Quinteros v. Harbor Distrib., LLC, 2026 WL 1693424 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Here we go again. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in this putative wage and hour class action were responsible for “evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in an otherwise meritless pleading.” The trial court ordered the attorneys to pay $5,000 in sanctions to the opposing party and $1,000 in sanctions to
Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 2026 WL 1813213 (9th Cir. 2026)
Former Alaska Airlines flight attendants Marli Brown and Lacey Smith sued their former employer for religious discrimination under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws. The airline allegedly terminated their employment following their posting comments on an internal intranet communications network in response to the company’s statement of support of the Equality Act
J.O. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 5th 753 (2026)
Pursuant Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6, a party or attorney may disqualify a judge from a matter simply by signing an affidavit or orally stating under oath that the judge is “prejudiced” against a party, attorney, or their respective interests. If the motion is timely and properly presented, the disqualification is automatic and
Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 5th 1190 (2026)
Terry Askins applied online for a position with CRST, a trucking company. During the application process, CRST provided Askins with a disclosure form and indicated that a background check would be performed on him. Both before and during his employment, CRST conducted background checks on him. Askins filed a putative class action
Guild Mortg. Co. v. CrossCountry Mortg. LLC, 120 Cal. App. 5th 885 (2026)
The California Court of Appeal revived a host of tort claims asserted against a company that allegedly executed a plan to recruit a competitor’s employees, divert its customers, and appropriate its pipeline of active loan applications. Guild Mortgage alleged that over an 18-month period, CrossCountry Mortgage (CCM) induced and conspired with
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment in favor of an employer despite evidence of protected whistleblowing is instructive. Han v. Pfizer (No. 23-cv-039080-AMO).
Background
The plaintiff, a compliance analytics employee, alleged that his former employer, a pharmaceutical company, retaliated against him after he internally reported suspected illegal activity and later reiterated those concerns while
The California Court of Appeal has revived a host of tort claims against a company that allegedly executed a plan to recruit a competitor’s employees, divert its customers, and appropriate its pipeline of active loan applications. Guild Mortgage Co. v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC, 2026 WL 1505950 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Guild Mortgage alleged that over an 18-month period, CrossCountry Mortgage (CCM) induced and conspired
DATELINE: California—where apparently $100 million verdicts are becoming so common that they barely qualify as news anymore.
As we have previously reported, California juries continue to hand down “nuclear” and even “thermonuclear” employment verdicts at an alarming rate. The latest addition to that growing list comes from San Diego, where a jury awarded a former substance abuse counselor $105 million after
Thrower v. Academy Mortg. Corp., 172 F.4th 703 (9th Cir. 2026)
Gwen Thrower was awarded attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in her False Claims Act action against Academy Mortgage, her former employer. After the district court approved the settlement in the amount of $38.5 million (including $11.5 million to Thrower personally), it awarded Thrower $8.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $90,000 in