In this case the Court of Appeal decided whether a 998 offer that did not include a provision specifying how to accept the offer resulted in a judgment where the party receiving the offer communicated acceptance by signing the offer itself, and filing the signed offer with the trial court. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment arguing that the 998 offer of $25,000.01 to settle a defamation claim he authored and served was invalid for failure to include an acceptance provision. The trial court ultimately agreed with the motion and vacated the judgment relying on the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 998 which specifically requires for the offer to be valid that it include a provision stating how the offer may be accepted.

Plaintiff in this case alleged that because he found his personally identifying information on the dark web, Walmart had suffered a data breach. Walmart argued that Plaintiff’s failure to allege the time the breach occurred was fatal because the CCPA could not apply to any breach occurring before January 1, 2020, the date it took effect. The Court also held that Plaintiff’s CCPA claim failed because Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege disclosure of his personal information. The Court found insufficient the Complaint’s allegation that the breach compromised the full names, financial account information, credit card information, and other PII of Walmart customers: “[a]lthough in the Complaint Plaintiff generally refers to financial information and credit card fraud, he does not allege the disclosure of a credit or debit card or account number, and the required security or access code to access the account.”

The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and preserved the previously understood interpretation of Penal Code section 632.7, that it requires the consent of all parties to a call before the call can be recorded. Section 632.7 makes it a crime when a person, "without consent of all parties to a communication," intercepts or intentionally records a communication transmitted between a cellular or cordless telephone and another telephone. The court of appeal had held that only non-parties were required to obtain consent. The Supreme Court reversed and held that recording a communication without the speaker's consent is unlawful, regardless of whether a party to the call or someone else is recording the call.

The US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, holding that to be considered an “automatic telephone dialing system” (or “autodialer”) for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the phone number used by the device to make the call must have been created by a random or sequential number generator, so that the number was either stored by the system, or generated by the system prior to dialing. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s holding that a device was an autodialer if it “store[d] numbers to be called” and “dial[ed] such numbers automatically,” resolving a circuit split on the scope of the term.

In this case the Court of Appeals upheld imposition of arbitration in a case in which the Defendant did not sign the agreement. That is, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against their employer, and the defendant made a motion to have it transferred out of court and to an arbitrator.

In Patterson v. Superior Court , a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) case, the Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its order awarding attorney fees to defendant Charter. The court held that a fee-shifting clause awarding fees in connection with a motion to compel arbitration risks chilling an employee's access to court in a FEHA case, and that the legislature amended the law to make clear that defendants are not entitled to fees unless the defendant establishes plaintiff's opposition to a motion to compel arbitration was groundless. The Court reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to consider whether the opposition was groundless, because no such finding was made by the trial court.

In Contreras v. Superior Court the Court was called upon to decide whether the determination of Plaintiff’s standing to pursue Public Attorney General Act (often called “PAGA”) claims was for an arbitrator or the court. PAGA claims, brought by an aggrieved employee, are not subject to arbitration per California law. So the Court was ultimately deciding whether the arbitrator had the authority to determine his own authority to decide the matter. The defendant was a transportation service with an app that required the drivers to agree to terms of service when logging in for the first time. The agreement included an arbitration provision with a class action waiver. The plaintiffs, who were former drivers through the app, filed a PAGA suit against the defendant, alleging misclassification as independent contractors. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

In 2019 California’s legislature passed and the governor signed AB 51, which makes it unlawful for employers to condition employment or a benefit of employment on the employee waiving their right to trial and being required to arbitrate their disputes. The employer in this case argued that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts AB 51, an argument that was successful in previously casting aside California law preventing class action waivers. This time the argument fell flat, and the Ninth Circuit upheld most of the law, holding that mandatory arbitration agreements are enforceable in an employment context. The Court reasoned that since agreements generally, arbitration or otherwise, are only enforceable if both parties have a choice to enter into the agreement, a law codifying this notion with respect to arbitration agreements did not run afoul of the Federal Arbitration Act that prohibits laws that discriminate against agreements to arbitrate.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that despite language in an insurance policy requiring that the insurer cover defense fees for false advertising or unfair competition claims, a retailer was required pay for its own defense in a state consumer protection lawsuit brought against it by the California Attorney General. The retailer was therefore forced to pay to its insurer approximately two million Dollars to compensate the insurer for the amounts it already had expended to defend the retailer.

In this case a hotel sued its insurer to recover for COVID related losses. As the Court itself related in the decision, the case “[P]resent[ed] an issue of first impression for a California appellate court: does a commercial property insurance policy provide coverage for a business’s lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic?” The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that there was no coverage, as the spread of the disease did not cause direct physical damage to the business’ property that resulted in losses.