Significant Decisions

Pine & Pine's work has resulted in significant published decisions in a wide array of substantive legal areas:

California Supreme Court:

Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254. This case resolved two important questions concerning disability discrimination law:  (1) what is the prima facie burden of the plaintiff in such cases; and (2) whether the employee has the burden of proving that he or she could perform the job in question with reasonable accommodation, or the employer has the burden of proving that, even with reasonable accommodation, the employee was unable to perform the job.

Rico v. Mitsubishi (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, resolved conflicts in the case law concerning the ethical obligations of an attorney who inadvertently receives privileged documents from the other side and also the issue of whether there is a "crime fraud" exception to the work- product doctrine.

Roby v. McKesson (2006), formerly published at 146 Cal. App.4th 63, an employment disability case involving the proper scope of harassment law and punitive damages issues. 

MW Erectors v. Neiderhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, a case resolving issues of California licensing law, illegal contracts and judicial estoppel. 

Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191 (Amicus Curiae), re-defined the scope and breadth of punitive damages law in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 [123 S. Ct. 1513.]

Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc, (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064 (Amicus Curiae), helped define the reach of Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83.

White v. Ultramar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563 (Amicus Curiae), a key decision defining the broad scope of "managing agent."

Swenson v. County of Los Angeles (1999), formerly published at 75 Cal.App.4th 889 [before review was granted].  The issue of the definition of "mental disability" was fully briefed in the Supreme Court before review was dismissed based on the Legislature's enactment of the Poppick Act, which confirmed our position on the issue.

California Courts of Appeal:

Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) __ Cal.App.4th __ [B204628].  Court held that plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was not barred by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses.

Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 994, where the appellate court reversed a defense jury verdict after concluding that the trial judge had been guilty of gross judicial misconduct, both in allowing the trial to degenerate into a "circus" and in seeming to favor the defense which demeaning plaintiffs and their counsel. 

Fitz-Gerald v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 411. Plaintiffs' class action wage and hour claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. 49 U.S.C.A. § 41713 (b) (1).

McGee v. Tucoemas Federal Credit Union (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1351.  The Court upheld a $1,200,000 punitive damages award in a disability discrimination case, finding Federal Credit Unions are not immune from punitive damages and that a reduction in compensatory damages did not mandate reduction in the punitive damages award.  

Butler v. The Vons Companies, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 943. Obtained reversal of Summary Judgment in an employment discrimination case where there was a triable issue of fact regarding the scope of a prior release agreement relating to an altercation plaintiff had with a co-employee.

Hope v. California Youth Authority (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 577 - a $2 million judgment for economic and non-economic injury flowing from sexual harassment of an employee due to his sexual preference. The case involved attacks on the alleged excessiveness of damages and issues concerning the requisite knowledge of superiors that unlawful acts were being performed.

Felgenhauer v. Soni (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 445.  Action to quiet title to prescriptive easements for deliveries over neighboring property. 

Herr v. Nestle USA (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 779 - successfully defended against an appeal of a multimillion dollar (ultimately exceeding over $10 million) employment law decision and a Section 17200 injunction against plaintiff's former employer.

Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara 344 F.3d 822, (9th Cir. 2003), successfully prosecuted an appeal which reversed summary judgment against a client whose constitutional rights were trampled upon by local government bodies pursuing a political agenda against him.

Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1153 put limits on an employer's ability to compel arbitration of employment claims.

Maxwell v. Beverly Enterprises -California , Inc. (1998), previously published at 64 Cal. App.4th 231 [before review was granted].  After the Supreme Court decided the lead case (White v. Ultramar), it concluded that under those principles regarding managing agent, the judgment in Maxwell should be affirmed without further briefing.

Prudential Home Mortgage Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 1236.  Action by borrowers against real estate lenders for violation of stature which regulates the process for recording a reconveyance of a deed of trust after the borrower pays off a secured loan.