California Legal Brief

The Rule of Pagan v. City of San Rafael is that a public entity is entitled to summary judgment on dangerous condition claims when the alleged dangers are open and obvious to users exercising due care, under circumstances where the plaintiff cannot establish liability through expert testimony that relies on unpleaded theories of liability, inadmissible hearsay, speculation without foundation, and legal conclusions about regulatory compliance.

The Rule of Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 is that in a comprehensive groundwater adjudication, trial courts may allocate water rights directly to overlying landowners rather than to mutual water companies when the companies act as agents/trustees exercising rights on behalf of shareholders and the landowners retain their underlying overlying water rights, under circumstances where substantial evidence shows the landowners never severed their water rights through written transfer and the companies do not assert exclusive rights against their shareholders.

The Rule of Harrington v. Housing Authority of Riverside County is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, a trial court conducting independent judgment review must determine whether the agency's factual findings are supported by the evidence, not independently find facts to support the agency's ultimate decision, under circumstances where fundamental vested rights like Section 8 housing assistance are at stake.

The Rule of Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center is that the ministerial exception does not bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers against religious organizations absent evidence that such claims raise an ecclesiastical concern, under circumstances where the claims seek only lost or unpaid wages for work performed as part of the religious organization's commercial activities and adjudication requires no inquiry into ecclesiastical matters.

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 Findlay Grant et al. v. Chapman University is that a university's statements about class locations, campus facilities, and "face-to-face contact" requirements do not constitute sufficiently "specific" promises to create an enforceable implied contract for in-person education, under circumstances where the statements are general expectations rather than binding commitments and facilities descriptions contain express disclaimers.

The Rule of Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc. is that a costs judgment entered after a nonappealable voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable as a final judgment when the appellant seeks to challenge underlying orders rather than the costs determination itself, under circumstances where allowing the appeal would constitute impermissible back-door review of nonappealable orders.

The Rule of Vallejo City Unified School District v. Superior Court is that a school district is immune from liability under Education Code section 44808 for harm to parents caused by a student's off-campus suicide, under circumstances where the student was not and should not have been under the immediate and direct supervision of district employees at the time of death, even if the district was allegedly negligent in its on-campus supervision and response to the student's mental health crisis.

The Rule of Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is that ICRAA authorizes consumers to recover the statutory sum of $10,000 as a remedy for a violation of their statutory rights, without any further showing of concrete injury or adverse employment decision, under circumstances where an employer fails to comply with any requirement of ICRAA's disclosure and consent provisions.

The Rule of Tavares v. Zipcar is that remote rental car companies exempt under Civil Code section 1939.37 owe no duty to assess whether renters appear impaired at the time of rental or to equip vehicles with impairment detection technology, under circumstances where the rental is conducted through a membership agreement allowing remote vehicle access without in-person employee interaction.

The Rule of Sorokunov v. NetApp is that an arbitration award finding that a plaintiff did not suffer individual Labor Code violations can preclude the same plaintiff from claiming standing as an "aggrieved employee" in a PAGA action based on the identical violations, under circumstances where the plaintiff fully litigated the Labor Code violations in arbitration with a final award against them.

The Rule of Clarke v. Yu is that oral or implied joint venture agreements are subject to the statute of frauds if the agreement, by its terms, cannot be performed within a year from its making, under circumstances where the joint venture's purpose involves activities that cannot possibly be completed within one year.

The Rule of Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove, LLC is that an arbitration agreement clause stating "an arbitrator will decide any question about whether a claim or dispute must be arbitrated" does not clearly and unmistakably delegate threshold arbitrability issues (including unconscionability and enforceability) to the arbitrator, under circumstances where the language is silent as to interpretation and enforceability issues and lacks specificity about applicable arbitration rules.