Media & Insights
February 19, 2020
Related Attorneys
Related Practices
The California Supreme Court recently granted Horvitz & Levy’s petitions for review in two cases raising significant issues of California law.
In Berroteran v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. S259522, Horvitz & Levy attorneys Fred Cohen, Lisa Perrochet, and Allison Meredith, successfully petitioned the court to review a conflict in the law concerning a recurring evidentiary issue involving the use of deposition testimony from prior litigation. Often, an attorney who attends the deposition of a friendly witness aligned with the attorney's own client does not cross-examine that witness at deposition. The question presented in this case is whether that deposition testimony may later be admitted as trial testimony against the party aligned with the witness, even though that party did not have a motive to cross-examine the witness in the prior action.
In Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers v. Superior Court, Case No. S259850, Horvitz & Levy attorneys H. Thomas Watson, Daniel Gonzalez, and Beth Jay, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict in the law concerning whether a corporation can be held responsible for the allegedly negligent act of its employee and required to pay wildfire suppression and investigation costs when the corporation did not perform, authorize, or ratify the allegedly negligent act that caused the wildfire.
These two new cases join five other cases on Horvitz & Levy’s docket of cases currently pending before the California Supreme Court:
Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit (S259027)
Han v. Hallberg (S256659)
Quidel Corporation v. Superior Court (S258283)
Sandoval v. QualComm Inc. (S252796)
Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (S253593)
In Berroteran v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. S259522, Horvitz & Levy attorneys Fred Cohen, Lisa Perrochet, and Allison Meredith, successfully petitioned the court to review a conflict in the law concerning a recurring evidentiary issue involving the use of deposition testimony from prior litigation. Often, an attorney who attends the deposition of a friendly witness aligned with the attorney's own client does not cross-examine that witness at deposition. The question presented in this case is whether that deposition testimony may later be admitted as trial testimony against the party aligned with the witness, even though that party did not have a motive to cross-examine the witness in the prior action.
In Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers v. Superior Court, Case No. S259850, Horvitz & Levy attorneys H. Thomas Watson, Daniel Gonzalez, and Beth Jay, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict in the law concerning whether a corporation can be held responsible for the allegedly negligent act of its employee and required to pay wildfire suppression and investigation costs when the corporation did not perform, authorize, or ratify the allegedly negligent act that caused the wildfire.
These two new cases join five other cases on Horvitz & Levy’s docket of cases currently pending before the California Supreme Court:
Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit (S259027)
Han v. Hallberg (S256659)
Quidel Corporation v. Superior Court (S258283)
Sandoval v. QualComm Inc. (S252796)
Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (S253593)
