Skip to main content

Decisions in Arbitration Award, Products Liability, and anti-SLAPP Motion Cases

By FindLaw Staff on March 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

The California Court of Appeal for the First District decided a case involving an attorney's anti-SLAPP motion, validity of an arbitration award in an employment dispute, and the constitutionality and the scope of probation conditions placed upon a juvenile criminal defendant.

In San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. SEIU Local 790, No. A123636, the court dealt with an order by the Superior court vacating an arbitration award in its entirety on the ground that the award is contrary to the layoff provisions in the parties' memorandum of understanding (MOU). In reversing the order, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers as her decision was rationally related to the breach identified and the remedy imposed did not conflict with the clear language of the MOU.

In Seltzer v. Barnes, No. A123784, the court faced a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowner's association.  In reversing the denial, the court held that the trial court erred in determining that plaintiff's two causes of action against the defendant did not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct related to negotiations of a settlement in the prior lawsuit.  Furthermore, because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on her claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In In re Victor L., No. A123649, the court faced a challenge to the juvenile court's order placing a juvenile defendant on probation with various conditions.  The court affirmed the judgment for the most part with the exception of certain conditions such as restrictions on defendant's right to associate with individuals disapproved of by his probation officer or his parents, holding that this is unconstitutionally vague.  The court also modified condistions relating to defendant being in the presence of dangerous or deadly weapons and use of computers and the Internet as they were vague as well. 

In McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc., No. H033287, the Sixth District faced a challenge to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a products liability action involving plaintiff's claim that he suffered severe injuries after he was implanted with defendants' device to treat abdominal aortic aneurysm.  In affirming the decision, the court held that plaintiff's fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Brukman and that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to amend the complaint nor did it abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.

In Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exch. No. C059098, the Third District faced a challenge to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-insurance company in plaintiff's suit alleging breach of contract for being denied insurance coverage for the fire that burned her house down.  In affirming the decision, the court held that the summary judgment was properly granted as the defendant showed that the plaintiff failed to comply with the conditions precedent for coverage and materially breached her contractual obligations by failing to comply.


Copied to clipboard