CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Arbitration

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan (2026) _ Cal.5th _ , 2026 WL 265574: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in an employment case. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the employment arbitration agreement was unconscionable based on a very high degree of procedural unconscionability (including the agreement’s tiny, blurry print and rushed presentation) and a low-to-moderate degree of substantive unconscionability (including a perceived one-sided carveout tied to later confidentiality agreements). The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to grant the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that illegibility goes only to procedural unconscionability and that, properly construed, the confidentiality agreements did not create substantive one-sidedness. The Supreme Court held that format/legibility generally does not itself establish substantive unconscionability, but concluded the Court of Appeal erred by using a pro-arbitration interpretive presumption and by directing an order compelling arbitration rather than remanding. The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further trial-court proceedings (including consideration of unresolved validity/assent and related issues) consistent with the clarified unconscionability framework. (February 2, 2026.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Attorney Fees

Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 63123: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant law firm’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that although the firm lacked the client’s consent to settle when the settlement was entered, the client later ratified the settlement and that ratification related back, entitling the firm to its full contingency fee (with prejudgment interest). Defendant was awarded $2,761,380.29 in attorney fees plus $522,770.90 in prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding there were no triable issues of material fact that the client’s ratification was involuntary (including no sufficient showing of duress or loss-minimization), and also upheld the denial of a motion continuance and the award of prejudgment interest. (C.A. 2nd, January 8, 2026.) 

Employment

Spilman v. The Salvation Army (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 35953: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging wage and hour issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding California’s wage-and-hour laws did not apply because plaintiffs, who performed full-time “work therapy” while enrolled in defendant’s six-month residential substance-abuse rehabilitation program, were volunteers rather than employees due to the absence of any express or implied agreement for compensation. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed, holding that while nonprofit volunteers can fall outside the wage laws, the trial court had applied the wrong standard. When the question is whether a nonprofit organization has properly classified a worker as an unpaid volunteer rather than an employee, the nonprofit must establish that (1) the worker freely agreed to work for the nonprofit to obtain a personal or charitable benefit, rather than for compensation, and (2) overall, the nonprofit organization’s use of the volunteer labor is not a subterfuge to evade the wage laws. (C.A. 1st, January 6, 2026.)

Torts

Fisher v. Fisher (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 538717: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff Todd Fisher, following a jury trial, in a wrongful death action related to the death of his brother Wade Fisher. Plaintiff and his brother Wade had been engaged in a feud with their brothers Brittin and Kent Fisher over the division of their parents’ estate. Plaintiff alleged that Brittin and Kent Fisher falsely reported their mother was missing, even though they knew she had died of natural causes, with the intent to cast suspicion on Todd and Wade, and this act was very upsetting to Wade Fisher who had been sober for 15 years. After this event Wade relapsed and drove his motorcycle drunk with marijuana in his system without a helmet and he crashed and died. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and they conspired to make false statements to SDPD requiring law enforcement intervention, and acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury found defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress and harm to Wade. They awarded about $5.1 million to Wade’s estate and $4.3 million to Todd, including $80,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress could be a legal cause of Wade Fisher’s relapse and subsequent death, and it rejected defendants’ other appellate challenges (including claims regarding curtailed cross-examination and damages). (C.A. 4th, February 26, 2026.) 

Trial 

Jogani v. Jogani (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 508478: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part (conditionally affirmed and modified in part, and dismissed in part) the trial court’s judgment, following a five-month jury trial, in favor of brothers Shashi Jogani, Rajesh Jogani, and Chetan Jogani related to their claims of ownership in the family’s diamond and real estate partnerships, awarding declaratory relief and compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and related relief totaling about $6.85 billion against Haresh Jogani and related entities. The Court of Appeal ruled that defendants failed to show reversible error on most issues raised on appeal. However, it concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an undisclosed damages-expert opinion regarding approximately $1.98 billion in alleged lost profits, so it conditionally affirmed the judgment and ordered through remittitur a reduction of economic damages relating to the real estate partnership for the purported $1.98 billion in lost investment profit. If any of the prevailing parties do not agree to the reduction, then the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial as to that individual’s economic damages arising out of the real estate partnership and his punitive damages. The Court of Appeal otherwise affirmed the judgment. (C.A. 2nd, February 24, 2026.)