California Legal Brief

The Rule of J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc. is that an educational technology company that collects and stores student medical information to help school districts assess educational needs is not a "provider of health care" under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), and students are not "customers" under the Customer Records Act (CRA), under circumstances where the company provides services to school districts rather than directly to individuals for medical diagnosis/treatment or personal health record management.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group is that Proposition 65's 60-day pre-suit notice substantially complies with regulatory requirements when it provides the name and contact information of the noticing entity's outside counsel rather than a responsible individual within the noticing entity, under circumstances where the notice otherwise identifies the alleged violation with sufficient specificity to enable prosecuting agencies to assess the claim and allow violators to cure violations.

The Rule of Dawadi v. Adhikari is that check memo line annotations do not constitute sufficient written acknowledgment to revive a time-barred debt, under circumstances where the debtor explicitly refused to guarantee the debt, denied borrowing the money, and the annotations merely identify a payee for accounting purposes without constituting an unqualified admission of a subsisting obligation.

The Rule of Y.P. v. Wells Fargo & Co. is that a bank may be liable for negligent misrepresentation when its employee represents that a deposited check is valid and cleared without following the bank's own verification procedures, under circumstances where the depositor specifically inquires about the check's validity and legitimacy rather than merely funds availability.

The Rule of Pechkis v. Trustees of the California State University is that an anti-SLAPP motion to strike entire causes of action fails when the defendant does not identify with specificity how each claim underlying the causes of action arises from protected activity, under circumstances where the causes of action contain both protected and unprotected conduct.

The Rule of Nichols v. Alghannam is that treating a patient without valid hospital staff privileges constitutes "professional negligence" subject to the 3-year medical malpractice statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, under circumstances where the physician provided pain management services within the scope of his license but allegedly violated hospital privilege requirements.

The Rule of Benjamin Woodhouse v. The State Bar of California et al. is that trial courts have inherent authority to dismiss complaints that assert fantastic, delusional, or fanciful scenarios that have no arguable basis in law or fact, and may declare such plaintiffs vexatious litigants, under circumstances where the complaint presents allegations that no reasonable person would classify as within the realm of possibility.

The Rule of Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a charter city may enact an ordinance establishing a local housing and/or homelessness emergency that confers mayoral powers to address conditions within the city's territory, under circumstances where the ordinance defines different types of emergencies and powers than those provided in the California Emergency Services Act and does not conflict with CESA's coordination and mutual aid framework.

The Rule of Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts is that collecting and maintaining individuals' ALPR information without implementing and making public the statutorily required policy harms these individuals by violating their right to know, under the California Automated License Plate Recognition Law (Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.551).

The Rule of Nichols v. Alghannam is that the MICRA statute of limitations (Code Civ.

The Rule of Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. is that collecting and using license plate information through an automated system without implementing and making publicly available the statutorily required usage and privacy policy constitutes "harm" under the ALPR Law sufficient to state a cause of action, under circumstances where an entity operates cameras and computer algorithms to automatically read and convert license plate images into computer-readable data.

The Rule of Halperin v. Halperin is that a plaintiff cannot maintain a civil tort claim for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) when she has an adequate remedy available in probate, under circumstances where the plaintiff has standing in probate and the ability to seek relief based on the same factual allegations underlying the tort claim.

The Rule of City of Riverside v. RLI Insurance Company is that an additional insured has standing to sue both the named insured and the insurer in the same action for breach of contract and bad faith claims, under circumstances where the plaintiff is a first-party additional insured with privity of contract rather than a third-party tort claimant.

The Rule of Albarghouti is that the California False Claims Act creates a 60-day default sealing period, after which the seal lifts automatically absent the government's request for an extension, under circumstances where a qui tam plaintiff files the complaint in camera, serves the Attorney General by certified mail, and the government neither requests a seal extension nor provides notice of its intervention decision within 60 days.

The Rule of Amezcua v. Superior Court is that trial courts may not condition leave to amend pleadings on payment of opposing party's attorney fees unless specifically authorized by statute or agreement between parties, under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a) which contains no attorney fee-shifting provision.

The Rule of Nishida v. Kamoda is that a civil fraud action alleging misrepresentations during family law property settlement negotiations may be transferred to family law court rather than dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, and the action remains timely under Family Code section 2122 if filed within one year of discovering the fraud, under circumstances where the plaintiff files in civil court but the case is properly transferred to family law court.

The Rule of Gibbs v. County of Humboldt is that a public entity has mandatory statutory duties enforceable under Government Code section 815.6 to (1) maintain employee personnel records and allow inspection under Government Code section 31011 and Labor Code section 1198.5, and (2) timely enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 20283, under circumstances where the entity is a contracting agency with CalPERS and has failed to discharge these duties causing injury to the employee's retirement benefits.