LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A California condominium complex that failed to provide enough parking spaces for visitors isn’t liable for the injuries of a woman who was hit by a car after she parked offsite and attempted to cross a busy five-lane thoroughfare, an appeals court ruled.
While landowners in some cases can be liable for accidents that occur off their property, the Second Appellate District held in an April 30 decision, plaintiff Anaeis Issakhani bears responsibility for jaywalking across the street instead of using a marked pedestrian crosswalk a short distance away.
“It was the visitor’s decision rather than the landowner’s to select an offsite parking space on the far side of a busy street,” the appeals court ruled.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A deed of trust beneficiary usually feels pretty confident with the validity of the deed as long as it is signed by an owner of the property.
But when the property constitutes
community property of a married couple, is the signature of one spouse enough?
A recently published opinion by California’s Second Appellate District
Trenk v. Soheili addresses the issue and provides a tough learning lesson.
Facts: deed of trust encumbering community property signed only by husband
Morteza Sohyly sued an attorney, Joseph Trenk, for malpractice. The case settled in 2003, with Joseph agreeing to pay $100,000. The obligation was reflected in a note secured by a deed of trust recorded against Joseph’s residence, where he and his wife Dinah had lived for thirty years. Sohyly’s sister, Maryam Soheili, was designated as the beneficiary on the deed of trust.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On April 21, 2021, the Second Appellate District of the Court of
Appeal of the State of California filed an unpublished opinion rejecting Uber s
attempt to enforce an arbitration provision that waived an
employee s right to bring a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This
statute authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits
to recover civil penalties from employers for violations of the
California labor code.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Gregg, filed a lawsuit against Uber in
August 2018, alleging that the ride-share company willfully
misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an
CREDIT: STRF/STAR MAX/IPx 2021
Missed Sourcing Summit Hong Kong? Catch it on demand now. Learn why you re all wrong about what resilience really means and where the US/China relationship is headed.
Amazon’s third-party marketplace enables independent merchants to sell their own products, but who is liable when a product is defective or faulty? According to a recent ruling by California’s Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Amazon is responsible even if it didn’t manufacture the product and only serves as an intermediary to the…
This content is for Annual and Limited members only. You can read up to five free articles each month with a Limited Level Subscription. Please log in, or subscribe.
[author: Shiva Pedram]
On April 21, 2021, the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California filed an unpublished opinion rejecting Uber’s attempt to enforce an arbitration provision that waived an employee’s right to bring a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). This statute authorizes “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties from employers for violations of the California labor code.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Gregg, filed a lawsuit against Uber in August 2018, alleging that the ride-share company “willfully misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee,” which led to violations of California Wage Order 9-2001 and several other Labor Code provisions that triggered his rights under PAGA. In response to the suit, Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Provision of the “Technology Services Agreement,” which the plaintiff was required to sign