The California Supreme Court Discards the State’s Idiosyncratic Interpretation of the Fraud Exception Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association (No. S190581, January 14, 2013)The California Supreme Court has unanimously overruled the often-criticized decision that for decades significantly restricted the use of the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule in California Courts.
Pamela Fasick
Pamela Fasick Blogs
Blog Authors
Latest from Pamela Fasick
A Judgment Without Previous Notice of Lawsuit
I Was Informed There’s a Judgment Against Me But I Never Heard of Any LawsuitIt’s relatively unusual for a person who had no notice that they had been named as a defendant in a civil action to be informed that there is a civil judgment against them. Recently I prepared a general description of what…
Hospital’s Suit For Reimbursement Is Not Preempted by ERISA
Court of Appeal Reverses a Judgment Sustaining a Demurrer by Blue CrossCoast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 117911 p.According to the allegations in the complaint, a patient checked into an out-of-network hospital for previously scheduled surgery. Because the Hospital was out-of-network the patient made an advance cash…
Life Insurance is Not Covered by the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
Supreme Court Affirms Decision But Narrows the Holding From All Insurance to Just Life InsuranceFairbanks v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 5610 p.At the time that the Court of Appeal decision in Fairbanks came out I praised it for its thoroughness and suggested that the issue would not have to be revisited by the…
California Supreme Court Hears Hughes v. Pair
Oral Argument in Sexual Harassment Case Was Heard on April 7During its April 7th Oral Argument session the California Supreme Court heard arguments in the sexual harassment action Hughes v. Pair. In that action Suzan Hughes, the mother of a minor child whose trust was administered by Christopher Pair, sued Pair for sexual harassment under…
California Supreme Court Reverses Patel Decision
Contract Was Enforceable Because Settled Law Provided a Time for PaymentPatel v. Liebermensch (December 22, 2008, S156797)9 p. decisionThe California Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal decision in Patel v. Liebermensch, agreeing with the trial court that the parties had entered into an enforceable contract. The absence of terms specifying the…
Family Court to Remain Open in Riverside County
Dismissal of Misdemeanors Because No Courtroom Was Available is UpheldPeople v. Cole, Appellate Division, Riverside County (July 25, 2008, APP-004096)Civil procedure, in the form of civil trials, has been the intermittent collateral damage in the court congestion crisis in Riverside County. The crisis itself arises out of the backlog of criminal cases in…
What Do You Do If Opposing Counsel Inadvertently Produces a Privileged Document?
As Soon As You Realize What It Is – Stop Reading. Then Give It Back. Right Away.Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (Dec. 13, 2007, S123808)16 p. opinion42 Cal.4th 807The rule that the Supreme Court sets forth in this decision is not a complicated one. If a lawyer receives a document that…
Review Roundup III
Patel v. Liebermensch (S156797)I did not go out on any limbs when writing about this decision so you will have to take my word for it that I thought it was a close call. The Supreme Court will be addressing the question of whether the time and manner of payment are essential terms for a…
Review Roundup II
Fairbanks v. Superior Court (S157001)When I wrote about this decision I praised it for its thoroughness. It was an issue of first impression but I found the Court of Appeal’s four-part statutory interpretation very persuasive. I predicted that the Court of Appeal had resolved forever the question of whether insurance is covered by the…