion for summary judgment within the time limits set by California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, the party has a right to have the motion heard before the start of trial. Calendaring issues are not a basis upon which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed motion.
Read More

March 13, 2023 | Business Litigation

California Appellate Court Warns “Real Limits” to Specific Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendants in California

California Appellate Court Warns “Real Limits” to Specific Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendants in CaliforniaPersonal jurisdiction continues to be a surprisingly evolving area of procedural law despite the U.S. Supreme Court having first addressed it more than three quarters of a century ago in Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington. 326 U.S. 310 (1945). The modern evolution of the concept has continued with important U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), in 2011, Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), in 2014 and, more recently, BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402 (2017), in 2017. And, as more cases apply these SCOTUS decisions at the state and federal trial-court level each year, the nuances grow in California and elsewhere.
Read More

January 23, 2023 | Entertainment & IP Litigation

Transforming Art: United States Supreme Court Set to Clarify What’s “Fair” for Fair Use

Transforming Art:  United States Supreme Court Set to Clarify What’s “Fair” for Fair UseOn October 12, 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that will shape the way artists across disciplines create and protect their copyrighted works. The case, Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, involves a 1981 portrait of Prince taken by renowned rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith. In 1984, the late American visual artist, film director, and producer Andy Warhol “transformed” the portrait into a set of 16 silkscreens and sketches, referred to as the “Prince Series.” The Supreme Court will soon decide whether, for the purpose of determining whether an accused work is protected by the Copyright Act’s fair use defense, a work of art that conveys a different meaning or message from its source material is “transformative,” or whether courts can even consider the accused work’s meaning where it recognizably derives from its source material.
Read More