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 …
Schlichter v. Kennedy: California Courts Continue to Make Examples of “ChatGPT Lawyers”
Schlichter v. Kennedy: California Courts Continue to Make Examples of “ChatGPT Lawyers” Generative AI has become a part of many workflows for a lot of litigators, whether or not they say so out loud. But California’s appellate courts are drawing a very clear line: you can use AI as a tool, but you cannot shift your professional duties onto …
In Critical Dormant Commerce Clause Case, Second Circuit May Be Poised to Split the Baby, Not Split the Circuits
On December 19, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held oral arguments in Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, the latest front in an ongoing legal war over whether the dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) should apply to the state-licensed cannabis industry. With the caveat that reading the tea leaves of …
The Cannabis Industry Isn’t Wearing Any Clothes! California Court of Appeal Exposes Tenuous Reality of “State Legalization”
As a litigator who has tried dozens of cannabis-related cases in the eight years since California voters legalized cannabis for adult use, yesterday’s decision by the California Court of Appeal in JCCrandall v. Santa Barbara immediately called to mind an image from one of my favorite childhood books. A young girl steps out from a throng of adoring subjects, points …






