KF&C California Law Blog

In a recent case, Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, A.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered a question that is frequently asked by U.S. litigants: “Is a foreign defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in a U.S. federal court where the defendant operates a website directed at the U.S. market?” For the first time, the Ninth Circuit provided a pragmatic standard for a critical issue in a world of globalized e-commerce and cloud computing.

The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review a property rights challenge to rent stabilization laws in New York City. The laws at issue limit rent increases and generally require landlords to renew a tenant’s lease. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court has significant implications for the countless rental unit owners and tenants in New York City, where approximately one million homes are subject to rent regulation, and could have serious ripple effects for rental owners and tenants in California.

Litigants facing a trial court’s denial of an attempt to compel arbitration may find themselves surprised by a significant change in California law that recently became effective on January 1, 2024: An appeal from an order denying or dismissing a petition to compel arbitration no longer automatically stays trial court proceedings. This reversal by the California Legislature from the historic norm—where an appeal would automatically stay trial court proceedings—amended Civil Code of Procedure Section 1294(a) and now gives trial court judges discretion to stay or continue proceedings. The amendment took effect this year after moving through the Legislature as California Senate Bill No. 365 (SB 365) and was approved by Governor Newsom on October 10, 2023.

An allegedly indefinite contract may not be enforceable for two reasons: First, the contract may be too indefinite for the court to administer—no remedy can be properly framed. Second, the indefiniteness of the contract may show a lack of contractual intent. Nevertheless, a contract need not specify price if price can be objectively determined. The absence of a price provision does not render an otherwise valid contract void.

In 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.