Miles v. Gernstein. Oral surrogacy agreements may be enforced in California. Family Code sections discussing written agreements regulate gestational surrogacies and surrogacies through facilitators; and create rights and presumptions from written agreements. However, those rules do not create a requirement that all surrogacy agreements must be written. In addition, a surrogate who is biologically related to a child may, not shall, be deemed the child's legal parent under the plain terms of Family Code section 7610.

K.T. v. E.S. Domestic Violence Restraining Orders. A trial court erred in denying the request to add children as protected parties in a DVRO simply because there was not any evidence of physical or sexual abuse sustained by the children. Family and household members may be included as protected parties in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause based on the totality of the circumstances.

C.T. v Superior Court. A court is not divested of continuing jurisdiction over custody under 3422(a)(2) even if the parents and minor relocate prior to issuance of final custody and visitation orders. Continuing jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of the case / filing of a request to modify, not each time individual visitation orders are issued.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation. Duties arising when you receive a document / email protected by either the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product, and the consequences for failing to act as required.

Herren v. George. Trying to enforce a $100k retainer agreement signed by an 86 year old with dementia qualifies as elder abuse.

Escamilla v. Vannucci. The statute of limitations for an action for malicious prosecution is two years under CCP §335.1 (tort law), not one year under CCP §340.6 (wrongful act of omission in the performance of legal services).

In re H.M. A trial court is only required to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the State Department of Social Services pursuant to WIC 224.2 if it needs assistance in identifying the names and contact information of tribes. No contact is necessary if the court knows that information.

In re M.V. Bias, Experts, Parental Exception, Civility and Ethics.

In re L.W. In a jurisdictional hearing under WIC 300, question is whether the section 300 criteria were met based on the facts at the time of the hearing, not the child’s initial detention.

Talbott v. Ghadimi. If the prerequisites for the application of the mandatory set aside provisions of §473(b) exist, the trial court does not have discretion to deny the request, even if the court thinks the mistake, inadvertence, or surprise was strategic (to save money).

People v. Tafoya. Threats are not protected by the First Amendment.

Ballesteros v. Ford Motor Company. Equitable Estoppel and Arbitration

Kim v. New Life Oasis Church. Issue Preclusion.