VERDUGO v. TARGET CORP.

No. S207313.

59 Cal.4th 312 (2014)

173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662

327 P.3d 774

MICHAEL VERDUGO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of California.

June 23, 2014.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, Robert A. Roth ; Law Offices of David G. Eisenstein and David G. Eisenstein for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Greene Broillet & Wheeler, Bruce A. Broillet , Alan Van Gelder ; Heimberg Barr and Marsha Barr-Fernandez for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Mary M. Newman for Sudden Cardiac Arrest Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Offices of Charles S. Roseman & Associates, Charles S. Roseman and Richard D. Prager for Bobbi Cohen, Ken Anderson, Anthony Bates Foundation, KEN Heart Foundation and Sarah Friend Heart Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Mayer Brown, Richard Caldarone , Donald M. Falk and Foster C. Johnson for Defendant and Respondent.

Luke Wake and Deborah J. La Fetra for National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business Legal Center and Pacific Legal Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Jackson Lewis, Dylan B. Carp and Sherry L. Swieca for Retail Litigation Center, Inc., and California Retailers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Erika C. Frank and Fred J. Hiestand for The California Chamber of Commerce and The Civil Justice Association of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Munger Tolles & Olson, Fred A. Rowley, Jr. , and John P. Mittelbach for The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and The American Tort Reform Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


OPINION

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

At the request of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we agreed to address a question of state law that is potentially determinative of an appeal now pending before that federal appellate court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548.) The question, as reformulated and narrowed to conform to the facts of the pending appeal, is whether, under California law, the common...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases