New Civil Procedure and Employment Case

 

 

 

I can help. I've been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates since 1995, and I've been listed in The Best Lawyers in America every year since 2012. I've represented both plaintiffs and defendants in business, insurance bad faith and coverage, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases, I've recovered over $50 million for plaintiff clients, and obtained numerous defense verdicts and good settlements for defense clients. I've tried over 100 jury, court and administrative trials and arbitrations. For many years, I've provided mentoring to many less experienced lawyers in California.

 

Working with me, you can quickly develop the skills, strategies, and systems necessary to build you dream law practice. How will it feel to be a successful and highly respected lawyer in your practice areas? Today is the day to start creating your future. 

 

Click the link to learn more about Master Lawyer Mentoring™, or email me at [email protected] or call me at (619) 990-4312.

 

To get my free summaries of the 22 new civil cases published by the California Supreme Court in 2021, click here.

Below is a discussion of a new CA civil case published last month.

Civil Procedure and Employment

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing can file an action on behalf of an employee. Last month, the Sixth District Court of Appeal published a decision addressing the issue of whether am action filed on behalf of an employee could proceed using a fictitious name because revealing the employee's identity could jeopardize the safety of his family members in India. A video discussing the case is above and my summary of the case is below.

New Civil Procedure and Employment Decision  

Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 3136002: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition directing the trial court to vacate its order denying plaintiff's motion to proceed using a fictitious name and to reconsider the motion based on the views expressed in the Court of Appeal's opinion. Plaintiff asked that the real party in interest—the affected employee—be referred to as John Doe, in part because revealing his identity could jeopardize the safety of his family members in India. The trial court understood what interests it needed to balance. It considered the public's right to access court proceedings. It also considered whether an important interest would be prejudiced if the employee were required to publicly disclose his identity. But, the trial court erred when deciding whether an overriding interest justified anonymity because it expressly declined to consider the employee's concern about safety of family members in India. Retaliatory harm to family members—wherever they are located—is precisely the kind of interest that may justify allowing a party to litigate under a pseudonym. The fact that the family members were geographically distant did not render the concern irrelevant as a threshold matter. A party seeking anonymity has the burden to show that geographically distant family members are at risk. The trial court's task is to consider the evidence produced on that point and assign it the appropriate weight. (C.A. 6th, August 5, 2022.)