Legal News and Appellate Tips

Each week, TVA appellate attorney Tim Kowal reviews several recent decisions out of the appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, and reports about the ones that might help you get an edge in your cases and appeals.

If you would like to receive weekly updates of the articles posted here, click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Tag: Exclusion of Evidence

Excluding Expert's Rebuttal Opinion Can Be Grounds to Reverse Jury Verdict

CEB has my article, “Excluding Expert's Rebuttal Opinion Can Be Grounds to Reverse Jury Verdict,” about Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. (May 26, 2022, B302544) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. Here is the link: https://bit.ly/3bqglfY

The case involved a trial error in which the judge excluded the defendant’s expert to rebut the plaintiff’s expert on causation. The trial court excluded the expert because the expert’s confidence in the opinion did not exceed 50% likelihood.

The Court of Appeal reversed. A defendant’s expert doesn’t have to prove 51% likelihood. The 51% threshold is the plaintiff’s burden of proof, not the defendant’s. And where the excluded rebuttal opinion was the only rebuttal opinion, the exclusion leads to a “one-sided presentation of evidence.” This was a structural error, requiring automatic reversal.

Read More
Exclusion of Expert Opinion Held Structural Error on Appeal Requiring Automatic Reversal

In one of the many lawsuits by hip-replacement patients against the maker of the Durom Cup, Kline v. Zimmer, Inc. (D2d8 may 26, 2022) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ 2022 WL 1679539 held the trial court committed structural error when it improperly excluded Zimmer’s expert to rebut the plaintiff’s expert. This is surprising because, normally, trial court rulings on evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and errors are only reversed if the appellant shows they affected the result. But the exclusion of a rebuttal expert here resulted in automatic reversal.

Basically, the plaintiff offered an expert to opine that the Durom Cup was the cause of the pain and suffering. Zimmer’s expert was going to opine about other possible causes, even if they were less than 51% likely to be the cause. The trial court excluded it because medical expert opinion has to be 51% likely.

The Court of Appeal reversed. A defendant’s expert doesn’t have to prove 51% likelihood. The 51% threshold is the plaintiff’s burden of proof, not the defendant’s.

And where the excluded rebuttal opinion was the only rebuttal opinion, the exclusion leads to a “one-sided presentation of evidence.” This was a structural error, requiring automatic reversal.

The Upshot: This is the second reversal after a trial, which means the parties will have to try this case a third time. The trial judge, the Hon. Daniel J. Buckley, is a former personal-injury defense attorney. This suggests that, despite the care and experience devoted to this trial, trial procedure governing experts is both extraordinarily important and extraordinarily variable. To the extent expert issues can be crystallized in motions in limine, trial counsel should consider taking up a writ petition.

Read More
Trial Court’s Refusal to Consider Declaration Supporting Domestic Violence Restraining Order Held Grounds for Reversal

Trial judges have wide latitude over the evidence that comes into the record at trial. The judge might sustain an objection to your smoking gun, or could allow damaging evidence despite your valid objections. These problems may be raised on appeal, but appellate courts give trial judges wide latitude on evidentiary rulings.

But not in M.H. v. C.H. (D5 Mar. 18, 2022 no. F082268) 2022 WL 817842 (nonpub. opn.). In a proceeding for a domestic violence restraining order, the trial court “shall consider the totality of the circumstances” in making its ruling. (Fam. Code, § 6301, subd. (c).) This includes considering “the affidavit or testimony.” (§ 6300, subd. (a).)

The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s refusal to consider declarations or evidence other than offered at the evidentiary hearing “is contrary to law. Application of this erroneous view was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”

#AppellateLinkedIn: Note the ambivalent framing of the nature of the trial court’s error: the court frames it as both “legal error,” and as “abuse of discretion.” Why do courts insist on doing this?

Read More
Trial Court’s “Blanket” Rulings on Evidence May Be Treated with Suspicion

A trial court’s rulings on evidentiary objections are tough to reverse on appeal. But what about when the rulings are reflexive and not really supported by any analysis? In some cases, such “blanket” rulings may be found to be an abuse of discretion and reversed on appeal.

The appellant argued improper “blanket” rulings were the reason an anti-SLAPP motion was granted against him in *[Foley v. McElroy](https://casetext.com/case/foley-v-mcelroy?resultsNav=false&jxs=ca&tab=keyword)* (D4d1 Dec. 6, 2021 no. D077299) 2021 WL 5766572 (nonpub. opn.). But the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed.

Also: remember that anti-SLAPP orders are directly appealable. Do not wait around for a judgment.

Read More
Ruling Excluding Expert Testimony on MSJ Reversed on Appeal

There are two noteworthy things about the published opinion in Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (D1d4 Sept. 21, 2021) 2021 WL 4272711 no. A159609. First, it suggests how litigants might have avoided the dreaded Sanchez rule that prevents experts from offering "case-specific hearsay" in their opinions. Second, it suggests some evidentiary rulings may be reviewed under the appellant-friendly de novo standard of review, rather than the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Exclusion of Expert Data Affirmed on Appeal; But Exlusion of Expert Opinion Based on That Data Reversed

When it comes to expert evidence, the trial court may properly exclude evidence that was not actually prepared by the expert. The normal rules of evidence authentication still apply, even where experts are concerned. But when an expert wants to offer opinions based on the same unauthenticated and unadmitted evidence, excluding that opinion may be an abuse of discretion.

That is the holding of the published opinion in Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC (D2d7 Aug. 13, 2021) 2021 WL 3579021 no. B297023. In an employee's PAGA claim, the employee-plaintiff retained two experts. One expert was retained to convert the employer's time records into an Excel spreadsheet. The second expert was retained to opine on the spreadsheet. It was an abuse of discretion to exclude the second expert's opinion merely because it was based on the first expert's excluded report.

And trial counsel may have acted shrewdly in resting her case after the devastating ruling without offering other evidence, as it made it very easy to establish the ruling prejudiced her case.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Trial Judge's Incorrect Ruling on Evidence Leads to Reversal on Appeal

"I have done a lot of appeals," a colleague told me recently discussing how important evidentiary objections were at trial, "and I have never seen a court reverse because of an evidentiary ruling."

Responding to that challenge is Nicholson v. Southern California Edison Co. (D2d7 Jun. 22, 2021) no. B302287 (nonpub. opn.). Injured electricians sued Edison for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Edison by excluding the plaintiffs' testimony.

This was an abuse of discretion. The evidence was based on personal knowledge, and it was relevant to a material fact. Reversed.

The upshot: Do not try to win a summary judgment motion by excluding the opposing party's evidence. Any victory by such means will likely be short-lived.

Read More
Trial court abused its discretion in striking evidence offered in anti-SLAPP reply brief

If new evidence is truly in reply to an argument raised for the first time in an opposition, the trial court abuses its discretion in excluding it. New evidence may […]

Read More

Tags

Podcast (85)
Videos (73)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (27)
Abuse of Discretion (23)
Legal Writing (21)
Notices of Appeal (18)
Statements of Decision (17)
Waiver and Forfeiture (16)
Unpublished Opinions (16)
Stays on Appeal (16)
Splits of Authority (15)
Mischief (15)
Attorney Fees (14)
Arbitration (14)
Dismissals (14)
Anti-SLAPP (13)
Dissents (12)
Briefing (12)
Family Law (11)
Record on Appeal (11)
New Trial Motions (11)
Mootness (10)
Timeliness (10)
Sanctions (9)
Appellate Sanctions (9)
Civility (9)
Judgment Enforcement (9)
Oral Argument (9)
California Supreme Court (9)
Preliminary Injunctions (9)
Evidentiary Objections (9)
Collateral Orders (9)
Federal Courts (9)
Motions for Reconsideration (8)
Exclusion of Evidence (8)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (8)
Jurisdiction (8)
Implied Findings (8)
Appealability (8)
Dismissed Appeals (8)
Experts (8)
Trial Strategy (8)
CCP 998 Offers (7)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (7)
Respondent Arguments (7)
Ninth Circuit (7)
Writ Petitions (7)
Trial Procedure (7)
Probate Appeals (7)
Disqualification (6)
Appellate Bonds (6)
Admission of Improper Evidence (6)
Standards of Review (6)
Appellate Practice (6)
Discovery (6)
Substantial Evidence (6)
Stipulated Judgments (6)
Settlements (6)
Posttrial Motions (5)
Default Judgments (5)
Ethical Duty of Candor (5)
Standing (5)
Finding Compelled as a Matter of Law (Failure of Proof) Standard of Review (5)
Notices of Entry (4)
Depublished Opinions (4)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (4)
Excessive Damages (4)
Trust and Probate (4)
Appeals Treated as Writs (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Disentitlement Doctrine (4)
Frivolous Motions (3)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Petitions for Review (3)
Jury Waivers (3)
Summary Judgments (3)
Expert Opinions (3)
Motions to Dismiss (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Appealable Orders (3)
Mediation (3)
Stays (3)
Demurrers (3)
Motions to Vacate (3)
Amicus Briefs (3)
Trial Irregularities and Structural Errors (3)
Right to Jury Trial (3)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (2)
Law and Motion (2)
Contempt (2)
Attorney Client Privilege (2)
Forfeiture and Waiver (2)
PAGA Actions (2)
Remote Arguments (2)
Litigation Tips (2)
Recovery of Costs (2)
Standards of Evidence (2)
Personal Jurisdiction (2)
ADA and Unruh Accessibility Actions (2)
Tentative Rulings (2)
Landlord Tenant (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Prejudicial Error (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Invited Error (2)
Waiver (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Legal Practice (2)
Finality and Final Orders (2)
Pretrial Procedure (2)
Federal Appeals (2)
Alter Ego (2)
Post Reversal Issues (2)
Pretrial Issues (2)
Class Actions (2)
Comments (2)
Medical Rights (2)
Premature Appeals (2)
Legal Tech (2)
Civil Theft (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Frivolous Appeals (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Referral Fees (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
Employment Law (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Juror Misconduct (1)
Product Liability (1)
Clear and Convincing (1)
Clerks Service of File Stamped Judgment (1)
Designating the Record (1)
Trade Restraints (1)
Civil Code 3334 (1)
Benefits Obtained Trespass Damages (1)
Trespass (1)
Property Rights (1)
Inherent Authority (1)
Support Awards (1)
Forfeiture (1)
PostJudgment Litigation (1)
Unsupported Arguments (1)
Petitions for Rehearing (1)
Judicial Notice (1)
Post Reversal (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Appellate Briefing (1)
Pleadings (1)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Judicial Estoppel (1)
Harmless Error (1)
Record Designation (1)
Typeface (1)
Typography (1)
Jury Instructions (1)
Precedent (1)
New Arguments (1)
Third Parties and Nonparties (1)
Ninth CircuitAbuse of Discretion (1)
Out-of-State Litigant (1)
Family Court (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Dicta (1)
Petitionf ro Review (1)
DismissalsAppealability and Appealable Orders (1)
Motions to Quash (1)
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (1)
Consenting to Judgments (1)
Law of the Case (1)
Record (1)
Bankruptcy (1)
Local Rules (1)
Evidentiary Presumptions (1)
New Trial (1)
Exhaustion of Remedies (1)
Waived and Forfeiture (1)
Per Se Errors (1)
Review as Writ Petition (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Summary Reversal (1)
Judicial Misconduct (1)
Stipulated Reversals (1)
Constitutional Litigation (1)
Constitutional Law (1)
Mistrials (1)
Administrative Law (1)
Podcasts (1)
Writs of Mandamus (CCP 1085) (1)
Nonsuit (1)
Closing Argument (1)
Stare Decisis (1)
Settled Statements (1)
Nonsuits JNOVs and 631.8 Judgments (1)
Retainer Agreements (0)
Professional Ethics (0)
Appellate (0)
Notice of Appeal (0)
Landlore Tenant (0)
Split of Authority (0)
No categories Legal Writing (0)
crossmenuchevron-down