In California, filing an appeal does not stay enforcement of judgment unless the judgment debtor posts an undertaking. Undertaking can be in form of a bond. In order to issue the bond, insurance companies charge a fee, and may also require a collateral such as a letter of credit (LC). In this recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to provide security for a letter of credit are not recoverable as a part of costs on appeal under rule 8.278(d)(1)(F) of the California Rues of Court.

The U.S. District Court granted class certification in a lawsuit against American Honda, based on the conclusion that California law would have applied to all Honda transactions nationwide, and that all consumers had relied on certain Honda advertisement. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated class certification, saying these conclusions were incorrect.

This petition was submitted on behalf of Tammy Foret Freeman for obtaining a "writ of certiorari" from the United States Supreme Court. The High Court is selective of which cases it hears. The U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process is governed by the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rules 10-16.

California Court held that an attorney's affidavit filed in a foreign court in order to influence the determination of issues pending in a California court is protected under anti-SLAPP statute as a written statement made in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16(e)(2).

Consumer brought class action suit against used automobile dealer. The contract contained an arbitration clause which provided if the class action waiver is found unenforceable, then the arbitration provision should not be enforced at all. Court refused to enforce arbitration provision because, the provision was adhesive, and contained harsh one-sided terms favoring the car dealer. Therefore the arbitration provision was unconscionable and unenforceable. [Advance sheet courtesy of metnews.com]

Private citizen ("P") sued City ("D") for spending public money to publish a report which showed the impact of municipal services that were subject of a ballot measure. D brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike and prevailed. P appealed to district court and to California Supreme Court, but both courts affirmed. Then, P sought attorney's fees under private attorney general statute, California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. Held: Since P was not the "successful party" in the case, P may not recover attorney's fees.

Here is the verdict of the Bob Marley case IPP worked on.

Here is a list of the notable trials that Imaging Presentation Partners (IPP) has won over the years.

In the bankruptcy case of Portland Archdiocese, personnel files of two priests were produced which contained allegations these priests had committed child abuse. The priests moved for protective order to prevent disclosure of these documents to the public. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Held: a third party who seeks protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has the burden to prove good cause. Advance sheet courtesy of metnews.com

Contractor (C) unsuccessfully brought an action to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. Landowner (L) brought motion to expunge lis pendens, and court granted this motion. L sued C for slander of title for filing lis pendens. C brought Anti-SLAPP motion. Held: Recording lis pendens was abolultely privileged per Civil Code 47(b)(4), becuase it identified an action previosly filed which affected the title or right to possession of property. Granting of Anti-SLAPP motion affirmed.