Gagen McCoy

Call us today to arrange for an initial consultation

925-605-0357
Gagen McCoy

Call us today to arrange for an initial consultation

925-605-0357
Gagen McCoy

Danville : 925-605-0357

Offering Comprehensive Legal Representation
  1. Home
    2.  » 
  2. Developments of Interest
    3.  » New Cases of Interest – January 17, 2023

Legal Memos

Trujillo v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 908. While a CCP § 998 offer was pending and not yet expired, the trial court orally granted a summary judgment motion, and the party in receipt of the § 998 offer then immediately accepted the § 998 offer. The Court held, however, that the acceptance was ineffective, even though it was before the entry of the minute order on the oral ruling, in that the offer of compromise remains valid at the commencement of a summary judgment hearing, but that it cannot be accepted after an oral granting of the summary judgment motion, and the time shown on the email communicating acceptance came after the time that the hearing had concluded.

Taska v. RealReal, Inc. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1. This was an arbitration award in which the arbitrator initially did not award fees and costs, and in fact, denied a request for fees and costs, but subsequently submitted a corrected award in which fees and costs were awarded. The matter went to the superior court with the superior court striking the award of attorney’s fees and costs, and the court of appeal affirmed that decision, holding that the arbitrator did not have authority to amend the award to add an award of attorney’s fees and costs, because the award when submitted met all of the statutory requirements to be deemed a final award under CCP § 1283.4.

Wisner v. Dignity Health (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 35. This is a SLAPP case. Plaintiff, who is an orthopedic surgeon, filed a complaint against a hospital alleging that the hospital had falsely reported to the National Practitioner Duty Bank that Plaintiff had surrendered his clinical privileges while under investigation. The SLAPP motion was granted, with the court concluding that the Plaintiff’s claims arose from protected activity, and that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that there was not sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the report was in fact false, and that the trial court did not err in concluding that the hospital was entitled to immunity, thereby defeating the Plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law.

/lkb

Related Attorney(s):
Gregory L. McCoy