Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services: If You Want Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement, Just Say So

Horst Legal CounselUncategorized

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”

Horst Legal CounselEnvironmental Law, Environmental Litigation, Litigation, Uncategorized

  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

Horst Legal CounselAppellate Law, Digital Law, tax law

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

Horst Legal CounselDiscovery, Litigation

  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

Horst Legal CounselAI, Appeals, Business Litigation

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

Horst Legal CounselAnti-SLAPP, Appeals, Business Litigation

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 …