Brian and Shant discuss the following cases:
Johnson v. MGM: Plaintiff argues that the District Court did not do an appropriate calculation to determine attorney fees and in response, the District Court lays out multiple factors to determine the appropriate percentage.
Handoush v. Lease Finance Group: For Choice of Law to be enforceable, CA looks to whether the application of another state’s law would violate primary substantive rights. Moreover, in CA parties cannot waive the right to a jury trial prior to the dispute, but in a state where the law is not an inviolate right then the parties can waive the right to a jury trial.
Silbaugh v. Elaine Chow (DOT): When suing a government agency, the party pursuing the agency must name the head of that agency. However, the plaintiff simply named her supervisor and not the head of the agency. In the time it took to cure the defect, the Statute of Limitations had run baring the lawsuit. The Relation Back Doctrine however allows an amendment relates back to the original filing if it relates back to the original conduct or occurrence.
Wishneb v. Northern Mutual Life Insurance: Plaintiff charged with compounded interest after borrowing money from his life insurance policy arguing a violation of usury laws. In 1918, California instituted usury laws with provisions laying out a blanket percentage in order to prevent over-charging due to compounded interest. However, in 1934, California realized the system required adjustment giving the power back to the legislature.