LEGAL MEMOS

Greisman v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1310. In this case the attorneys entered into a stipulated settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 in open court before a judge at a Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Court found that CCP § 664.6 as amended expressly allows an attorney for a represented party to sign a writing settling pending litigation on the client’s behalf and does not restrict that authority to the execution of written settlement agreements or preclude the exercise of that authority orally on the record in open court.

Taylor v. Tesla, Inc. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 74. This is a SLAPP case. An employer brought a SLAPP motion with respect to the employee’s PAGA claim which sought penalties for the employer’s failure to respond to a personnel records request under Labor Code §§ 226, 432 and 1198.5. The Court of Appeal found that the refusal to respond did not qualify for anti-SLAPP protection as a statement made in connection with an issue under consideration in a judicial proceeding because no written or oral statement or writing was an element of the PAGA claim. Refusal to comply with simply conduct and it did not qualify as petitioning activity either and as a result the SLAPP motion was property denied.

Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040. Two healthcare workers sued the Alameda Health System and in a PAGA cause of action sought civil penalties. The Supreme Court found that the Alameda Heath System was a public agency, and public agencies and public employers were exempted from Labor Code Provisions governing meal and rest breaks and related statutes governing the full and timely payment of wages.

Riverside Mining Ltd. v. Quality Aggregates (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 269. In this case a lessor voluntarily dismissed an unlawful detainer action and thereafter the trial court denied the tenant’s motion for contractual attorney’s fees which occurred after the date of its rejected offer to compromise. The Court affirmed the denial holding that the parties must bear their own attorney’s fees when a Defendant in a contract action prevails by voluntary dismissal instead of on the merits. The tenant’s entitlement to costs as the prevailing party did not include attorney’s fees regardless of the rejected offer to compromise.

Mahram v. The Kroger Company (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 303. In this matter a shopper used an internet-based grocery delivery company to get produce from a grocery store. The shopper sued the grocer for overcharging and the grocer moved to compel arbitration although the grocer had no contract with the customer, the shopper did have a contract with the delivery company which included an arbitration provision. The Court held that the shopper had only contracted for arbitration with the delivery company, not with the grocer. The grocer was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between the shopper and the delivery company. Extending contractual benefits to the grocer was not a motivating purpose behind the agreement between the shopper and the delivery service, and the grocer had no standing to compel the shopper to arbitrate.

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1. This was a certified question that went to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit which resulted in the Supreme Court concluding that under California Law a Plaintiff may assert a cause of action for fraudulent concealment based on conduct occurring in the course of a contractual relationship, if the elements of that claim can be established independently of the party’s contractual rights and obligations and the tortious conduct exposed the Plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract.

/ilc