In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci discusses several key legal cases and their implications, providing insight into the application of California law.

Molinar v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2024)

Background: In this case, the parents and their daughter, all insured through 21st Century, faced a situation where the daughter caused a car crash. 21st Century denied coverage, arguing that the policy had been canceled before the accident. While they had sent the cancellation notice to the parents, they did not send it to the daughter.

Key Issue: Whether the daughter, who was not directly notified, was entitled to the cancellation notice under California law.

The Court found that, because the daughter was listed as an insured on the policy, 21st Century was required to notify her of the cancellation. The absence of notice rendered the cancellation invalid, allowing the daughter to maintain coverage.

Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America (2024)

Background: In this case, Plaintiff Zavala filed a warranty claim against Hyundai for failing to honor its warranty. Hyundai made a CCP 998 offer to settle, presenting Zavala with two options.

Key Issue: Whether the presence of two options in a CCP 998 offer automatically invalidates the offer.

The Court ruled that, while one of the options was too vague to be valid, the other $65,000 option was sufficiently clear. The Court held that each option in a CCP 998 offer could be evaluated separately, validating the offer as a whole. 

Carmichael v. Café Sevilla of Riverside, Inc. (2025)

Background: The plaintiffs allege that a violent incident at a rap concert at Café Sevilla was due to the club's failure to ensure safety, claiming that the venue’s violation of its conditional use permit resulted in negligence per see.

Key Issue: Whether the violation of the permit can lead to a negligence per se claim and if the rap concert was an ultrahazardous activity.

The Court found that the permit's purpose was not to protect concertgoers from violence but to prevent public nuisances. Additionally, the Court held that holding a rap concert was not an ultrahazardous activity. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. 

Medina v. St. George Auto Sales, Inc. (2024)

Background: In this case, the plaintiff purchased a used car that was misrepresented by the seller, alleging that the engine was improperly functioning and that extensive repairs had been concealed.

Key Issue: Whether the discovery rule applies to claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

The Court ruled that the discovery rule applies to CLRA claims, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff reasonably suspects that the injury was caused by wrongful conduct, not when the transaction occurred.

 

Molinar v. 21st Century Ins Co. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1228.

Zavala v. Hyundai Motor America (2024) 328 Cal.Rptr.3d 147

McGranahan v. GEICO Indemnity Company, et al. (2024) 714 F.Supp.3d 1187

Carmichael, et al. v. Café Sevilla of Riverside, Inc., et al. (2025) 2025 WL 299642

Medina v. St. George Auto Sales, Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 119

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci examines a significant California Supreme Court decision clarifying the standards for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims.

Downey v. City of Riverside

Background: The case arose when a plaintiff was giving her daughter driving directions over the phone and heard the collision that severely injured her daughter. Although the plaintiff was aware of the injury, she could not see the accident or know the defendant's role in causing it.

Key Issue: Must a bystander plaintiff be aware of both the injury and the defendant’s role in causing it to bring an NIED claim?

The Court held that awareness of the injury-causing event—not the defendant’s role—is sufficient to meet the threshold for an NIED claim. To recover damages, the plaintiff must meet three criteria:

1. Be closely related to the injury victim.
2. Be present at the scene of the injury-producing event and contemporaneously aware that it is causing injury.
3. Suffer serious emotional distress beyond what a disinterested witness would experience.

The Court declined to impose a requirement for contemporaneous awareness of the defendant’s role, emphasizing that awareness of the injury-causing event is enough.

Castellanos v. State of California

Background: This case addressed whether Proposition 22, classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7451, conflicts with the California Constitution’s provisions on workers' compensation.

Key Issue: Does Section 7451 conflict with Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature broad authority to enact workers’ compensation laws?

The California Supreme Court affirmed that section 7451 does not limit the Legislature’s power to enact workers’ compensation laws. It simply classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors when specific conditions are met.

Smith v. Arizona

Background: A lab analyst’s records were used at trial to convict a defendant of drug-related charges, even though the analyst did not testify. Instead, another expert presented the absent analyst’s findings and offered an opinion based on them.

Key Issue: Does presenting an absent analyst’s records through another expert violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause?

The U.S. Supreme Court held that when an expert relies on an absent analyst’s testimonial statements to form their opinion, those statements are admitted to their truth. If the statements are testimonial, the Confrontation Clause bars their admission. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the records were testimonial.

For more information:

1. Downey v. City of Riverside, 2024 WL 3491142
2. Castellanos v. State of California, 2024 WL 3530208 
3. Smith v. Arizona, 144 S.Ct. 1785 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci delves deep into two critical court cases that have caught the attention of the legal world. 

Balakrishnan v. Regents of the University of California

• Background: In 2017, an anonymous letter was published online, accusing a UCSC professor of a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault against young women and gender-nonconforming individuals. This letter included seven firsthand accounts of alleged abuse and called for the University to take action. Over 150 people signed the letter in support. Consequently, a Committee disciplined the professor according to the Faculty Code of Conduct. The professor argued against this disciplinary action.
• Key Question: Can a UCSC professor be justifiably disciplined under the Faculty Code of Conduct based on allegations of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault outlined in an anonymous letter, even if the professor contests the disciplinary action?

The court ruled against the professor. It stated that the professor's conduct, which included an incident at a party, where he climbed naked and uninvited, into the bed of a female academic and rubbed his genitalia against her, created an unsafe environment and hindered the purpose and values of an academic institution. Additionally, the court upheld the University's finding that the professor's conduct towards Jane Doe at the party was subject to discipline under the Faculty Code of Conduct.

Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.

• Background: In this case, a regional center arranged for a developmentally disabled person to be placed in a residential facility. The facility later informed the regional center that it could no longer provide the required level of care to the individual. While the regional center was in the process of finding a different facility, the person attacked and injured the facility's administrator. The administrator sued the regional center for her injuries.
• Key Question: Does a regional center have a duty to protect the employees of a residential facility if it fails to immediately relocate a developmentally disabled person as requested by the facility?

The court answered "No," stating that no such duty existed. The court further clarified that even if regulations suggest recognizing a duty to protect, this duty applies solely to the consumer (the developmentally disabled person) and not to the employees of the residential facility. The court emphasized that the relevant Act is concerned with the well-being of the consumer, not those who interact with the consumer.

To learn more, please see the cases below:

1. Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, 2024 WL 371554.
2. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc. 2024 WL 277313

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci delves into a recent California court decision that sheds light on whether prevailing parties can recover costs for depositions that were noticed but didn’t occur.

Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC:

• Background: Consumers filed tort claims against a mattress retailer and manufacturer, alleging injuries from a sagging mattress. After settling with the retailer and dismissing claims against the manufacturer, Tempur-Pedic sought to recover deposition costs.
• Key Issue: Can the prevailing party recover costs for depositions that were noticed but didn’t take place?

The court ruled that, under California Civil Code 1033.5, the prevailing party can recover costs for depositions as they are considered “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” This includes costs for depositions that were noticed but did not happen, as well as late cancellation fees. The court emphasized that the necessity of the depositions at the time they were noticed is key, regardless of whether they ultimately occurred.

For more information:

1.  Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, 98 Cal.App.5th 819

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of Ganci Law Update, we delve into recent legal decisions that explore various aspects of law, from government immunity to duty and academic discipline:

• Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District: Individuals involved in a car crash into a government canal sued the irrigation district, claiming the water level posed a dangerous condition. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Water District, citing "canal immunity." The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that since their interaction with the canal was unintentional (they did not mean to crash their car into it), canal immunity should not apply to them.
• Kinney v. City of Corona: This case involves the City's refusal to disclose information related to a stolen vehicle investigation, citing confidentiality concerns. Despite not delving into the case's intricate details, it emphasizes the relevance of the case to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 998 offers. It highlights two crucial legal principles regarding CCP 998 offers: first, such offers are interpreted strictly in favor of the party being subjected to them, and second, any ambiguity in such offers is strictly interpreted against the party making the offer. These principles serve as important reminders regarding the application and interpretation of CCP 998 offers in legal proceedings.
• Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.: In this case, a regional center placed a developmentally disabled individual in a residential facility. When the facility couldn't continue care, the individual injured an employee while awaiting relocation. The court ruled the regional center didn't have a duty to protect facility employees. This highlights the legal distinction between duties owed to consumers and others in their orbit.
• Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California: A tenured professor faced disciplinary action for sexual assault incidents occurring after his student's graduation ceremony. Despite his objections, the court upheld the university's decision, citing his inappropriate behavior and the ongoing jurisdiction over the student involved.

For more information:

1. Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation District, cited as 98 Cal.App.5th 793
2. Kinney v. City of Corona, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 1 
3. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc., cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 139
4. Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, cited as 99 Cal.App.5th 513

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into three crucial legal cases:

• Stack v. City of Lemoore: Despite the plaintiff's prior safe use of the sidewalk, the court rejected the argument that individual familiarity with the area should affect the assessment of the dangerous condition. The court's decision delves into the legal complexities of premises liability, emphasizing the general foreseeability of harm over the plaintiff's specific history in determining liability.
• Nicoletti v. Kest: A resident slipped on a wet driveway during rain. Despite the plaintiff knowing the area well, the court ruled that the running rainwater was an obvious danger. This case highlights the significance of determining if a hazard is open and obvious, influencing the landowner's duty to provide warnings or address the condition.
• Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc.: A pivotal case addressing employee disability discrimination, where the court's decision included an award for attorney fees, subsequently reduced by 40%. This reduction was attributed to the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, highlighting the criticality of upholding professionalism in legal matters. The case serves as a significant reminder of the impact that decorum and civility have on the judicial process.

For more information:

1. Stack v. City of Lemoore, 91 Cal.App.5th 102
2. Nicoletti v. Kest, 2023 WL 7521740. 
3. Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this Ganci Law Update episode, attorney Eric Ganci examines three pivotal legal cases:

• Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc. (2023): explore the complex question of whether bars owe a duty of safety to their patrons. While the answer to this question is often "it depends," this case provides insights into the bar's responsibility in ensuring the safety of its customers.
• Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District (2023): raises questions about volunteers' legal recourse in personal injury versus worker’s compensation claims.
• Vargas v. Gallizzi (2023): addresses the issue of seeking costs for proving evidence after serving Requests for Admissions (RFAs). It explains the laws related to RFAs, including when cost-of-proof sanctions can be applied.

For more information:

1. Glynn v. Orange Circle Lounge, Inc., 2023 WL 6438060 
2. Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, 2023 WL 6474984 
3. Vargas v. Gallizzi, 2023 WL 6781376 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, attorney Eric Ganci delves into a range of intriguing legal cases, offering valuable insights and analysis:

1. Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023): Traverse the maze of the design defect case, as what appeared as a minor design flaw spiraled into intricate legal quandaries and an unforeseen courtroom denouement.
2. Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023): Spotlighting the Requests for Admissions' indispensable role, we dissect its influence when unanswered, particularly in wrongful death litigations.
3. Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) (2023): Navigate the complexities of responding to formal discovery requests in California's jurisdiction. What truly is the legal mandate when pinpointing specific documents in a reply?
4. A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023): Ascertain the crucial steps and potential pitfalls in presenting government claim forms, particularly when involving California's government institutions.

For more information

• Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc. (2023) 2023 WL 4618687
• Inzunza v. Naranjo (2023 WL 5344893)
• Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster) case (2023 WL 4861786)
• A.S. v. Palmdale School District (2023 WL 5524107) 

Join Eric Ganci on this episode of the Ganci Law Update to gain valuable legal insights into these intriguing cases and more. 

Learn more about Eric Ganci

Sometimes courts disagree on how to read and interpret the law. CaseyGerry attorney, Eric Ganci explores the decision in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, where the Supreme court steps in to settle a disagreement between two lower courts on whether a design immunity claim against a public government agency can preclude a decision for seeking a claim when a government has failed to warn of a dangerous situation. This raises the question:

Does design immunity bar all claims that seek to impose liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous feature of a roadway?

Listen to learn more:

Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 

Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318 

Weinstein v. Department of Transportation (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 52 

California Government Code section 830.6  

California Government Code section 835 

Bebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC, cited as of 6/14/23 as 2023 WL 3837260 

Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1326 

Sarti v. Salt Creek (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187 

CACI 400 

CACI 430 

Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108 

California Evidence Code section 721(b)

Learn more about Eric Ganci

In this episode of the Ganci Law Update, CaseyGerry trial attorney Eric Ganci discusses Brain injury cases touching on the recent case - Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705.

In a Traumatic Brain Injury case, both sides will usually hire experts examine or prove that claim.

However, in preliminary testing, neuropsychologists may have the option of not disclosing the results of the preliminary tests, which can cause an issue if the expert is not ethical in their testing and may further present a problem if the expert testifies in court. 

Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (Buttram) 2023 WL 3530705 

Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249 

Roe v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 138 

CCP § 2032.530 

CCP § 2032.610 

Downey v. City of Riverside (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1033 

Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 

Pabla v. Superior Court (Dual Arch International) (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 599 

Isaak v. Superior Court (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 792 

Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 292 

California Civil Code § 1714(a) 

Learn more about Eric Ganci