LITIGATION BLOG

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, May 23, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:36:25 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. In re Timothy N., D061891, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 403 ^Shepardize, May 22, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: probation, restitution, conditions of probation, misdemeanor, successfully completed, plea agreement, prosecutor's, termination, successfully complete, successful completion ...

2. People v. Eid, G046129, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 404 ^Shepardize, May 22, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: lesser, kidnapping, convicted, false imprisonment, motel, extortion, misdemeanor, phone, ransom, phoned ...

3. People v. Pizarro, F057722, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 402 ^Shepardize, May 21, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, only the Introduction; Procedural Summary; Facts; the following parts of the Discussion: I., II.A., II.E.1.a., II.E.1.e., II.E.1.f., II.E.2.a., II.E.2.f., heading of II.E.5., and II.E.5.f.; and the Disposition of this opinion are certified for publication.

CORE TERMS: allele, juror, sequence, primer, perpetrator, profile, match, null, misconduct, extraneous ...

4. Schwartz v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., A134706, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 400 ^Shepardize, May 21, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: insurer, premium, policyholder, insured, disability, coverage, unfair competition, denied benefits, cause of action, disabled ...

5. North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, A133821, A135626, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 401 ^Shepardize, May 21, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: tank, mitigation measure, environmental, emission, site, plant, species, fish", sampling, energy ...

Index of actions without opinion

No new actions since last update.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

William A. Ruskin: 2nd Circuit Grapples With Medical Monitoring

William A. Ruskin — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:34:00 GMT

By William A. Ruskin

On May 1, 2013, the Second Circuit issued an important decision in Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2d Cir., No. 11-0316 (5/1/13) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]. The Court provides an excellent summary of the law concerning medical monitoring claims in New York state and federal courts, and in other jurisdictions around the country. However, the Second Circuit concluded that the New York Court of Appeals was best suited to determine whether New York recognizes an independent claim for medical monitoring.

Therefore, the Court certified the following questions of New York law to the Court of Appeals: (1) Under New York law, may a current or former longterm smoker who has not been diagnosed with a smoking-related disease, and who is not under investigation by a physician for such a suspected disease, pursue an independent equitable cause of action for medical monitoring for such a disease? (2) If New York recognizes such an independent cause of action for medical monitoring, (a) what are the elements of that cause of action? and (b) what is the applicable statute of limitations, and when does that cause of action accrue?

Caronia, a putative class action, was commenced on January 19, 2006. The class plaintiffs are persons aged 50 years or older who currently smoke Marlboro cigarettes or ceased smoking them within one year prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, and smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20-packed years. The complaint alleges that none of the plaintiffs are presently diagnosed with lung cancer nor under investigation under a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs' most recent amended complaint alleges that a newly established medical surveillance technique known as Low Dose CT scanning of the chest is a safe, efficacious and inexpensive technique which, for the first time, provides the means to identify and diagnose lung cancer at an early stage, when it is still curable.

In the trial court, the plaintiffs sought medical monitoring as a remedy for their tort claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty but had not pled a free-standing claim for medical monitoring. It was not until plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint that a stand-alone claim for medical monitoring was pled.

The Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY's dismissal of plaintiffs' traditional strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims for redress of the smokers' increased risk of developing lung cancer on the ground that these claims were time-barred. Thus, whether plaintiffs' sole remaining claim for medical monitoring is a stand-alone claim or merely an element of consequential damages becomes critical to plaintiffs' right of recovery. Because the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs' pursuit of their traditional claims for negligence and strict products liability, any medical monitoring issue becomes moot if it is merely an element of consequential damages. If the underlying negligence and strict products liability claims are time-barred, then no consequential damages are recoverable.

However, if New York recognizes an independent cause of action for medical monitoring, and, if, as recognized, that claim is viewed as accruing when an effective monitoring test becomes available, then, according to the Second Circuit, the statute of limitations likely will not have run on such an independent cause of action. Thus, the question certified to the New York Court of Appeals takes on critical importance.

In Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. [enhanced version], an almost identical case brought by the same plaintiff lawyers in the District of Massachusetts, the federal district court certified similar questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Notably, Sheila Birnbaum, now with Quinn Emanuel, and Gary Long of Shook Hardy & Bacon, argued on behalf of Philip Morris in both Massachusetts and New York.

In Donovan, the court held that plaintiffs who sued for medical monitoring, based on sub-clinical effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and increased risk of lung cancer, stated a cognizable claim under Massachusetts state law.

The issue is whether the New York Court of Appeals will adopt the reasoning of Donovan, which sets a dangerous precedent, or take a more conservative approach. The obvious concern is that the "damages floodgates" may potentially open if the burden of medical monitoring plaintiffs is reduced to demonstrating a sub-cellular or physiological change rather than an injury or disease. Under such a loosened standard, particularly if an independent cause of action for medical monitoring is permitted to proceed, a sun tan, a skin blemish, a sneeze or elevated cholesterol could justify permitting a medical monitoring claim to proceed.

Perhaps we exaggerate, but why would not McDonald's restaurants potentially be exposed to claims for diabetes medical monitoring claims brought by customers alleging they suffer from fast food-induced obesity? Why would not Coppertone be subject to damages claims by customers with sunburns who allege they may be at risk for developing skin cancer due to the sun tan lotion's lack of efficacy in preventing sunburns? In both situations, sub-cellular or physiological change could be demonstrated, particularly in the absence of a requirement to demonstrate phsical injury or disease. A cynic might argue that a Donovan-style medical monitoring rule is designed only to punish the tobacco industry rather than establish sound jurisprudence..

Although New York courts have held that medical monitoring may be an element of consequential damages, if certain requisites are met, Donovan can be distinguished from several Appellate Division medical monitoring cases in New York. For example, in Abusio v. Consolidated Edison Co. [enhanced version], the Second Department upheld the trial court's dismissal of cancerphobia claims on the grounds that plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to prevail. However, in its decision, the Second Department cited cases which found that future medical monitoring costs could be sought for cancerphobia if a plaintiff could "establish both that he or she was in fact exposed to the disease-causing agent that there is a 'rational basis' for his or her fear of contracting the disease... this 'rational basis' has been construed to mean the clinically demonstrable presence of PCBs in the plaintiff's body, or some indication of PCB-induced disease, i.e., some physical manifestation of PCB contamination... ."

A much-cited Fourth Department Appellate Division case, Askey v. Occidental Chemical Corp. [enhanced version], examined claims of exposure to toxic discharges from a landfill and considered whether plaintiffs could recover for an anticipated need for medical monitoring. In particular, the court examined the then "novel issue" whether persons with an increased risk of disease could recover the costs of future medical monitoring in the absence of any apparent physical injury. In that case, the court concluded that recovery for medical monitoring was available as an element of consequential damage, but not as a stand-alone cause of action. But this article is not intended to be a survey of New York law on the subject. The Second Circuit decision provides a cogent analysis of the important New York case law on medical monitoring and .I direct the reader to that discussion.

It is my view that any medical monitoring plaintiff should be required, at a minimum, to demonstrate injury or disease to recover medical monitoring damages and that no stand-alone claim for medical monitoring should be permitted.

For more cutting edge commentary on developing issues, visit Toxic Tort Litigation Blog by William A. Ruskin of Epstein Becker & Green.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, May 22, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:17 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, S202037, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3510 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: refund, ordinance, tax refunds, entity, charter, prescribing, claims statute, local government, local public entities, chartered ...

2. Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Dow Chem. Can. Ulc, C065603, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 399 ^Shepardize, May 21, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: fuel tank, minimum contacts, personal jurisdiction, watercraft, manufactured, forum state, manufacturer, purposefully, declaration, plurality ...

3. People v. Fernandez, B236009, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 397 ^Shepardize, May 20, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: prosecutor, credibility, molestation, touching, daughter, girl, touched, misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, Criminal Law ...

4. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd., D061653, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 325 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: workers' compensation, criminal investigation, limitations period, peace officers, extrinsic, wrist, statutory language, lawmakers, vetoed, misconduct ...

5. In re Tobacco Cases, D061077, D061676, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 398 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified May 08, 2013., The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published May 20, 2013.

CORE TERMS: cartoon, consent decree, rock, attorney fees, adjacency, prevailing parties, campaign, tobacco, declaration, lodestar ...

Index of actions without opinion

No new actions since last update.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

Bankruptcy Judge Sets Specialty Products' Asbestos Liability At $1.16 Billion

Emerson Heffner — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:42:41 GMT

WILMINGTON, Del. -- (Mealey's) Former joint compound producer Bondex International Inc. and its related holding company Specialty Products Holding Corp. face an estimated $1.16 billion in pending and future asbestos personal injury claims, about double what the companies estimate their asbestos liabilities at, a federal bankruptcy judge in Delaware overseeing the companies' joint Chapter 11 case ruled May 20 (In re: Specialty Products Holding Corp., et al., No. 10-11780, D. Del. Bkcy.; 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2051) [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers].

Estimated Liability

Specialty Products and subsidiary Bondex filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2010 due to thousands of asbestos personal injury lawsuits filed against the companies. A trial was held in January 2013 to estimate the dollar amount of present and future mesothelioma claims caused by exposure to the debtors' asbestos-containing products. The estimate will be used to determine how much money will be needed to fund a trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to evaluate and pay asbestos claims.

At the hearing and in post-trial briefing, the debtors argued that, rather than basing their estimated liability only on their past settlements of asbestos claims in the tort system, their historical payments to claimants should be reduced for various reasons to assess their present and future claims. By making such reductions, the debtors' expert, economist Charles H. Mullin, estimated the debtors' total current and future liabilities at $300 million to $575 million "net present value."

By contrast, lawyer and behavioral scientist Mark Peterson, the expert for the asbestos creditors' committee (ACC), pegged the debtors' liability for mesothelioma claims at $1.25 billion, and economist Thomas Vasquez, the expert for the future claimants' representative (FCR), testified that the debtors' estimated total mesothelioma liability is $1.1 billion.

'Novel Approach'

Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald sided with the ACC and FCR and refused to accept the debtors' "novel approach" to estimating their liability. Adopting for the most part Vasquez's findings, the bankruptcy judge said "an appropriate estimate for mesothelioma claims, pending and future, is $1.1 billion net present value."

The parties previously agreed that 6 percent would be added to the mesothelioma estimate to cover all other asbestos personal injury claims, bringing the total estimate for the debtors' asbestos personal injury liability to $1,166,000,000.

Bankruptcy Judge Fitzgerald rejected all of the debtors' arguments as to why their past settlement amounts should be reduced for the purpose of estimating future liability. For example, the debtors asserted that their products contained only chrysotile asbestos, which they said is significantly less potent than other types of asbestos and that there is "substantial evidence" that it does not cause mesothelioma at all. In addition, the debtor's joint compound was mainly used by the do-it-yourself market, so the potential dose associated with the products was extremely small, the debtors said.

Video Evidence

The bankruptcy judge pointed out that the debtors' exposure argument was refuted by a video shown during the estimation trial that included scenes of a worker mixing the debtors' dry product, creating so much dust that the worker was barely visible.

"The video demonstrates that any person who mixed or who was in the area where the mixing occurred was exposed to an extraordinary quantity of airborne particles," the bankruptcy judge said. "This visual display of the huge volume of dust that becomes airborne when a bag of the product involved here is opened and mixed with water, so as to be manually applied to a wall to seal the joints, is clear demonstration that anyone exposed (potentially 40 million people) could inhale the product and potentially develop an asbestos disease. Thus, the number of claims, and Debtors' potential responsibility for them, is apparent."

Bankruptcy Judge Fitzgerald also rejected Mullin's attempts to minimize the debtors' asbestos liability by categorizing the companies' historical settlement payments as either indemnity payments or implicit defense costs to reduce the debtors' settlement payments by an amount that the debtors now say represented their effort to avoid legal fees.

"Dr. Mullin's implicit defense cost theory has not been quantified in reported cases and his attempt to separate those costs out as a component of settlement that would reduce Debtors' 'several share' of asbestos payments is theoretical and never tested," the bankruptcy judge said. "Although, arguendo, we can accept the proposition that Debtors settled cases, in part, to avoid legal fees, we cannot accept the proposition that Debtors' historical payments must or should be reduced by those amounts that Debtors now attribute to implicit defense costs."

Appeal

The debtors' corporate parent, RPM International Inc., said in a news release that the debtors intend to appeal the ruling and that the appeal process is anticipated to last two to three years. RPM says the debtors "firmly believe that the opinion substantially overstates the amount of their liability and is not supported by the facts or the law."

The debtors are represented by Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Paul N. Heath and Zachary I. Shapiro of Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington and Gregory M. Gordon and Dan B. Prieto of Jones Day in Dallas.

The committee is represented by Natalie D. Ramsey and Davis Lee Wright of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Wilmington, Mark B. Sheppard and Lathrop B. Nelson III of the firm's Philadelphia office and Nathan D. Finch of Motley Rice in Washington, D.C. The FCR is represented by James L. Patton Jr., John T. Dorsey, Edwin J. Harron and Sharon M. Zieg of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington.

For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.

Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey Publications.

Non-subscribers may search for Mealey Publications stories and documents at www.mealeysonline.com or visit www.Mealeys.com.

Mealey's is now available in eBook format!

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, May 21, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:32:15 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

No new opinions since last update.

Index of actions without opinion

1. People v. Harrell, S209667, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4409 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

2. People v. Vargas, S209670, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4410 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

3. V. v. Of Long, S202037, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4416 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

4. People v. Richard, S095076, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4421 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

5. People v. Scott, S095868, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4423 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

6. People v. Michael, S118384, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4411 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

7. People v. George, S131819, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4422 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

8. People v. Oswaldo, S133660, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4413 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

9. People v. Martin, S140894, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4420 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

10. People v. Luis, S143531, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4415 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

11. People v. Mauricio, S155617, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4414 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

12. People v. Alex, S159120, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4412 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

13. People v. Lamont, S171393, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4418 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

14. Sampson, S205750, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4419 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

15. Thanh, S208180, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4417 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Filed

16. Nancy v. Rudolph & Sletten, S193493, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4408 ^Shepardize, April 23, 2013, Filed

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

U.S. Supreme Court OKs Attorney Fees In Untimely, Good Faith Vaccine Cases

Tom Moylan — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:40:07 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) A federal vaccine compensation petitioner who filed an untimely claim may qualify for attorney fees if her claim was filed in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled May 20 (Kathleen Sebelius, et al. v. Melissa Cloer, No. 12-236, U.S. Sup.). (lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs for this case).

(Opinion available. Document #28-130606-005Z.)

Melissa Cloer, M.D., received her last hepatitis b vaccine in 1997 and afterwards experienced spreading numbness. In 2003, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

In 2004, Cloer became aware of a link between multiple sclerosis and the hepatitis B vaccine and filed a claim for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA or the Vaccine Act). The claim was ultimately denied because it was found to be untimely: claims must be filed within 36 months of symptoms.

Cloer then moved for attorney fees, which the act provides for, win or lose. The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, in 2012 ruled that claimants can seek attorney fees for claims made in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services appealed.

Untimely Claims Not Nullified

The Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that because Cloer's petition was untimely, it was not "filed" and is therefore not eligible for attorney fees. The court said nothing in the Vaccine Act's fee provisions suggest that a filing is nullified by a later finding of untimeliness.

"And so long as such a petition was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis, it is eligible for an award of attorney's fees, even if it is ultimately unsuccessful," the court wrote, citing case law. "If Congress had intended to limit fee awards to timely petitions, it could easily have done so."

The court noted that nothing in the law requires petitioners to allege or demonstrate that their petition is timely.

No Prior Determination

"If the NCVIA's limitations provision worked to void the filing of an untimely petition, then one would expect the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] to make timeliness determinations prior to publishing such notice or to strike any petitions found to be untimely filed from the Federal Registers," the court wrote. "But there is no indication that the Secretary does either of these things."

"That 'no petition may be filed for compensation' after the limitations period has run does not mean that the late petition was never filed at all," the court wrote.

The court also said, "The Government does not explain why Congress would have intended to discourage counsel from representing petitioners who, because of the difficulty of distinguishing between the initial symptoms of a vaccine-relate injury and an unrelated malady . . . may have good-faith claims with a reasonable basis that will only later be found untimely."

'Shadow Trials'

The government also argued that allowing attorney fees for untimely petitions would force special masters - who initially decide vaccine cases - to conduct costly and wasteful "shadow trials." The Supreme Court found that Congress specifically provided for "shadow trials" by permitting the awarding of attorney fees in cases brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

The court said the government's fears "appear to us to be exaggerated." It noted that special masters consistently make fee determinations, develop a "good sense" of the merits of a case and are able to determine if a reasonable basis exists for a claim.

The government also offered no support for its claim that an affirmation of the Federal Circuit ruling will lead to the filing of more untimely petitions. The court said that argument is premised on the assumption that attorneys will bring bad faith claims in derogation to their ethical duties.

Finally, the court said the special masters have shown themselves to be "more than capable of discerning untimely claims supported by good faith and a reasonable basis from those that are specious."

Mostly Unanimous Opinion

Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote the opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined in all but the ruling that Congress did not intend to discourage counsel from representing claimants where there is difficulty distinguishing between initial symptoms and an unrelated malady.

In Cloer's underlying appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the Vaccine Act was subject to equitable tolling in limited circumstances.

Counsel

The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Solicitor Benjamin J. Horwich, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, Michael S. Raab, Anisha S. Dasgupta, Vincent J. Matanoski and Lynn E. Ricciardella of the Justice Department and Acting General Counsel William B. Schultz, David Benor and Anna Loraine Jacobs of the Department of Health and Human Services, all in Washington.

Cloer was represented by Robert T. Fishman of Ridley, McGreevy & Winocur and Mari C. Bush of Kay & Bush, both in Denver.

Robert J. Krakow of the Law Office of Robert J. Krakow in New York and Kevin Conway of Conway, Homer and Chin-Caplan in Boston represent amicus curiae the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy and 19 other patient and parent advocacy groups.

Clifford J. Shoemaker of Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein in Vienna, Va., and Peter H. Meyer of the George Washington University Law School in Washington represent amicus National Vaccine Information Center.

[Editor's Note: Lexis subscribers may download the document using the link above. The document(s) are also available at www.mealeysonline.com or by calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.]

For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.

Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey Publications.

Non-subscribers may search for Mealey Publications stories and documents at www.mealeysonline.com or visit www.Mealeys.com.

Mealey's is now available in eBook format!

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Dispute Over Cardiac Device Patents

Melissa Ritti — Mon, 20 May 2013 19:40:15 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The question of whether a patent licensee bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe in a declaratory judgment action filed pursuant to MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc. (549 U.S. 118, 137 [2007]) will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on May 20 granted certiorari in a dispute over cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., No. 12-1128, U.S. Sup.) (lexis.com subscribers may access Supreme Court briefs for this case).

Review Deserved

According to Medtronic Inc.'s March 2013 petition for certiorari, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in holding that an accused infringer in a declaratory judgment action must establish noninfringement because such a ruling "is contrary to the settled principle" that infringement must "be shown by satisfactory proof" and "cannot be presumed."

"Nor does the procedural realignment of parties in a declaratory judgment action reallocate the burden of proof - a principle the Federal Circuit acknowledged. The Federal Circuit's conclusion that the presence of a patent license justified a fundamental departure from these principles is unsupported and deserves this Court's review," the petition states.

Tolling Agreement

Medtronic filed the instant lawsuit before U.S. Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District of Delaware in 2007, seeking a declaration that it had not infringed respondent Mirowski Family Ventures (MFV) LLC's U.S. reissue patents RE38,119 and RE39,897 with the sale of certain Medtronic CRT products. MFV is the owner by assignment of the patents in suit, which it in turn has licensed to co-respondents Guidant Corp. and Boston Scientific Corp. (MFV, collectively). In 1991, however, Medtronic sublicensed the RE'119 patent from Eli Lilly & Co. According to the record, the agreement allowed Medtronic to challenge the RE'119 patent's validity via declaratory judgment; Medtronic did so, and the parties entered into a litigation tolling agreement (LTA) that obligated MFV to inform Medtronic of which products it believed were infringing.

"Because Medtronic remained MFV's licensee, MFV could not counterclaim for infringement of either patent," the Federal Circuit noted in its September 2012 ruling.

Judge Robinson construed claims "improving the hemodynamic efficiency of a heart" and "bi-ventricular pacemaker" as limited to the treatment of congestive heart failure. Accordingly, the judge deemed the patents in suit valid. Medtronic's accused products were deemed noninfringing, however, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The parties then cross-appealed to the Federal Circuit. Reversing and remanding, the appellate panel turned to the question of which party bears the burden of proving infringement. Citing MedImmune, in which the Supreme Court found that a licensee should not be forced to cease royalty payments and risk infringement liability before challenging the scope of a license, the Federal Circuit held that the instant suit requires a determination of "the proper allocation of the burden of persuasion in the post-MedImmune world."

Royalty Obligation

Siding with MFV, the Federal Circuit agreed that as a declaratory judgment plaintiff, Medtronic must demonstrate that at least one limitation of each claim of MFV's patents is not met by Medtronic's products because Medtronic is "unquestionably the party now requesting relief from the court."

"In other words, it is Medtronic and not MFV that is asking the court to disturb the status quo ante and to relieve it from a royalty obligation it believes it does not bear. Consistent with the above, for the court to disturb the status quo ante, Medtronic must present evidence showing that it is entitled to such relief. If neither party introduced any evidence regarding infringement or noninfringement there is no principled reason why Medtronic should receive the declaration of noninfringement it seeks," the Federal Circuit held.

"Because Medtronic, and ultimately the district court, did not appreciate the appropriate allocation of the burden of proof and how the burden affected the parties' conduct during discovery, it is within the district court's discretion on remand whether to limit Medtronic to its current interrogatory answer, or to allow Medtronic to amend its interrogatory answer to include any additional noninfringement contentions it may wish to assert," the appellate panel added.

'Undesirable Consequences'

Should the Federal Circuit ruling stand, it "will have numerous undesirable consequences," according to Medtronic.

"First and foremost, it dramatically undercuts the holdings in MedImmune and the remedies it provided. Under the Federal Circuit's new regime, a declaratory judgment under MedImmune comes with a significant price: the duty to prove the negative proposition that the involved products do not infringe - a formidable task where, as here, the asserted patents include hundreds of individual claims and liability could rest on any one of several infringement theories. The only way a licensee could ensure that the burden of proof remains with the patentee would be to repudiate the license and invite the patentee to sue for infringement, thereby 'risk[ing] such serious consequences' as treble damages and attorney's fees - the very outcome the Court allowed licensees to avoid in MedImmune," Medtronic asserts, citing MedImmune.

Companion Case

A related petition (Mirkowski Family Ventures LLC v. Medtronic Inc. [No. 12-1116]), pertaining to the Federal Circuit's holding that Judge Robinson's claim construction improperly restricted various claims of the patents in suit, was not acted upon by the Supreme Court.

Medtronic is represented by Martin R. Lueck of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis. Arthur I. Neustadt of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt in Alexandria, Va., represents the respondents.

For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.

Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey Publications.

Non-subscribers may search for Mealey Publications stories and documents at www.mealeysonline.com or visit www.Mealeys.com.

Mealey's is now available in eBook format!

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Monday, May 20, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Mon, 20 May 2013 19:27:54 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. Jenkins v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., G046121, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 394 ^Shepardize, May 17, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: deed of trust, causes of action, nonjudicial foreclosure, promissory note, demurrer, foreclosure, recorded, notice of default, mortgage, unfair ...

2. Corrie v. Soloway, A135963, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 388 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: option agreement, illegality, map, void, seller, buyer's, acre, stock, option agreement, option to purchase ...

3. Greene v. Bank of Am., B243638, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 393 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: disclosure, blow, malicious prosecution, probable cause, customer, teller, lied, verify, cause of action, declaration ...

4. People v. Lewis, E055569, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 390 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published May 15, 2013.

CORE TERMS: Reform Act, sentence, firearm, saving clause, sentencing, prospectively, resentencing, offender, electorate, convicted ...

5. Castleman v. Sagaser, F064590, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 391 ^Shepardize, April 15, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published May 15, 2013.

CORE TERMS: law firm, former clients, lawsuit, causes of action, petitioning, duty of loyalty, protected speech, protected activity, owed, breach of fiduciary duty ...

6. Brown v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., B238357, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 316 ^Shepardize, April 2, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified Apr. 24, 2013., The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 24, 2013.

CORE TERMS: pipe, coverage, sudden, leak, period of time, gradual, efficient proximate cause, water damage, hole, hot water ...

Index of actions without opinion

1. People v. Crumwell, S209875, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4116 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

2. Boscacci v. Superior Court, S209353, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4102 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

3. People v. Barron, S209870, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4101 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

4. People v. Laboy, S209880, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4105 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

5. People v. Hodges, S209176, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4112 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

6. People v. Moore, S209637, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4301 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

7. People v. Felix, S209004, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4109 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

8. People v. Diaz, S209914, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4110 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

9. People v. Fishman, S209391, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4130 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

10. In re Juan P., S209407, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4128 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

11. In re Gregory Goods Against an Atty., S209803, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4121 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

12. In re Nivette, S209672, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4127 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

13. People v. Begley, S209879, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4113 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

14. People v. Marks, S209813, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4103 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

15. In re Johnson, S208773, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4233 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

16. People v. Mordaunt, S209695, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4114 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

17. People v. Mordick, S209253, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4235 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

18. People v. Jama, S208849, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4265 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

19. People v. Singh, S209701, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4115 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

20. People v. Porter, S209652, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4195 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

21. People v. McDonough, S209419, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4145 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

22. People v. Marquez, S209809, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4117 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

23. People v. Adams, S209334, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4104 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

24. People v. Melchor, S209227, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4108 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

25. People v. Moorer, S209363, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4191 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

26. Gardyn v. Superior Court, S209725, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4107 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

27. People v. Hayes, S209012, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4215 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

28. People v. Pace, S209811, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4119 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

29. People v. Gonzalez, S208771, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4208 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

30. People v. Chambers, S209812, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4106 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

31. People v. Hardin, S209855, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4111 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

32. People v. Miller, S209872, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4297 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

33. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of the Bay Area v. City of Santa Rosa, S208612, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4138 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

34. People v. Lucero, S209871, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4125 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

35. Simmons v. Superior Court, S209867, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4118 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

36. People v. Vick, S209795, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4281 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

37. Marathon Funding Llc v. Paramount Pictures Corp., S209753, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4291 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

38. Jimena v. Wong, S209682, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4290 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

39. Figueroa v. Azusa Land, S209654, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4139 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

40. People v. Casio, S209931, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4120 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

41. People v. Moreland, S209933, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4123 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

42. Turner v. Cal. Parole Advocacy Program, S209678, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4134 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

43. Adams v. Court of Appeal, First Dist., Div. Four, S209300, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4129 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

44. People v. Purcell, S209876, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4216 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

45. Misuraca v. Lyons, S209724, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4223 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

46. People v. Mode, S209850, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4133 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

47. People v. Luna, S209883, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4126 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

48. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, S209835, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4135 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

49. In re Sullenger, S209656, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4280 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

50. Conservatorship of Estate of Karnazes, S209826, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4218 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

51. People v. Schuler, S209842, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4240 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

52. People v. Xiong, S209530, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4122 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

53. In re Bobadilla, S209396, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4124 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

54. J.T. v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Educ., S209632, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4247 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

55. People v. Zarco, S209873, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4261 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

56. In re McIntyre, S209315, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4131 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

57. Reinhardt v. Court of Appeal, S209755, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4136 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

58. People v. Jacquett, S209705, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4132 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

59. People v. Ray, S209661, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4144 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

60. Casalnuovo v. County of Marin, S209797, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4140 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

61. Guardianship of Hughes, S209924, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4299 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

62. Curtis v. Superior Court, S210449, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4143 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

63. People v. Paris, S209492, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4150 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

64. Elk Hills Power v. Bd. of Equalization, S194121, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4249 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

65. People v. Smith, S209459, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4151 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

66. In re Buford, S209837, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4227 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

67. In re Mardell Council on Habeas Corpus, S209617, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4142 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

68. In re Hanna, S209677, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4202 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

69. In re Ranteesi, S209588, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4153 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

70. People v. Rodriguez, S209115, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4238 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

71. People v. Jamison, S209634, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4137 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

72. People v. Silva, S209800, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4149 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

73. In re Bravo, S209184, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4147 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

74. People v. Gonzalez, S209602, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4300 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

75. People v. Santos, S209655, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4269 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

76. In re De Jesus Bautista, S209128, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4141 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

77. In re Saldana, S209618, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4275 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

78. In re Abramyan, S208473, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4267 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

79. In re Giselle P., S209736, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4239 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

80. In re Moore, S209644, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4289 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

81. In re Edwards, S208701, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4283 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

82. Flores v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd., S210229, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4244 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

83. In re Richie, S209374, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4171 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

84. People v. Joiner, S209447, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4179 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

85. People v. Sawyers, S209665, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4211 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

86. Acosta v. Brown, S209858, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4248 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

87. Wilkins v. Ahern, S209761, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4205 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

88. People v. Poulsom, S209273, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4159 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

89. People v. Toy, S210087, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4185 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

90. People v. Perez, S209828, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4188 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

91. People v. Roderick, S209827, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4180 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

92. In re Blount, S209807, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4186 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

93. People v. Cascio, S209864, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4177 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

94. In re Gatewood, S209185, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4253 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

95. In re White, S209707, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4182 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

96. People v. Archuleta, S209702, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4187 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

97. In re Ramos, S209577, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4256 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

98. In re Benitez, S209664, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4245 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

99. People v. Esquibel, S209267, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4178 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

100. In re Gonzalez, S209422, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4222 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Filed

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

The Week in Securities Litigation: Companies With China-Based Operations Were SEC Focus

Thomas O. Gorman — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:11:04 GMT

Companies with China based operations were a focus this week for the SEC. The Commission filed two financial fraud actions against companies whose operations were in the PRC. In one there seemed to be virtually no operations while in the other two sets of books were used to falsify revenue while proceeds of a securities offering were diverted to the use of the chairman and the controlling shareholder. The SEC also concluded its "golden goose" insider trading case, settling with the two remaining defendants. And, another defendant in the Dell insider trading case was sentenced to prison.

The Commission prevailed in the Second Circuit which affirmed the entry of an officer and director bar ordered by the district court following the settlement of an insider trading case. The Circuit Court declined, however, to adopt the SEC's proposed test for issuing such orders.

SEC

Testimony: Chair Mary Jo White testified before the House Committee on Financial Services (May 16, 2013). The testimony reviewed the recent work of the divisions in support of the Commission's budget request (here).

Remarks: Commissioner Daniel M. Gallagher addressed the 45^th Annual Rocky Mountain Securities Conference, Denver, Colorado (May 10, 2013). His remarks focused on the municipal securities markets and recent, related enforcement actions (here).

Click here to read the entire post.

For more commentary on developing securities issues, visit SEC Actions, a blog by Thomas Gorman.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, May 17, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:51:12 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. Biancalana v. T.D. Serv. Co., S198562, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4007 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: beneficiary, bid, auctioneer, opening, credit bid, deed, foreclosure, void, foreclosure sale, irregularity ...

2. People v. McCullough, S192513, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3330 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013 Filed

CORE TERMS: booking, forfeiture, ability to pay, sentencing, forfeited, probable cause, testing, sentence, forfeit, evidence to support ...

3. People v. Nuckles, S200612, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3329 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: parole, accessory, felony, parolee, felon, prison "term", imprisonment, absconding, Criminal Law, parole supervision ...

4. People v. Anzalone, S192536, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2887 ^Shepardize, April 15, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: juror, foreperson, clerk, recorded, polling, verdict forms, unanimous, harmless, trial error, incomplete ...

5. People v. Carbajal, S195600, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2886 ^Shepardize, April 8, 2013, Filed, Reported at People v. Carbajal (Valentin), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3559 ^Shepardize(Cal., Apr. 8, 2013)

CORE TERMS: multiple victim, retrial, multiple-victim, deliberation, double jeopardy, jury's verdict, juror, convicted, counts involving, jeopardy ...

6. Landstar Global Logistics v. Robinson & Robinson, D060829, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 383 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: conventions, rogatory, judgment liens, restraining order, issuance, judgment debtor, judgment creditor, registration, treaty, protocol ...

7. Negri v. Koning & Assocs., H037804, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 384 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: salary, exemption, exempt, wage orders, predetermined, subject to reduction, overtime pay, overtime, quantity, teachers ...

8. Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Garner, H038971, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 385 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: election, general election, ballot, regularly scheduled, local government's, statewide, supervisors, governing body, candidate, voter ...

9. People v. Lopez, No. B241532, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 386 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: new trial, hotel, subpoena, dissuade, jeopardy, revolver's, daughter, bed, preliminary hearing, bedroom ...

10. Cal. Ass'n of Prof'l Scientists v. Brown, C066948, C067288, C067461, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 387 ^Shepardize, May 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: expired, supersession, holiday, bargaining units, paid holidays, employee organizations, savings, premium, declaratory relief, Budget Act ...

11. People v. Lewis, E055569, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 381 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: partial, replace, opinion filed, sentence, heading

12. Nevis Homes LLC v. CW Roofing, Inc., B237907, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 380 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II, III and IV of the Discussion.

CORE TERMS: notice, mail, notice of entry, mailed, clerk, "prevailing party", "settling parties", modified, mailing, time to file ...

13. People v. Wilson, B234519, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 378 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: preliminary hearing testimony, prosecutor's, detective, incorrect, robbery, perjury, gang, robbed, phone, station ...

14. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Ham, H038784, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 382 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: "reasonable diligence", summons, posting, notice, personal service, mailing, mail, apartment, tenant, landlord ...

15. Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises, No. B233542, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 379 ^Shepardize, May 15, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: driver's, vendor, marijuana, toxicologist's, cargo, bike, user, loading, truck, load ...

Index of actions without opinion

No new actions since last update.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, May 16, 2013

Gregg Lawson — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:04:17 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. People v. McCullough, S192513, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3330 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013 Filed

CORE TERMS: booking, forfeiture, ability to pay, sentencing, forfeited, probable cause, testing, sentence, forfeit, evidence to support ...

2. People v. Nuckles, S200612, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3329 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: parole, accessory, felony, parolee, felon, prison "term", imprisonment, absconding, Criminal Law, parole supervision ...

3. Jameson v. Desta, D060029, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 334 ^Shepardize, April 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: standard of care, deposition, interferon, summary judgment, declaration, triable, cause of action, breach of fiduciary duty, patient, hepatitis ...

4. People v. Tran, H036764, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 335 ^Shepardize, April 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: declarant, penal interest, conspiracy, gangster, murder, trustworthiness, declaration, phone, reliable, accessory ...

5. County of Tulare v. Nunes, F063555, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 338 ^Shepardize, April 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: marijuana, ordinance, zoning ordinances, patient's, zoning, state law, cooperative, land uses, dispensary, classification ...

6. In re Robert M., F064841, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 333 ^Shepardize, April 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: juvenile, housing, juvenile hall, sexual, offender, custody, probation officer, ex post facto laws, sex offender, county jail ...

7. In re Nelson B., A136240, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 331 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: custody, aunt, home state, matter jurisdiction, "temporary, juvenile, lived, person acting, unauthorized, commencement ...

8. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd., D061653, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 325 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: workers' compensation, criminal investigation, limitations period, peace officers, extrinsic, wrist, statutory language, lawmakers, vetoed, misconduct ...

9. In re Marriage of Kahn, E054082, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 326 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, and III.

CORE TERMS: default, notice, marital, dissolution action, void, box, default judgment, fiduciary duty, dissolution, exceeded ...

10. Hall v. Rockcliff Realtors, A133045, A134180, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 330 ^Shepardize, April 26, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: ladder, stairway, listing agents, dangerous condition, estate agents, property owners, constructive knowledge, notice, concealed, visitor's ...

11. Montenegro v. City of Bradbury, B242953, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 319 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: trail, recreational, pathway, immunity, hiking, recreational purposes, dangerous condition, equestrian, riding, public entity ...

12. Breceda v. Superior Court, B244574, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 321 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: trip, grand jury, district attorney, grand jury, meal, per diem, indictment, embezzlement, deputy, double ...

13. People v. Fuquay, H037195, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 318 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: jury trial, waive, advisement, waived, personal waiver, jury trial, statutory right, exclusive control, advise, incompetent ...

14. People v. Mortimer, H037530, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 317 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: jury trial, personal waiver, waived, waive, statutory right, juvenile, advisement, offender--, advise, incompetent ...

15. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, No. B247519, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 322 ^Shepardize, April 25, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified Apr. 29 and May 9, 2013., Modified by In re K.R., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 336 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Apr. 29, 2013)Modified by Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 366 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 2d Dist., May 9, 2013)

CORE TERMS: sexual abuse, juvenile, sibling, sexually abused, sexual, household, daughter, substantial risk, abused, years old ...

16. People v. Blackburn, H037207, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 313 ^Shepardize, April 23, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: jury trial, waive, advisement, waived, personal waiver, exclusive control, mental disorder, best interests, mentally disordered, offender ...

17. County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., C067739, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 311 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified May 1, 2013., Modified by County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 348 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 3d Dist., May 1, 2013)

CORE TERMS: personnel, feeling, supervisor, psychiatric injury, internal affairs, unsupported, substantial cause, causation, workers' compensation, good faith ...

18. Mendoza v. Hamzeh, B239245, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 312 ^Shepardize, April 22, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II. of the Discussion.

CORE TERMS: extortion, demand letter, matter of law, attorney fees, cause of action, oral statement, probability, accusation, free speech, protected activity ...

19. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC, B239928, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 275 ^Shepardize, April 10, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: default, declaration, default judgments, renewal, mandatory relief, fault, renewed, responsive pleading, credible, moving party's ...

20. Spriesterbach v. Holland, B240348, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 272 ^Shepardize, April 9, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: highway, sidewalk, bicycle, traffic, riding, driver, travel, shoulder, roadway, negligence per se ...

21. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, B222310, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 269 ^Shepardize, April 8, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: primary policy, coverage, insured, occurrence, exhausted, insurer, excess policy, per occurrence, policy limits, policy periods ...

22. Luttrell v. Island Pacific Supermarkets, Inc., A134089, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 270 ^Shepardize, April 8, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II., first paragraph, II.A., II.B., and II.D. through II.F.

CORE TERMS: medical expenses, amounts paid, decubitus ulcer, billed, hip, fractured, ulcer, medical providers, mitigation, reduction ...

23. Akopyan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., B236455, B236456, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 267 ^Shepardize, April 4, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: preemption, state law, mortgage, lending, thrift, late fees, national banks, lender, servicing, loan brokers ...

24. People v. Lawson, E053349, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 265 ^Shepardize, April 4, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: hoodie, sua sponte, mistake of fact, mental state, duty to instruct, negate, walked, mistaken belief, motorcycle, forgot ...

25. Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc., B235731, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 266 ^Shepardize, April 4, 2013, Opinion Filed, WITHDRAWN BY PUBLISHER, Reprinted as modified at, Substituted opinion at Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 357 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Apr. 4, 2013)Modified by, Application denied by Stoltenberg v. Ampton Invs., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 358 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 2d Dist., May 6, 2013)

CORE TERMS: disentitlement, contempt, subpoena, fugitive, judgment debtor, willful, noncompliance, contempt order, inherent power, legal orders ...

26. Bedoe v. County of San Diego, D060381, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 263 ^Shepardize, April 3, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: provider, recipient, supportive, timesheet, overpayment, in-home, subcontracting, received payment, disabled, hearing officer's decision ...

27. People v. Quiroz, No. B229432, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 259 ^Shepardize, April 3, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: murder, unanimity, aiding, aiding and abetting, notice, juror, aider and abettor, closing argument, shooter, abetting instruction ...

28. Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp., No. B239014, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 260 ^Shepardize, April 3, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: exemption, adverse possession, property taxes, public entity, "levied, mosquito, "public benefit, adverse possessor, roll, levy ...

29. Perry v. County of Fresno, F063887, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 264 ^Shepardize, April 3, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified Apr. 4, 2013., Modified and rehearing denied by Perry v. County of Fresno, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 329 ^Shepardize (Cal. App. 5th Dist., Apr. 26, 2013)

CORE TERMS: jail's, inmate, constitutional right, respondeat superior, scope of employment, computer system, vicariously liable, cause of action, police officer, color ...

30. Khani v. Ford Motor Co., B239611, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 320 ^Shepardize, April 2, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 25, 2013.

CORE TERMS: former client, disqualification, substantial relationship, legal issue, lemon, law" cases, confidential information, successive, client's right, current representation ...

31. People v. Holman, E054989, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 253 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: probation, restitution fines, restitution, probationer, fine, scenario, unpaid, probationary period, mandatory, condition of probation ...

32. Collins v. Navistar, Inc., C060468, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 254 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: windshield, truck, foreseeability, manufacturer, database, rock, foreseeable, thrown, products liability, products liability ...

33. Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy, A135274, A136043, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 323 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 25, 2013.

CORE TERMS: attorney fees, promissory note, tort claim, causes of action, assigned, consumer, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, mortgage, borrower, notice ...

34. People v. Davis, A131764, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 240 ^Shepardize, March 28, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II.D. and E.

CORE TERMS: billy, weapon, bat, baseball bat, possessed, billy club, harmless, bludgeon, lawful', arms ...

35. McDaniel v. Asuncion, F064240, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 233 ^Shepardize, March 27, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: joint offer, heir's, death action, wrongful death, lump sum, apportion, expert witness fees, settlement, apportionment, favorable result ...

36. Shoemaker v. Harris, B237986, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 234 ^Shepardize, March 27, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: sex offender, mandatory, registration requirement, registration, convicted, sexual, child pornography, sexual conduct, habeas corpus, equal protection ...

37. Humane Society of U.S. v. Superior Court, C067081, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 235 ^Shepardize, March 27, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: disclosure, public interest, exemption, "improper influence, researcher, nondisclosure, catchall, declaration, egg, delivery ...

38. City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba, H036475, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 328 ^Shepardize, March 27, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 25, 2013.

CORE TERMS: dispensary, marijuana, classification, ordinance, patient, moratorium, summary judgment, permitted uses, nuisance per se, business license ...

39. People v. Prunty, C071065, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 229 ^Shepardize, March 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part I of the Discussion.

CORE TERMS: criminal street gang, subset, gang, detective, gang member, neighborhood, collaborative, organizational, symbol, primary activities ...

40. Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist., D060999, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 324 ^Shepardize, March 26, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 25, 2013.

CORE TERMS: parking, lighting, stadium, environmental, zoning, high school, evening, attendance, initial study, traffic ...

41. Ramirez v. Balboa Thrift & Loan, D060057, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 310 ^Shepardize, March 21, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 12, 2013.

CORE TERMS: buyer, reinstatement, notice, class certification, reinstate, class members, seller's, conditions precedent, Rees-Levering Act's NOI, repossession ...

42. Lister v. Bowen, A134290, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 282 ^Shepardize, March 15, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 11, 2013.

CORE TERMS: restraining order, apprehension, protective order, reconsideration, renewal, restrained, renewed, modification, renew, stalking ...

43. Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., B239229, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 268 ^Shepardize, March 8, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 5, 2013.

CORE TERMS: script, television, creator, similarity, pilot, matter of law, summary judgment, outline, survivor, intermediary ...

44. In re T.G., A134874, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 255 ^Shepardize, March 6, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 2, 2013.

CORE TERMS: "presumed" fathers, custody, juvenile, parental rights, detriment, paternity, termination, biological, dependency, biological fathers ...

45. Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, B235292, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 257 ^Shepardize, March 6, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 2, 2013.

CORE TERMS: minimum wage, wage orders, piece-rate, technician, hours worked, waiting, repair, averaging, compensated, hourly ...

Index of actions without opinion

1. In re Scott H., S206774, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 14 ^Shepardize, January 3, 2013, Filed

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.

N.J. Jury Finds For Defendant Novartis In Zometa Jaw Injury Trial

Tom Moylan — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:44:47 GMT

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - (Mealey's) A New Jersey state court jury on May 15 returned a defense verdict for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. in a Zometa jaw injury case, a source told Mealey Publications (Beverly Meng v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. MID-L-7670-07-MT, N.J. Super., Middlesex Co.).

In a 7-1 vote, the jury in the Middlesex County Superior Court found that Novartis did not fail to provide an adequate warning to plaintiff Beverly Meng's prescribing physician concerning the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) from Zometa that the defendant knew or should have known, the source said.

The jury did not have to answer any of the remaining five questions on the final verdict form.

Meng was prescribed Zometa, an injectable bisphosphonate, to prevent bone damage after her breast cancer metastasized to her bones, the source said. She alleges that the drug caused her to develop ONJ.

The trial began April 22. The jury began deliberating May 15 and returned its verdict in less than six hours, the source said.

Meng is represented by Terrence Sweeney of the Law Offices of Terrence J. Sweeney in Quincy, Mass., John J. Beins of Beins, Goldberg & Hennessey in Chevy Chase, Md., and John J. Vecchione of Valad & Vecchione in Fairfax, Va. Novartis is represented by Joe G. Hollingsworth, Katharine R. Latimer, Neil S. Bromberg and Jessica E. Kreig of Hollingsworth in Washington, D.C., and Beth Rose of Sills, Cummis & Gross of Newark, N.J.

For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.

Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey Publications.

Non-subscribers may search for Mealey Publications stories and documents at www.mealeysonline.com or visit www.Mealeys.com.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

William A. Ruskin: Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Decision Levels Class Action Playing Field

William A. Ruskin — Wed, 15 May 2013 19:15:59 GMT

By William A. Ruskin

The Foley Hoag Product Liability Update is a good source of information concerning developments in product liability and related law for product manufacturers and sellers. Published quarterly, the Update is prepared under the aegis of David R. Geiger, the chair of Foley Hoag's product liability and complex tort practice.

Although any of the six articles in the April 2013 Update are worthy of comment, the Update's discussion of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 2013 WL 1222646 (Mar. 27, 2013) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers] is the most significant. Behrend was filed as a hope-to-be antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Among other Rule 23 requirements, plaintiffs were required to prove that the damages resulting from the alleged injury were measurable on a classwide basis through use of a common methodology. Although plaintiffs proposed four distinct theories as to how they had been injured by defendants' anti-competitive conduct, the trial court held that only one theory of damages was capable of class-wide proof. Nevertheless, the court certified a class under that single theory.

On appeal to the Third Circuit, defendants argued certification was inappropriate because plaintiffs' expert had acknowledged that his model measured damages resulting from all four of plaintiffs' theories of harm, not just a single theory.

The Third Circuit affirmed class certification on the ground that defendant's objections to the scope of the expert's damages model were not appropriate at the class certification stage; such an inquiry would improperly require the trial court to reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Any consideration of the objections to the scope of the expert's damages assessment should await the merits phase of the case, according to the court.

After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Third Circuit had erred in refusing to consider defendants' arguments that plaintiffs' damages model was insufficient to establish their alleged damages on a class-wide basis. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that class certification requires the trial court to determine that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied, even if that analysis necessitates some degree of inquiry into the merits of plaintiffs' claim.

Although damages calculations need not be exact at the class-certification stage, the Court held that any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must at least be consistent with its liability case, particularly with respect to the anti-competitive effect of the alleged violation at issue in the case. The trial court certified only one of plaintiffs' four theories of harm, all of which theories plaintiffs' experts had modeled for damages purposes. The Supreme Court held that a model that does not even attempt to measure the damages attributable to the lone surviving theory of damages is insufficient under Rule 23.

The Behrend holding is significant for class action practitioners. As much as possible, class action plaintiffs want to reserve any discussion of the merits of their claim until after class certification. Behrend should now permit defendants to place merits issues before the court at an earlier stage in the litigation if they can argue that such an inquiry is necessary to establish that Rule 23 prerequisites have been satisfied.

Going forward, defense counsel should be able to argue that a plaintiff's damages model should be able to withstand rigorous Daubert scrutiny prior to class certification. The certification of a class creates enormous pressure on defendants to settle regardless of the merits of the case. The practical result of the decision is that the bar for class certification has been raised and the playing field leveled.

For more cutting edge commentary on developing issues, visit Toxic Tort Litigation Blog by William A. Ruskin of Epstein Becker & Green.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, May 15, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Wed, 15 May 2013 19:07:42 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. People v. Leiva, S192176, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2885 ^Shepardize, April 8, 2013, Filed , Reported at People v. Leiva (Jose), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3572 ^Shepardize(Cal., Apr. 8, 2013)

CORE TERMS: probation, revocation, probationary period, tolling provision, toll, period of probation, expiration, probationer, condition of probation, violation of probation ...

2. People v. Delgado, S192704, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2790 ^Shepardize, April 4, 2013, Filed, Reported at People v. Delgado (Mildred), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 3546 ^Shepardize(Cal. App. 1st Dist., Apr. 4, 2013)

CORE TERMS: kidnapping, robbery, asportation, aider and abettor, instruct, driver, aiding and abetting, accomplice, accomplice liability, personally ...

3. People v. Pearson, S058157, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2131 ^Shepardize, March 21, 2013, Filed, Reported at People v. Pearson (Michael Nevail), 2013 Cal. LEXIS 2931 ^Shepardize(Cal., Mar. 21, 2013)

CORE TERMS: prosecutor, juror, prospective juror, murder, voir dire, defense counsel, mitigating, aggravating, cross-examination, deliberation ...

4. Bock v. Cal. Capital Loans, C069863, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 376 ^Shepardize, May 14, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: arranged, broker, real estate broker, licensed, lender, arranging, partnership, borrower, exempt, real property ...

5. People v. Ermi, No. B241397, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 375 ^Shepardize, May 14, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: purse, bedroom, probationer, bag, methamphetamine, probation search, girlfriend, parolee, female, driver ...

6. McCoy v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, B210953, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 374 ^Shepardize, May 14, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: retaliation, vessel, planner, judgment notwithstanding, training, new trial, new trial, economic damages, emotional distress claims, harassment ...

7. Khavarian Enters. v. Commline, Inc., B243467, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 377 ^Shepardize, May 14, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: attorney fees, prevailing party, settlement agreement, settlement, misappropriation, willful, malicious, contractual, monetary recovery, italics ...

8. People v. Flores, A135252, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 372 ^Shepardize, May 13, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: dog, animal's, wound, dangerous animal, 'mischievous, bodily injury, leash--, deputies, ordinary care, propensities ...

9. Hamilton Court, LLC v. East Olympic, L.P., B240052, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 292 ^Shepardize, April 16, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: easement, merger, deed, deed of trust, security interest, inequitable, mortgage, block, extinguished, real property ...

10. People v. McEvoy, A132360, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 286 ^Shepardize, April 15, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: incest, adult, sexual, consensual, sex, bed, genetic, sibling, criminalizing, criminalize ...

11. Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court, D063076, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 280 ^Shepardize, April 11, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified Apr. 29, 2013., Modified by Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 337 ^Shepardize(Cal. App. 4th Dist., Apr. 29, 2013)

CORE TERMS: venue, statutorily, void, legislative scheme, contractual, proper county, disrupt, lawsuit, proper venues, statutory scheme ...

12. People v. Kelly, E055263, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 279 ^Shepardize, April 10, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: sentence, probation, suspended, sentenced, county jail, sentencing, revocation, suspended sentence, suspend, Realignment Act ...

13. People v. Evans, D059607, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 271 ^Shepardize, April 9, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION11 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, III and IV.

CORE TERMS: truck, excavator, trailer, cell, phone, breaker, stolen, trucking, aggregate, theft ...

14. People v. Mora, D062007, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 246 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II.

CORE TERMS: sentence, realignment, sentenced, state prison, probation, Realignment Act, classification, sentencing, suspended, restitution fine ...

15. Harris v. Bingham McCutchen LLP, B240522, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 250 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: arbitration, choice-of-law, arbitration agreement, antidiscrimination, Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration clause, enforceable, employment discrimination, employment agreement's, unconscionable ...

16. Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, B237718, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 248 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: marijuana, ordinance, dispensary, privacy, state law, preemption, zoning ordinance, patient, causes of action, registration ...

17. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Financial Corp., A135898, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 247 ^Shepardize, March 29, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: cause of action, res judicata, primary rights, securitization, final judgment, declaratory relief, demurrer, judicata, res, prior proceeding ...

18. People v. Eroshevich, B231411, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 242 ^Shepardize, March 28, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: conspiracy, prescription, new trial, medication, controlled substance, standards of practice, insufficiency, patient, pharmacy, matter of law ...

19. People v. McDonald, G044963, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 241 ^Shepardize, March 28, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: indeterminate, Sexually Violent Predator Act SVPA, offender, recidivism, sexually, disparate treatment, strict scrutiny, single-subject, violent, sex ...

20. Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc., A134829, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 243 ^Shepardize, March 27, 2013, Opinion Filed, As modified Apr. 23, 2013., Modified and rehearing denied by Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 314 ^Shepardize(Cal. App. 1st Dist., Apr. 23, 2013)

CORE TERMS: arbitration, unconscionability, arbitration clause, consumer, unconscionable, "surprise, buyer, seller, preprinted, substantive unconscionability ...

21. San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence, D059035, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 230 ^Shepardize, March 26, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: touching, touched, teacher, classroom, leg, teach, credibility--, administrative hearing, touch, happened ...

22. Centex Homes v. Superior Court, D062995, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 227 ^Shepardize, March 25, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: equitable indemnity, equitable, indemnity claim, cause of action, accrual, public entity, accrue, giving rise, cross-complaint, indemnity ...

23. Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, A135782, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 225 ^Shepardize, March 22, 2013, Opinion Filed, CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION** Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II.A.2.-10., B. and C.

CORE TERMS: demurrer, foreclosure, judicial notice, declaration's, deed of trust, notice of default, beneficiary, cause of action, borrower, diligence ...

24. Quigley v. McClellan, D060776, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 244 ^Shepardize, March 12, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published March 28, 2013.

CORE TERMS: horse's, prepurchase, veterinarian, standard of care, injections, lameness, medical history, trainers, neck, malpractice ...

25. City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC, G046397, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 182 ^Shepardize, March 11, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: cross-complaint, cause of action, cross-defendant, immunity, illegal activity, slander, business licenses, misrepresentation, trade libel, probability ...

26. Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin, A135790, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 239 ^Shepardize, March 7, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published March 28, 2013.

CORE TERMS: transit, site, environmental, exemption, specific plan, environmental impact report, retail, development plan, site development, space ...

27. In re T.W., D061960, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 238 ^Shepardize, March 5, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published March 27, 2013.

CORE TERMS: custody, reunification services, placement, parental custody, juvenile, removal, supplemental petition, disposition hearing, foster care, physical custody ...

28. Hatai v. Department of Transportation, B236757, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 252 ^Shepardize, March 4, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published March 28, 2013.

CORE TERMS: harassment, "ancestry", national origin, warning, "me-too", lawsuit, stick, protected class, prevailing, leave to amend ...

29. Alliance for Protection of Auburn Community Environment v. County of Placer, C067961, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 256 ^Shepardize, February 28, 2013, Opinion Filed, The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published April 2, 2013.

CORE TERMS: statutes of limitations, demurrer, limitations period, good cause, excusable neglect, mandatory, environmental, jurisdictional, inadvertence, leave to amend ...

30. People v. Spriggs, Sup. Ct. Appeal No. 0002345, APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO COUNTY, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 258 ^Shepardize, March 21, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: driving, phone, wireless telephone, distraction, cell, hands-free, driver, legislative history, plain meaning, "electronic ...

Index of actions without opinion

1. Corenbaum v. Lampkin, B236227, B237871, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 373 ^Shepardize, May 13, 2013, Opinion Filed

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, May 14, 2013

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff — Tue, 14 May 2013 21:00:00 GMT

The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to www.lexis.com

Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative ▪ Browse Legal Bookstore ▪ Search Court Records ▪ Feedback

The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and to provide online links to:

Index of new California opinions
Index of actions without opinion

Index of new California opinions:

1. People v. Aaron Sung-Uk Park, S193938, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 4006 ^Shepardize, May 13, 2013, Filed

CORE TERMS: misdemeanor, wobbler, probation, felony, felony conviction, sentence, convicted, imprisonment, state prison, enhancement ...

2. People v. Zavala, D062125, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 371 ^Shepardize, May 13, 2013, Opinion Filed

CORE TERMS: phone, cell, records exception, query, computer system, regular course of business, spreadsheet, stored, computer printout, business records ...

Index of actions without opinion

No new actions since last update.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.