Blog

Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

Posted by Law Firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Aug 12th 2018

Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable
In Padda v. Superior Court (GI Excellence), No. E070522, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, recently held that a trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ request for a trial continuance where their key expert witness suddenly became ill twelve days before trial and before his deposition had been taken.The case arose from an employment-related contract dispute between two Gastroenterologists (hereafter “Petitioners”) and Plaintiff/Cros
Read more

Employee Barred By Two-Year Statute of Limitations Period From Bringing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Posted by Credit to Haight, Brown Bonesteel on Aug 12th 2018

Employee Barred By Two-Year Statute of Limitations Period From Bringing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
In Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District, No. G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim by the two-year Statute of Limitations Period.On March 29, 2010, following a series of disputes between Ms. Wassmann, a tenured librarian, and several South Orange County Community College District (the District) employees, the District issued a Notice to Correct Def
Read more

Direct Legal Malpractice Claims by Insurance Carriers

Posted by Jonathan Krol on Aug 12th 2018

Direct Legal Malpractice Claims by Insurance Carriers
Legal Professional Liability NewsletterJuly 16, 2018Even well-established doctrines gradually change with the times — this we know. Legal malpractice jurisprudence is no different. One facet of legal malpractice claims that has undergone significant transformation in recent decades is the privity requirement. The principle of privity has traditionally been a staple of legal malpractice claims: it requires the existence of an attorney-client relationship before an action against the attorney may
Read more

Middle District of Pennsylvania Holds No Coverage for Claims for Faulty Workmanship

Posted by By: Michael Disantis on Aug 12th 2018

Middle District of Pennsylvania Holds No Coverage for Claims for Faulty Workmanship
Last week, we reviewed Lenick Constr., Inc. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 WL 2727394, — Fed. Appx. —- (3d. Cir. 2018), a Third Circuit case addressing the scope of coverage for claims arising from faulty workmanship under Pennsylvania law as set forth in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner US, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 900 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006). This week, we continue our “Kvaerner Mid-Year Update,” addressing two recent cases in the United States District Court for the Middle Distr
Read more

Rent Control is not a Solution to a Housing Shortage

Posted by Keith B. Dunnagan on Aug 11th 2018

Rent Control is not a Solution to a Housing Shortage
Rent Control is not a Solution to a Housing ShortageBy: D. Keith B. Dunnagan, Esq.In 1995, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act was enacted in California to constrain the rent control ordinances major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were implementing. Within this Act, single-family homes, condominiums, and duplexes are largely exempt from the rent control policies. Costa-Hawkins also covers any buildings constructed after 1995. This means that as soon as a tenant moves out of exem
Read more