Trellis Blog - Legal Analytics

The Most Common Legal Cases in California

Jun 12, 2019 11:02:00 AM / by Tony Depa

 

Statistics are essential when it comes to establishing legal precedent and the likelihood of success in your motions or cases. For this article, we’ve created a list of some of the most popular cases on the Trellis platform.

Top 10 Cases By Unique User Views

10. The People of the State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County Counsel Orry P. Korb and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., 30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC, October 18, 2018, Orange County, CA

Originally, allegations of violations of unfair competition laws and false advertising laws were filed against the defendant. Demurrers on these counts from the defendant were denied because there was no proof the statute of limitations had already passed in these incidents. The case is still ongoing.

9. Mary F. Buford vs. Malcolm J Winer et al., BC646758, January 11, 2017, Los Angeles, CA

The plaintiff states that they had entered into a written lease with the defendants for a residential property, only to find the premises to be unsafe and unsanitary. After contacting public authorities, the defendant told the plaintiff to leave the premises so they could make repairs. However, further investigation showed that there was no formal contract, and the claims, therefore, did not apply to the defendant.

8. A Walk In the Park, LLC, et al. vs. BMB, 1380206, April 4th, 2011, Santa Barbara, CA

Regarding the case itself, the plaintiff argues that East West Bank agreed to give them a loan to finance the construction of a policy while planning to terminate the relationship. By doing so suddenly, the plaintiff was left with no time to find alternative financing. The bank is arguing that the plaintiff’s action for promissory fraud is blocked by the parol evidence rule.

7. John Christopher Burget, et al. vs. Uber Technologies, et al., BC672065, August 14, 2017, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that an Uber ridesharing driver became violent when asked to turn their music down, attempting to run them over. The driver’s motion to stay the action was denied, as was Uber’s joinder to the motion to stay. Other motions on both ends are still ongoing.

6. Zavala vs. Donaghy Sales, LLC, 16CECG02969, September 12, 2016, Fresno, CA

In Zavala vs. Donaghy Sales, LLC the court found that a delay in arbitration by the defendant may have caused undue court costs and expenses to the plaintiff. In this case, the court finds that the defendant waived their right to arbitration, as they could not give proper reasoning for the delay.

5. Alfonso Lares vs. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, BC634168, September 16, 2016, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiff filed against his former employer, alleging retaliation for being terminated due to excessive absenteeism, while making use of his allowed time under the California Family Rights Act. However, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant was acting against any existing retaliation laws, and summary judgment was denied.

4. Roger Lee Harrison vs. Taylor Hackford, et al, BC596850, October 5, 2015, Los Angeles, CA

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached an agreement to produce a play and present it in several cities by blocking the plaintiff out of production. However, due to the lack of ability to provide proper notice of joinder, the terminating/monetary sanctions were denied.

3. Robert Montgomery et. al. vs. Julio Gabriel Diaz, MD, et al., 1414079, July 29, 2013, Santa Barbara, CA

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a pharmacy, performed medical malpractice in the drug-related death of an individual. The defendant says there is not a causal link between their actions and the death. The progression of this case has been halted because the defendant has failed to pay the fees for summary judgment motions.

2. Ok Joo Kim vs. Chong Kun Pak et al., TC028916, December 11, 2018, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants provided her with checks that were either returned for insufficient funds or not honored by their bank. As of right now, the court is waiting for further responses to form interrogatories from the plaintiff.

1. Juan Carlos Suarez et al. vs. A.M.A. Restaurants Inc et al., BC627574, July 19, 2016, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, a group of plaintiffs filed a complaint against a chain of restaurants for failure to provide proper meal periods, wages, and itemized wage statements, as well as general damages and relief. The initial filing was made in 2016, but the case is still ongoing, as the claims have been sent to arbitration.

Top 10 Cases By Page Views

10. Shayan Fadaee vs. Uber Technologies, et al., BC681145, October 26, 2017, Los Angeles, CA

The plaintiff alleges that his ride-share driver stabbed him after an argument over their different religious affiliations. A motion to grant arbitration was granted, though the plaintiff argues this was not valid because they had no actual or inquiry notice of the arbitration clause on the app.

9. John Christopher Burget, et al. vs. Uber Technologies, et al., BC672065, August 14, 2017, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that an Uber ridesharing driver became violent when asked to turn their music down, attempting to run them over. The driver’s motion to stay the action was denied, as was Uber’s joinder to the motion to stay. Other motions on both ends are still ongoing.

8. (No Case Name Available), 17SMUD01543, August 9, 2018, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the defendant submitted an amended Memorandum of Costs after prevailing in an unlawful detainer action. The plaintiff moved to have these costs taxed, but the defendant got a fee waiver, leaving the plaintiff responsible.

7. The People of the State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County Counsel Orry P. Korb and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., 30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC, October 18, 2018, Orange County, CA

Originally, allegations of violations of unfair competition laws and false advertising laws were filed against the defendant. Demurrers on these counts from the defendant have been denied because there was no proof the statute of limitations has already passed in these incidents. This case is still ongoing.

6. Alfonso Lares vs. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, BC634168, September 16, 2016, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiff filed against his former employer, alleging retaliation for being terminated due to excessive absenteeism, while making use of his allowed time under the California Family Rights Act. However, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant was acting against any existing retaliation laws, and summary judgment was denied.

5. Steven Weisburd et al. vs. Blank Rome LLP, BC721631, September 12, 2018, Los Angeles, CA

The plaintiffs here are filing a breach of contract because they allege that the defendant company is responsible for agreements that they made prior to a de facto merger, where the defendant absorbed the company they had the initial agreement with. Arbitration has been granted, but this won’t take place until later in the year.

4. A Walk In the Park, LLC, et al. vs. BMB, 1380206, April 4th, 2011, Santa Barbara, CA

Note that this case was reassigned to this department after the plaintiff made a complaint. Regarding the case itself, the plaintiff argues that East West Bank agreed to give them a loan to finance the construction of a policy while planning to terminate the relationship. By doing so suddenly, the plaintiff was left with no time to find alternative financing. The bank is arguing that the plaintiff’s action for promissory fraud is blocked by the parol evidence rule.

3. Zavala vs. Donaghy Sales, LLC, 16CECG02969, September 12, 2016, Fresno, CA

Here, the original complaint is not specified, but the issue is that a delay in arbitration by the defendant may have caused undue court costs and expenses to the plaintiff. In this case, the court will find that the defendant waived their right to arbitration, as they could not give proper reasoning for the delay.

2. Ok Joo Kim vs. Chong Kun Pak et al., TC028916, December 11, 2018, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants provided her with checks that were either returned for insufficient funds or not honored by their bank. As of right now, the court is waiting for further responses to form interrogatories from the plaintiff.

1. Juan Carlos Suarez et al. vs. A.M.A. Restaurants Inc et al., BC627574, July 19, 2016, Los Angeles, CA

In this case, a group of plaintiffs filed a complaint against a chain of restaurants for failure to provide proper meal periods, wages, and itemized wage statements, as well as general damages and relief. The initial filing was made in 2016, but the case is still ongoing, as the claims have been sent to arbitration.

Note

One thing that bears mentioning here is that there are some items here that are appearing on both lists. Of particular note is the Juan Carlos Suarez et al. vs. A.M.A. Restaurants Inc et al. case, which topped both lists by a wide margin.

There are a variety of potential reasons for this, including:

  • Trellis users seeing one case ranked high on one list, prompting another wave of interest.
  • Other recent cases making these interesting/valuable in terms of precedent.
  • People involved in or interested in the case repeatedly visiting the page.

While this may be more of a question, one thing that these lists do show is the value of integrating databases into the legal world, for easy access to history and information

Written by Tony Depa

Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts