California Case Summaries Monthly™, July 2021
I've recently published the newest issue of California Case Summaries Monthly™, with my short summaries (one paragraph), organized by legal topic, of the 45 new civil and family law cases published by California courts in July 2021. The subscription costs only $50 per attorney per month. Discounted multi-user subscriptions are also available for law firms. Our subscribers look smart, save time and money, and get better results to grow their law practices. To subscribe, click here.
We also offer the following additional subscription options:
-California Case Summaries Quarterly™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil and family law case published each quarter. $200 per attorney per quarter. To subscribe, click here.
-California Case Summaries Annual - Employment™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil case published each year relevant to Employment Law practitioners. $350 per attorney per year. To subscribe, click here.
-California Case Summaries Annual - Family Law™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil and family law case published each year relevant to Family Law practitioners. $350 per attorney per year. To subscribe, click here.
-California Case Summaries Annual - Real Property™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil case published each year relevant to Real Property Law practitioners. $350 per attorney per year. To subscribe, click here.
-California Case Summaries Annual - Torts™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil case published each year relevant to Tort Law practitioners. $350 per attorney per year. To subscribe, click here.
-California Case Summaries Annual™: our short, organized summaries of every new civil and family law case published each year. $900 per attorney per year. To subscribe, click here.
Below is a free sample of one of the new case summaries in the current issue of California Case Summaries Monthly™.
California Supreme Court
Employment
Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc. (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 3137429: The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations accrues, and begins to run in a failure to promote case brought under the harassment provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Government Code, sections 12940(j), 12960), at the point when an employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer's allegedly unlawful refusal to promote the employee. The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed because it concluded that the statute of limitations began to run when the employer offered the promotion to Leticia Gonzalez and she accepted it, but it did not discuss when plaintiff knew or should have known that she was denied the promotion, nor did it discuss whether defendant Michael Kelso, in asserting his statute of limitations defense, established any facts concerning plaintiff's actual or constructive knowledge. The California Supreme Court also ruled that Government Code section 12965(b)'s directive that a prevailing FEHA defendant "shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so," applies to an award of costs on appeal. (July 26, 2021.)
Stay safe and healthy.
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
CA Civil Trial Attorney Since 1980
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
Lawyer Master Mentoring™
Publisher, California Case Summaries™