There was a bit in an old radio show (Kevin-and-Bean KROQ old, not Little Orphan Annie old) had Ralph Garman review movies he’d never seen, based only on watching the trailers. In this episode, we review some cases we haven’t read. We discuss the cases below, which lead to some good tangents.
- When discovery objections have been waived, does serving responses that still contain the waived objections count as “substantial compliance”? Trial court said no, but the correct answer is Yes, says Katayama v. Cont'l Inv. Grp. (D4d3 Oct. 9, 2024 No. G063872) [published].
- Discussing the difference between waiver and forfeiture. N. Am. Title Co. v. The Superior Court. (Cal. Oct. 28, 2024 No. S280752).
- Satisfying judgment renders appeal moot: In Baker Entm't, LLC v. Emmett Furla Oasis Films, LLC . (2D7d Oct. 28, 2024. No. B323388) (nonpub. opn.)
- Failing to respond to demand for punitive damages information, defendant forfeited its challenge to $15M punitives award. (Mosley v. Pacifica Bakersfield, L.P. (D5 Sep. 19, 2024 No. F084699) (nonpub. opn.).
- To Avoid Unjust Result, Unambiguous Statute Held Ambiguous. In re Marriage of Cady and Gamick (D2d1 Sep. 25, 2024 No. B326716)
Other items discussed in the episode:
Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.
