A litigation boutique based in Oakland, California, representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation.
Appellate Specialist and Partner Josephine K. Petrick Provides Year in Review: California Supreme Court 2024–2025
The Norton Law Firm’s appellate litigators are involved in numerous high-stakes matters, identifying the legal and trial errors that give clients the greatest chance of reversing a defeat in the lower court, as well as crafting the strategies and briefs to protect a victory. Partner and California State Bar-Certified Appellate Specialist Josephine K. Petrick, who previously served as a federal appellate law clerk, closely monitors the decisions of the Supreme Court of California, which issued 23 civil opinion during its 2024–2025 court year. In this Year in Review post, Josephine summarizes 18 decisions with major implications for business and consumer litigation. The Firm will continue to follow the Court’s cases in its 2025–2026 court year and will provide helpful analysis on significant issues that impact our clients.
Arbitration
Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., 18 Cal. 5th 364 (2025) (Aug. 14, 2025) – Heirs bringing neglect-based wrongful-death claims against care facilities are not bound by the decedent’s arbitration agreement—unlike medical-malpractice claims.
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods Corp.), 18 Cal. 5th 310 (2025) (Aug. 11, 2025) – The California Supreme Court, in a 5–2 decision, held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 does not impose an automatic waiver of arbitration rights whenever fees or costs are paid late. The Court clarified that the statute is not a rigid rule requiring waiver in every instance of untimely payment, and it further concluded that the statute is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Ford Motor Warranty Cases, 17 Cal. 5th 1122 (2025) (Jul. 3, 2025) – Auto manufacturers cannot force plaintiffs to arbitrate tort claims against them based on arbitration clauses in their auto sales contracts with dealerships.
Consumer Litigation
Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, 17 Cal. 5th 273 (2024) (Dec. 23, 2024) – Hospitals have no duty under the Unfair Competition Law or Consumers Legal Remedies Act to disclose emergency room evaluation and management service fees beyond listing them in the chargemaster and other required filings.
Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, 17 Cal. 5th 189 (2024) (Oct. 31, 2024) – Used cars are not “new motor vehicles” within California’s Lemon Law (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), even if resold within the original warranty period.
Contracts and Public Policy
EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (EpiRX, L.P.), 18 Cal. 5th 58 (2025) (Jul. 21, 2025) – Parties may enforce a forum-selection clause even when the chosen forum lacks the same civil-jury right as California; California’s constitutional jury-trial guarantee does not invalidate such clauses.
Whitehead v. City of Oakland, 17 Cal. 5th 735 (2025) (May 1, 2025) – The Court held that a bicyclist injured by a pothole could sue despite signing a waiver; liability waivers cannot relieve public entities from their statutory duty to maintain safe roads because Civil Code § 1668 voids releases that waive responsibility for statutory violations.
New England Country Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products, 17 Cal. 5th 703 (2025) (Apr. 24, 2025) – Contractual clauses limiting damages for willful injury to person or property are invalid under Civil Code § 1668. Limitations on remedies for pure breaches of contract remain permissible. For insight about this decision, please read the analysis by Norton Law Firm partner Nathan Walker entitled “California Supreme Court Rules that Contract Clauses Limiting Damages for Willful Injury are Invalid under California Law.”
Hospitality and Real Estate
Olympic & Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, 2025 WL 2473858, – Cal. 5th – (Aug. 28, 2025) – Occupancy-tax rebates and a lease’s “key money” could be included in an income-capitalization valuation, but left open whether other enterprise assets are taxable.
JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, 17 Cal. 5th 256 (2024) (Dec. 19, 2024) – Commercial co-tenancy agreements providing for lower substitute rent if occupancy drops below a certain threshold are permissible; they are not penalties subject to Civil Code § 1671.
Labor & Employment
Iloff v. LaPaille, 2025 WL 2414467, – Cal. 5th – (Aug. 21, 2025) – Employers can’t avoid liquidated-damages liability for minimum-wage violations by claiming they misunderstood the law; they must show reasonable efforts to comply.
Brown v. City of Inglewood, 18 Cal. 5th 33 (2025) (Jul. 7, 2025) – Elected officials (a city treasurer in this case) are not “employees” under Labor Code § 1102.5 and therefore are not covered by California’s whistleblower statute.
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. WCAB (Ayala), 17 Cal. 5th 510 (2025) (Feb. 20, 2025) –For public employees injured due to an employer’s serious and willful misconduct, the 50% penalty under Labor Code § 4553 is calculated on workers’ compensation benefits, not on richer industrial-disability benefits; “compensation” is limited to workers’ compensation benefits.
Civil Procedure
Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission, 18 Cal. 5th 293 (2025) (Aug. 7, 2025) – The Court unanimously abandoned the “uniquely deferential” standard for reviewing the Public Utilities Commission’s statutory interpretations; courts must now independently interpret the Public Utilities Code. Regulated businesses (energy, telecom, transport) and their counsel should know that CPUC decisions are now more vulnerable to judicial challenge.
Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, 17 Cal. 5th 592 (2025) (Mar. 20, 2025) – Litigants who reject a qualifying settlement offer and later settle for less cannot recover litigation costs; Section 998 applies even to pretrial settlements and doesn’t require a judgment or award. Parties may contractually allocate costs in settlements.
Escamilla v. Vannucci, 17 Cal. 5th 571 (2025) (Mar. 20, 2025) – Malicious-prosecution claims against attorneys other than one’s own counsel are governed by CCP § 335.1’s two-year statute rather than § 340.6’s one-year limit, the latter of which applies to wrongful acts or omissions by one’s own attorney.
California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn, 17 Cal. 5th 207 (2024) (Nov. 18, 2024) – The Court rejected a two-year time limit on CCP § 473(d) motions to vacate void judgments (there, for lack of proper service); due-process considerations require allowing such motions without temporal restriction.
North American Title Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (Cortina), 17 Cal. 5th 155 (2024) (Oct. 28, 2024) – Even challenges to a judge based on bias or prejudice must be timely raised or else forfeited.