Marketing “Face-to-Face” Experience Does Not Create Enforceable Contract for In-Person Classes When operations get disrupted, customers look for refunds. Students are no different. During COVID-era campus closures, many sued universities for tuition back based on an “implied promise” of in-person education. This California Court of Appeal just rejected this effort in a case involving Chapman University, finding that Chapman had …
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan: California Arbitration Agreement Enforceability Turns on Readability and Ordinary Contract Rules
California arbitration enforceability fights are increasingly won or lost on something that sounds almost too basic to matter: could the employee reasonably read what they were asked to sign, and do the surrounding circumstances show meaningful assent? Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. is the Supreme Court’s clearest reminder that formatting and onboarding process are not side issues—they can shape the …
When State Law Caps Penalties, Cities Can’t Add “Impoundment” as a Workaround: Mustaqeem v. City of San Diego
California’s sidewalk vending statutes reflect a legislative tradeoff: local governments may regulate through objective health and safety rules, but enforcement is meant to stay within a deliberately narrow set of tools. Mustaqeem v. City of San Diego underscores what that bargain looks like in litigation. The decision is less about sidewalk vending in isolation and more about a familiar public-law …
Hu v. XPO Logistics: Court of Appeal offers a roadmap for defending California “broker-as-carrier” negligence claims
In serious-accident litigation arising out of contractor-heavy supply chains, plaintiffs rarely stop with the driver and the motor carrier. They look upstream—often at a broker, platform, or logistics intermediary—and try to reframe that entity as the party that actually controlled the work. Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC is a helpful company-side decision because it keeps the inquiry grounded: the Court …
Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services: If You Want Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement, Just Say So
Employment and commercial agreements often treat the governing-law paragraph as boilerplate—something copied, pasted, and rarely revisited. Tuufuli is a reminder that, at least in the arbitration context, a few carefully chosen words can do real work. If an arbitration agreement expressly states that it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a California Court of Appeal may enforce that …
California Specific Personal Jurisdiction After Ford Motor: Climate Litigation Comes for the “Middleman”
California’s latest climate decision, In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases, pushes the law of specific personal jurisdiction another step forward—and national businesses that sell, brand, or market into the state should pay attention. The First District Court of Appeal held that California courts can exercise specific jurisdiction over Citgo Petroleum, an out-of-state company, based on decades of branded gasoline …
California Court of Appeal Blesses Santa Barbara’s Move to Turn Disney+ Into a Local Tax Collector
When a city decides to tax streaming, the first reaction from many platforms is: you can’t really treat us like cable… can you? In Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara (B342211, Dec. 17, 2025, 2d Dist., Div. 6), the Court of Appeal said yes. It upheld Santa Barbara’s 5.75% video users tax as applied to Disney+, Hulu, and …
Rodriguez v. WNT: When Years of Discovery Abuse Kill Your Case, Section 473(b) Can’t Bring It Back
When a case gets dismissed as a discovery sanction, the first instinct for many litigants—and many lawyers—is to reach for Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The “mandatory relief” provision is often treated like a safety net: file an attorney affidavit of fault, and the court must undo the damage. But Rodriguez v. WNT, Inc. (Dec. 4, 2025, D084642) …
Shayan v. Shakib: California Lawyers Continue to Hallucinate, and the Court of Appeal Doesn’t Care How
Just two weeks ago, we posted a summary of what was then the latest in a growing series of appellate cases dealing with AI-hallucinated citations. Already, however, it has lost its novelty. Earlier this week, Shayan v. Shakib became the most recent reminder of California lawyers’ responsibility for the accuracy of the material that they submit to the courts. It …
OneTaste v. Netflix: Court of Appeal SLAPPs risqué wellness company’s defamation suit over critical documentary
When a business believes a documentary has crossed the line from criticism to defamation, the natural instinct is to “fight back” with a lawsuit. OneTaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. is a sharp reminder that in California, anti-SLAPP and the actual malice standard make that a very steep climb—especially against a global streaming platform. In this published decision, the Second District …









