Business Litigation

October 12, 2023 | Business Litigation

The Advocate-Witness Rule in California: Factual Findings of Injury to Judicial Process Required When Disqualifying a Likely Advocate-Witness Notwithstanding Client Consent

The Advocate-Witness Rule in California: Factual Findings of Injury to Judicial Process Required When Disqualifying a Likely Advocate-Witness Notwithstanding Client ConsentIn deciding a motion to disqualify a likely advocate-witness notwithstanding client consent, courts are required to consider multiple factors, including: (1) whether counsel’s testimony is, in fact, needed; (2) the possibility of using the motion to disqualify for purely tactical reasons; and (3) any prejudice to the opposing party and potential injury to the integrity of the judicial process. A motion to disqualify should not be granted absent factual findings of potential injury to the judicial process.
Read More

September 28, 2023 | Business Litigation

Arbitration in California: Contracting for Appeal of Arbitral Awards

Arbitration in California: Contracting for Appeal of Arbitral AwardsArbitration is a contractual creation, intended to provide flexibility in the resolution of disputes that is usually invoked to achieve a relatively swift and inexpensive resolution. But in California, it sometimes can be invoked to achieve the opposite effect: adding another layer of litigation on top of the three-tiered state court system.
Read More

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