Robie & Matthai, A Professional Corporation | A Professional Corporation | Trial and Appellate Lawyers

HOME ABOUT US PROFESSIONALS PUBLISHED OPINIONS OTHER STUFF


Published Opinions
 

Robie & Matthai has helped shape the law in areas critical to its clients’ needs. The published cases listed below reflect the depth of the firm’s appellate practice.

Insurance

Swanson v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2013) 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 759 (September 23, 2013)

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that an insurer who initially defends under a reservation of rights, and pays independent counsel under Civil Code section 2860, need not continue to pay that independent counsel after the insurer withdraws the Cumis-triggering reservation.

Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1

Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment of the insureds' bad faith claim in favor of State Farm on the basis there were numerous instances of material misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the insureds statements justifying the denial of their insurance claim.

Reichert v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1543

Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment of breach of contract and bad faith claims holding the law or ordinance exclusion applied to preclude coverage. Further, although the policy included "Option OL" coverage, which provided an extra amount to replace for the cost of required code upgrades, it did not apply because there was no loss from a covered peril.

State Farm General Insurance Company vs. Frake (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 568

The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s finding that State Farm had an obligation to defend an insured who had struck his friend in the groin, causing significant injuries. Although the insured claimed he had not intended to cause an injury, those injuries were the direct and immediate result of an intended event, not an accident.

Shanahan vs. State Farm General Insurance Company (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 780

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, finding that State Farm had no obligation to defend a charge of sexual battery because intentional acts were not covered by the liability policies. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the complaint could have been amended to allege negligent touching, defamation or an invasion of privacy which would have been covered under an umbrella policy.

Colony Insurance Company vs. Crusader Insurance Company (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 743

The court Affirmed judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that the carrier properly refused to defend on the basis of the insured’s misrepresentations in the application. The misrepresentation and concealment in the insurance application was material. The insurer was not estopped by its failure to follow its internal guidelines for investigating the statements made in the application.

State Farm Gen’l Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 429

In a case involving a national split of authority, the court held that a claim for “fax blasting” in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) did not constitute “advertising injury” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The Court of Appeal also reaffirmed the rule that a petition for writ of mandate is the exclusive means of appellate review of an order denying a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction unless the defendant allows its default to be taken.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Jacoby (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 639

In a case of first impression, the court held that an overpayment of insurance proceeds belonged to the insurer, not to the subsequent purchaser of the property.

21st Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 511 (amicus)

Court held that the “made-whole” rule applied in the med-pay insurance context but did not include liability for attorney fees, which were subject to a separate equitable apportionment rule of pro rata sharing that was analogous to the common fund doctrine.

Freedman v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 957

Court of Appeal upheld the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client under the efficient proximate cause doctrine in water loss case.

AHO Enters. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (N.D.Cal. 2009) 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14373

Granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client on breach of implied contract claim.

AHO Enters. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (N.D.Cal. 2008) 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 90590

Court granted Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed on behalf of Robie & Matthai’s client holding that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claim and could not state claims for negligent or intentional interference with expected contractual relations.

Bouton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1190 (amicus)

Court addressed binding arbitration for uninsured/underinsured motorist claims under Insurance Code section 11580.2 and held that courts, not arbitrators, determine insurance coverage issues.

Everett v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 649

First published decision to address the notice requirements necessary for any change in coverage in a California insurance policy under California Insurance Code section 678. Court ruled in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that the notice was adequate.

Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713 (amicus)

For the first time, the California Supreme Court addressed the “genuine dispute doctrine” in a first-party insurance “bad faith” case. Court held that the doctrine continues to apply under California law and that it may be decided on summary judgment.

Cheviot Vista Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1486

Court ruled in favor of Robie & Matthai client, affirming summary judgment granted to insurer on Northridge earthquake claim. Court followed long line of cases holding that Code of Civil section 340.9 did not create any new duty by insurers to investigate allegedly newly-discovered earthquake damage. Court held that a plaintiff cannot oppose a motion for summary judgment with the declaration of an attorney stating that an undisclosed expert witness may have evidence relevant to the motion. Court also addressed when a continuance of the hearing on a motion for summary judgment is appropriate under subdivision (h) of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

Oak Park Calabasas Condominium Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 557

First published California state case to address the meaning of “wrongful act” in a Directors and Officers Liability Policy. The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Robie & Matthai client. Court followed federal cases and held that a breach of contract claim for the non-payment of money was not covered under the D&O policy.

Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 999

Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client. Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9 only eliminated certain statute of limitations defenses and did not create any new substantive rights or any additional duty to investigate an insured’s loss. Court held that a plaintiff cannot oppose a motion for summary judgment with a declaration of counsel stating that an expert witness may offer relevant evidence.

1231 Euclid Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1008

Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client. Court held that the voluntary withdrawal of a claim by an insurer has the same legal consequence as the failure to file any claim at all.

Rosen v. State Farm Gen’l Ins. Co. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1070

Court ruled in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that no contract, even an insurance contract, can be rewritten to comply with purported “public policy” concerns.

Vu v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1142 (amicus)

California Supreme Court answered question of law certified to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The California Supreme Court held that an insurer may allege equitable estoppel where a claim may otherwise be barred by the traditional statute of limitations.

Community Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Security Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 886

Court held that plaintiffs could not state a claim for unfair business practices based on insurers’ allegedly adjusting property loss claims based on replacement cost value rather than fair market value.

Adelman v. Associated Int’l Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352 (amicus)

Court affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer, holding that insurer did not owe a duty to individual members of a homeowners association, who were not insured parties to the insurance policy.

Michael v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 925 (amicus)

Court held that appraisal proceeding, initiated pursuant to Insurance Code section 2071, was subject to the California Arbitration Act’s requirements (Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, et seq.). Court held that there was no basis to vacate the appraisal award.

Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 871 (amicus)

Court held that insurers do not owe a duty to defend for easement disputes where insurance policies only cover losses to tangible property.

Tento Int’l, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (9th Cir. 2000) 222 F.3d 660

Court addressed the issue of efficient proximate cause in the context of rain damage allegedly caused by contractor’s negligence.

Monarch E & S Ins. Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (C.D.Cal. 1999) 38 F.Supp.2d 841

District court granted summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that trade secret litigation did not constitute an “advertising injury” under a CGL policy.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625

Court addressed the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege in the context of the adjustment of insurance claims.

Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599 (amicus)

Court addressed the relevancy of liability reserve and coinsurance information in an insurance “bad faith” action.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1093

Court held that plaintiffs could state a cause of action for unfair business practices under Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., based on insurer’s alleged fraudulent misconduct.

Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1 (amicus)

Court held that insurer did not owe a duty to defend, under a commercial general liability policy, where third-party action sought incidental emotional distress damages caused by the insured’s noncovered economic or business torts.

Winans v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1992) 968 F.2d 884 (amicus)

The Ninth Circuit reversed the published decision of the district court, which had denied insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a defect that is not apparent upon reasonable inspection, but only comes to light after an intensive post-failure expert examination, is a latent defect within insurance policy’s latent defect exclusion.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Von Der Lieth (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1123 (amicus)

Court addressed the issue of efficient proximate cause in the context of landslide or earth movement precipitated by the negligent acts of third parties.

Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 674 (amicus)

Court addressed when the standard one-year limitation period contained in all fire insurance policies, pursuant to Insurance Code section 2071, begins to run in a progressive property damage case.

Almon v. State Farm Fire & Casl. Co. (S.D.Cal. 1989) 724 F.Supp. 765

District Court granted Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty and Civil RICO claims brought against Robie & Matthai’s client.

Taxel v. Equity General Insurance Co. (S.D.Cal. 1987) 80 B.R. 512

District Court granted interlocutory appeal brought by Robie & Matthai client, holding that bankruptcy court erred in requiring documents to be produced. District Court held that the documents relating to the setting of loss reserves were privileged.

Attorneys

Freedman v. Brutzkus (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1065 (amicus)

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that an attorney’s signature on an agreement “approved as to form and content” did not constitute an actionable misrepresentation to the other party’s counsel. Robie & Matthai submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel that was specifically noted by the Court of Appeal in its published decision.

Cassel vs. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113 (amicus)

The Supreme Court held that mediation-related discussions are confidential under the California Evidence Code, as they fell within the “purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to a mediation.” There is no exception to mediation confidentiality when a client seeks to use confidential communication as evidence in a legal malpractice suit.

Costco Wholesale Corporation vs. The Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 (amicus)

The attorney-client privilege codified in Evidence Code §954 attached to an attorney’s opinion letter, in its entirety, even if the letter included unprivileged material. The trial court was precluded from ordering disclosure of the communication at an in-camera hearing in order to rule on the claim of privilege. As stated by the Court: “Although exercise of the privilege may occasionally result in the suppression of relevant evidence, the Legislature has determined that these concerns are outweighed by the importance of preserving confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship.”

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 (amicus)

Court held that a memorandum from outside counsel to in-house counsel was protected by the attorney-client privilege, even though it contained “facts” which might otherwise be discoverable.

Baker Manock & Jensen v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 1414

Court of Appeal issued petition for writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Robie & Matthai’s client.

Eshelman v. Orthoclear Holdings, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2009) 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 19293

Granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss securities claims filed against Robie & Matthai client, an in-house counsel.

Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP (2007) 42 Cal.4th 503 (amicus)

Supreme Court resolved a split of authority among published Court of Appeal opinions and held that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6) was not tolled as to a law firm where a departing attorney took a matter with him when he left the firm and the firm was no longer counsel of record.

Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137 (amicus)

First published decision to address the inter-play between California’s mediation confidentiality statutes (Cal. Evid. Code § 1115, et seq.) and a legal malpractice claim based upon alleged communications made during a mediation. Court held that the absolute nature of the mediation confidentiality must control, even if the plaintiff will be unable to prove his/her legal malpractice case.

Am. Exp. Partners, LLC v. Inman (C.D.Cal. 2005) 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 46650

District Court granted motion for summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai client, holding that the claims for legal malpractice were barred by the statute of limitations.

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Lamarch (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728

Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) applies to malicious prosecution actions.

Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232 (amicus)

Court held that in all legal malpractice cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, i.e., that the client would have received a better outcome “but for” the attorney’s alleged negligence. Court rejected lower court’s holding that the rule should be different for transactional malpractice cases.

Village Nurseries, L.P. v. Greenbaum (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 26

Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s claim, holding that claims for legal malpractice were time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. Court also held that another party improperly filed a “joinder” in support of the Robie & Matthai motion for summary judgment without filing a motion or separate statement.

California Aviation, Inc. v. Leeds (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 724

Court held two-year federal bankruptcy limitations extension statute (11 U.S.C. § 108(a)) applied, rather than one-year state statute of limitations (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6.)

Practice & Procedure

MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1169

Court held that there is no private right of action for damages for violation of the right to petition clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (a)).

Village Northridge v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 913

The plaintiff claimed fraud in the inducement of a settlement agreement, but refused to rescind the settlement agreement and return the settlement proceeds and sought additional damages for fraud in the inducement. The trial court granted State Farm’s demurrer; the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court rejected plaintiff’s argument holding that if a plaintiff wants to avoid the consequence of a settlement agreement which includes a Civil Code section 1542 waiver, the plaintiff must follow the rescission statutes, which require return of the consideration.

Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo (9th Cir. 2008) 548 F.3d 1184

Ninth Circuit held that Robie & Matthai’s client had standing to pursue facial and as-applied taking claims.

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. County of San Luis Obispo (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 705

Court of Appeal held that administrative hearing violated due process because cross-examination of adverse witnesses was not permitted.

Estate of Thelma V. Spirtos v. One San Bernardino County Superior Court (9th Cir. 2006) 443 F.3d 1172

Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai client, joining the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that a bankruptcy trustee has the exclusive power to assert claims on behalf of a bankruptcy estate. Court also held that a creditor may apply for leave of court to represent the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(b).

Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409

Court held that mass-produced pleadings failed to comply with California’s fact pleading requirement, reflected in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10, and were the functional equivalent of no complaint at all. Court went on to hold that amended pleadings could not “relate back” to original complaints and, thus, were time-barred.

Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197

Court addressed trial court’s discretion to proceed with a hearing on a motion for summary judgment in light of an opposing party’s procedurally defective separate statement. Court also addressed trial court’s mandatory obligation to rule on evidentiary objections.

Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389 (amicus)

Court held that trial court abused its discretion in proceeding with trial where defense counsel was engaged in another trial.

Hindin v. Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247

Court held that, pursuant to subdivision (f)(1) of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,  a party may not move for summary adjudication regarding part of a cause of action. Instead, the correct procedural remedy is to move to strike or file an in limine motion.

Gallimore v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1388

Court held that unfair business practice claim brought under Business & Professions Code section 17200 was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16).

United Services Automobile Assn. v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 633

Court of Appeal granted petition for writ of mandate in favor of Robie & Matthai client, holding that the trial court erred in granting a “good faith” settlement motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Foxgate Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Bramelea (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1 (amicus)

Court held that there can be no judicially-created exception to the mediation privilege embodied in California Evidence Code sections 1119, et seq.

Catalano v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91

Court held that a party may not move for summary adjudication for part of a claim for punitive damages.

Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257

Court held that there must be a meaningful hearing on a motion for summary judgment and that a trial court cannot take a matter under submission without oral argument.

Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 688

Court held that a party may not serve a business records subpoena on a court reporter to obtain a copy of a deposition transcript in order to avoid paying the court reporter’s fee for the deposition transcript.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 513

Court affirmed trial court ruling in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client, holding that the trial court properly vacated an arbitration award as a result of the arbitrator’s failure to disclose a substantial business relationship with a party to the arbitration.

Hung v. Wang (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 908

Court upheld the constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1714.10, which requires that a plaintiff seek leave of court to add a cause of action against an attorney for an alleged conspiracy with a client, based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that the plaintiff will prevail in the action.

Doose Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1698

Court held that the “good faith” settlement statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 887.6, does not apply to cross-claims against a settling plaintiff.

Orr v. Byers (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 666

Court held that an abstract of judgment containing a misspelled name does not impart constructive notice of its contents under the doctrine of idem sonans, i.e., the doctrine that although a person’s name has been inaccurately written, the identity of the person can be presumed from the similarity of sounds between the correct pronunciation and the pronunciation as written.

San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco (2005) 545 U.S. 323, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 162 L.Ed. 2d 315 (amicus)

Court held that when a federal court dismisses an as-applied takings claim for failure to exhaust available state law remedies pursuant to Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank (1985) 473 U.S. 172, 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 105 S.Ct. 3108, the Full Faith and Credit statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738) requires that preclusive effect be given to any subsequent state court proceedings. Four justices signed a concurring opinion stating that Williamson County should be overruled.

Class Actions

Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1438

Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client in $40 billion class action under the Illinois business judgment rule.

Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (5th Cir. 2007) 509 F.3d 673, 674 (amicus)

Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action alleging seat belt inspections were not included on automobile repair estimates.

Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1

Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a national class action on demurrer, holding that the plaintiffs could not state a claim for breach of contract for insurer not following purported “national” automotive repair “standards.”

Newell v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1097

Court affirmed the dismissal of a class action arising out of the Northridge earthquake, holding that a class could not be certified.

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1096 (amicus)

Court held that trial court abused its discretion in certifying a class action in a case involving medical monitoring of residents in a geographic area allegedly affected by the defendants’ toxic chemical discharge.

Miscellaneous

Kwikset Corporation vs. The Superior Court of Orange County (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310 (amicus)

The Court held that plaintiffs who can truthfully allege that they were deceived by a product’s  “Made in America” label and who would not have otherwise purchased the product, have standing to sue under Prop. 64.

Doan v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1082

The Court of Appeal upheld the grant of State Farm’s demurrer, dismissing the policyholder’s class action suit which had challenged State Farm’s valuation methods for personal property losses, asserting that depreciation adjustments were excessive. The Court also held that the trial court had discretion to stay an appraisal proceeding pending resolution of legal questions in a declaratory relief proceeding.

Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. County of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2009) 606 F.Supp.2d 1266

Addressing an anti-SLAPP motion filed regarding state law defamation claims.

Korea Supply co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 (amicus)

Court held that in unfair business practice claim brought under Business & Professions Code section 17200, a plaintiff is not entitled to disgorgement of profits allegedly obtained by the defendant unless the profits or monies were taken by the plaintiff. Court also held that to state a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff does not have to plead that the defendant acted with specific intent to interfere with the plaintiff’s business expectancy.

Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705 (amicus)

Court held that an escrow holder does not owe a duty of care to a nonparty to the escrow based on an assignment to that nonparty by another nonparty to the escrow.

Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763 (amicus)

Court held that plaintiff could not prove required causation in premises liability action. Court held that the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate, by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s failure to provide adequate security measures.

Secretary of Housing & Urban Development v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (C.D.Cal. 2000) 117 F.Supp.2d 970

Court held that the Supremacy Clause precluded a foreclosure proceeding under state law.

Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163 (amicus)

In companion case to Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, court held that although a fluid recovery may not be sought under Business & Professions Code section 17200, the plaintiffs in this case may be entitled to disgorgement of unpaid wages.

Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116 (amicus)

Court held that disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund is not a remedy available in a representative action brought under Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249

Court held that where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation and in good faith, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority under the relevant statutes, courts should defer to the board’s authority and presumed expertise. This is the California court decision applying the rule of judicial deference to HOA Board of Director’s decisions.

Vu v. California Commerce Club (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229 (amicus)

Court held that plaintiffs could not pursue claim for money lost at gambling establishment because plaintiffs’ claims were inherently speculative.

Angeles Chemical Co., Inc. v. Spencer & Jones (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 112

Court held that “discovery rule” mandated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) preempts the California 10-year statute of limitations.

Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 242

Court reversed trial court judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that defendants could not be held liable for conspiring to interfere with contractual relations because they were a party to the contract.

Pamela W. v. Millsom (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 950

Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Robie & Matthai client in premises liability action, holding that it was not foreseeable that plaintiff would be harmed.

Regional Steel Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 525

Court held that when a construction contract contains an express indemnity clause, there can be no claim for equitable indemnification.

Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868

Court addressed whether persons, other than those who contract for the services of mortuaries and crematoria or have the statutory right to disposition of the body of a decedent, may recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent or intentional mishandling of the decedent’s remains. Court held that the scope of the class approved by the Court of Appeal was overbroad and limited the class.

Smith v. Superior Court (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 950

Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter an order for summary adjudication in favor of Robie & Matthai’s client. Court held that breach of fiduciary duty claim brought against director of homeowners association was time-barred.

Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590

Court held that plaintiff could state a claim for environmental sexual harassment.

A plethora of unpublished cases have also served the interests of Robie & Matthai clients. If you wish to review the nonpublished cases, simply enter the search term Robie w/2 Matthai in Lexis.

 
 

STRAIGHTFORWARD - TO THE POINT

213-706-8000 | 500 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 | Fax 213-706-9913

HOME ABOUT US PROFESSIONALS PUBLISHED OPINIONS OTHER STUFF

Robie and Matthai, A Professional Corporation | Trial and Appelate Lawyers | Straightforward to the point This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [site map]