CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Real Property

JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (2024) _Cal. 5th_, 2024 WL 5164746: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal decision that upheld a cotenancy provision in a commercial lease as reflecting the parties’ agreement regarding acceptable alternative performance of agreed upon contract obligations. The California Supreme Court declined to follow the analysis of the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336 that had concluded that a cotenancy provision operated as an unenforceable penalty under California Civil Code section 1671. The trial court and Court of Appeal in this case properly analyzed the cotenancy provision as a form of alternative performance because the provision allocated risks and benefits between the two parties and provided plaintiff a realistic choice between accepting lower rent or taking additional efforts to increase occupancy rates or secure replacement anchor tenants. The lease and cotenancy provision were enforceable because they simply created a rent scheme in which there were two applicable rents. (December 19, 2024.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Arbitration

Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., et al. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5251619: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). The trial court denied the motion based upon its conclusion that plaintiff’s PAGA action did not allege any individual claims subject to arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed. Based on the unambiguous, ordinary meaning of the relevant statutory language and the legislative history of that language, the Court of Appeal concluded that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and directed the trial court to enter a new order (1) compelling the parties to arbitrate plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and (2) staying the representative PAGA claim portion of the lawsuit. (C.A. 2nd, December 30, 2024.)

Employment

Chavez v. Cal. Collision (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5064368: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding defendants’ costs against plaintiff Samuel Zarate because he had rejected defendants section 998 offer and recovered a smaller amount at trial, it affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiffs Jorge Chavez and Aldo Isas (for work performed before they accepted 998 offers), and attorney fees for Zarate (for work performed before he was served a 998 offer that he ignored), and it concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Zarate’s challenges to two interlocutory orders (pretrial motion for summary adjudication and motion for a directed verdict) because he failed to file a notice of appeal from the final judgment entered after trial. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney fees of $5,705 to Isas, $8,300 to Chavez, and $260 to Zarate. The trial court erred in awarding costs to defendants and against Zarate under section 998 because the award violated Labor Code sections 1194 and 218.5 which specified the costs and fees that could be recovered in Zarate’s action. The trial court was directed to enter a new order denying defendants’ motion for costs and a new judgment reinstating Zarate’s total award of $26,804.91. (C.A. 1st, December 10, 2024.) 

Medical Malpractice

Ng v. Super. Ct. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 323098: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition that directed the trial court to vacate its earlier order granting defendant Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc.’s (defendant) motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint seeking two MICRA caps in an action for wrongful death and a survival action. The dispute was whether recent amendments to the cap on noneconomic damages (Civ. Code, § 3333.2) under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) and to the availability of noneconomic damages in survival actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34) permitted plaintiff to recover noneconomic damages under one or two MICRA caps. The Court of Appeal concluded that the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, which authorized a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover noneconomic damages, means a plaintiff can seek two MICRA cap awards (one for himself or herself and one for the decedent) under Civil Code section 3333.2. Because a wrongful death claim and a survival claim—even when premised on the same alleged medical malpractice—are separate and distinct claims, a plaintiff suing for both claims can seek to recover two MICRA caps. (C.A. 4th, January 29, 2025.)