eBriefs June 7, 2019

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 2019

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Consumer Protection

A district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues predominated in a putative class action by a group of car owners for alleged misrepresentations about their vehicles’ fuel economy since the class members were exposed to uniform fuel-economy misrepresentations and suffered identical injuries within only a small range of damages. A class action will not be decertified for lack of analysis of choice-of-law issues beyond those raised by the objectors. A settlement notice need not provide an exact forecast of the award each class member would receive, let alone a detailed mathematical breakdown; it merely must give class members “enough information so that those with adverse viewpoints could investigate and come forward and be heard.”

In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 15-56014


Criminal Law and Procedure

A firearm’s antique status is still an affirmative defense in a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §922(g). A government agent’s testimony that his interview with the defendant’s landlord confirmed the agent’s decision to arrest the defendant violated the Confrontation Clause, but that the error was harmless since the jury did not rely on the landlord’s statement.

United States v. Benamor; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-50308


Employment Law

A contractor was not performing “roofing work” when it installed solar panels on a roof; substantial evidence supports a finding that workers were subject to the danger of falling where they were performing work eight to nine feet from the unprotected edge of a roof.

Bergelectric Corporation v. Secretary of Labor; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-72852



Barbosa v. Barr; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 15-72092


California Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure

Where the real parties in interest identified in a complaint allegedly had a direct interest in the proceedings, a reasonable attorney could have concluded that the real parties were “persons” against whom a claim was asserted for purposes of the anti-SLAPP law; a reasonable attorney could have concluded that a petition asserting claims against the real parties arose from protected conduct where a petition challenges a party’s act of seeking permits from a government agency, not the decision of the agency itself.

Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission (Xingyun); Second District, Div. Two; filed June 5, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2631


Civil Procedure

The entry of summary judgment on a prior lawsuit for insufficient evidence does not, by itself, establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of a subsequent malicious prosecution claim; a malicious prosecution claim can proceed where the plaintiff can show the respondents lacked probable cause for at least some of the claims in the prior action.

Cuevas-Martinez v. Sun Salt Sand, Inc.; Fourth District, Div. Two; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2636


Real Property

“Lawful possession” for purposes of a trespass claim simply means actual, peaceful possession; a person with actual possession can sue for trespass even if he does not have any legal rights in the land; a party’s failure to comply with the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act and maintain a property for the benefit of his daughter did not render his possession of the property unlawful for purposes of bringing a trespass claim.

Vaiseh v. Stapp; Fifth District; filed June 6, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2641



A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence; a plaintiff was not entitled to issuance of CACI Nos. 400 and 401 where the only theory of negligence the plaintiff presented was that the defendant violated a duty of care as a supplier of a produce containing asbestos.

LAOSD Asbestos Cases; Second District, Div. Four; filed May 14, 2019, publication ordered June 5, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2644


Workers’ Compensation

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board acted in excess of its jurisdiction in addressing an injured worker’s need for a assessment for home housekeeping services in the absence of an agreement between the parties to bypass the statutory utilization review and independent medical review procedures for determining questions of medical necessity.

Allied Signal Aerospace v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board; Second District, Div. Two; filed May 15, 2019, publication ordered June 5, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2649