Taylor et al. v. Tesla, Inc. et al. :: California Court of Appeals

Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription.

43	Filed: 8/30/2024, Entered: None
	Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment).


42	Filed: 8/30/2024, Entered: None
	Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment).
	Request

41	Filed: 8/8/2024, Entered: None
	Opinion filed. (Signed Published) The trial court's order denying Tesla's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. Costs on appeal shall be awarded to respondents.
	Request

40	Filed: 7/12/2024, Entered: None
	Response filed to: Letter dated 7/12/2024 by Matthew Helland re: respondents have no objection to the Court taking judicial notice in its forthcoming opinion
	Request

39	Filed: 7/11/2024, Entered: None
	Response filed to: Letter dated 7/11/2024 by Raymond Cardozo re: appellant has no objection to the Court referencing the class certification ruling
	Request

38	Filed: 7/11/2024, Entered: None
	Order filed.: It is the court's understanding that, after the record was filed, after briefing was completed, and after submission of the appeal following oral argument on May 13, 2024, the trial court certified a class in Vaughn v. Tesla, Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG17882082. While, if true, the panel does not view that development as having any material bearing on the resolution of the anti-SLAPP issues presented in this appeal, in the course of describing the Vaughn litigation in its forthcoming opinion the panel may wish to take judicial notice that a Vaughn class has been certified. Please promptly notify the clerk in writing whether you have any objection to the court doing so.
	Request

37	Filed: 5/13/2024, Entered: None
	Cause argued and submitted.
	Request

36	Filed: 5/8/2024, Entered: None
	Order filed.: At oral argument on May 13, 2024, the parties may address any issues they wish, but should be prepared to discuss questions members of the panel may have on the following issues: 1. Anti-SLAPP Step One: Assuming the court declines to follow the step one holding in Crossroads Investors v. Federal National Mortgage Association (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 757 (Crossroads) because that case deals with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(1) and (2), and assuming further the court views the more relevant provision to be section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4), a. Under the ?content? step of the FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133 content-and-context test, is it correct to view the extensive news coverage of allegations of racial harassment at Tesla's Fremont plant, together with Tesla's denial of those allegations, as an "issue of public interest" implicated under subdivision (e)(4)? b. Under the "context" step of the FilmOn content-and-context test, can Tesla?s refusal to produce personnel files in compliance with plaintiffs? demands for those files under the Labor Code be considered "conduct in furtherance of the right of petition" in connection with "an issue of public interest"? c. In order to satisfy the "functional relationship" test of FilmOn under both FilmOn and Geiser v. Kuhns (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1238 (Geiser), 1) Is it enough to satisfy section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4) that petitioning activity by Tesla (e.g., the refusal to produce personnel files based on its understanding of the discovery stay in Vaughn) blocked or impeded plaintiffs? participation in discussion of an issue of public interest? or, 2) In order for there to be protected conduct under 425.16, subdivision (e)(4) on this record, must there be a showing that petitioning activity by Tesla contributed to the discussion of an issue of public interest? 2. Anti-SLAPP Step Two: Assuming the court reaches step two of the anti-SLAPP analysis in this case, a. Does plaintiffs' PAGA claim allege, or must it allege in order to succeed, a "communicative act" by Tesla qualifying for the litigation privilege? If a "communicative act" is a requisite element of plaintiffs? PAGA claim, does that "communicative act" amount to a "publication or broadcast" for purposes of the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47? How, if at all, are the litigation privilege holdings in Crossroads, Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, and Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, relevant to these questions relevant to these questions? b. Should Tesla?s refusal to produce personnel files in compliance with plaintiffs' demands under the Labor Code be considered ?in its essential nature, communicative? under Kupiec v. American International Adjustment Co. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1326? c. Was Tesla?s refusal to produce personnel files in compliance with plaintiffs' demands under the Labor Code "necessarily related to" a "publication or broadcast" by Tesla for purposes of the litigation privilege under Rusheen?
	Request

35	Filed: 5/2/2024, Entered: None
	Order filed.: The oral argument hearing remains calendared for Monday, May 13, 2024, but the time, initially scheduled for 2:00 p.m., then rescheduled for 10:50 a.m., is further rescheduled for 10:30 a.m.
	Request

34	Filed: 5/1/2024, Entered: None
	Filed document entitled: oa personal appearance type; personal appearance by Matthew C. Helland for rspt Sharonda Taylor;
	Request

33	Filed: 5/1/2024, Entered: None
	Filed document entitled: oa appearance type; personal appearance by Raymond A. Cardozo for aplt Tesla;
	Request

32	Filed: 4/30/2024, Entered: None
	Order filed.: On the court's own motion, the oral argument hearing remains calendared for Monday, May 13, 2024, but the time has been advanced from 2:00 p.m. to 10:50 a.m.
	Request

31	Filed: 4/22/2024, Entered: None
	Argument order sent.: 5.13.24, 2 pm;
	Request

30	Filed: 4/5/2024, Entered: None
	Request for oral argument filed by: By attorney Raymond Cardozo for appellant Tesla, Inc.
	Request

29	Filed: 4/3/2024, Entered: None
	Request for oral argument filed by: By attorney Matthew Helland for respondent Taylor
	Request

28	Filed: 3/29/2024, Entered: None
	Oral argument waiver notice sent.
	Request

27	Filed: 3/29/2024, Entered: None
	Case on conference list.
	Request

26	Filed: 3/29/2024, Entered: None
	Record to court for review.
	Request

25	Filed: 3/27/2024, Entered: None
	Case fully briefed.
	Request

24	Filed: 3/27/2024, Entered: None
	Appellant's reply brief.: Defendant and Appellant: Tesla, Inc. Attorney: Raymond A. Cardozo Defendant and Appellant: Tesla Motors, Inc.
	Request

23	Filed: 2/22/2024, Entered: None
	Stipulation of extension of time filed to: Appellant's reply brief. Due on 03/27/2024 By 20 Day(s) arb stip; 3/7/2024 to 3/27/2024
	Request

22	Filed: 2/16/2024, Entered: None
	Respondent's brief.: Plaintiff and Respondent: Sharonda Taylor Attorney: Matthew Carl Helland Plaintiff and Respondent: Shaka Green Plaintiff and Respondent: Tatianna Smith Plaintiff and Respondent: Zenobia MMilligan
	Request

21	Filed: 1/8/2024, Entered: None
	Filed proof of service.: for rb stip (continued)
	Request

20	Filed: 1/8/2024, Entered: None
	Filed proof of service.: For rb stip
	Request

19	Filed: 1/8/2024, Entered: None
	Stipulation of extension of time filed to: Respondent's brief. Due on 02/16/2024 By 31 Day(s) rb stip; 1/16/2024 to 2/16/2024
	Request

18	Filed: 12/14/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's appendix filed.: Volume 3 of 3; Pages 1128-1729
	Request

17	Filed: 12/14/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's appendix filed.: Volume 2 of 3; Pages 449-1127
	Request

16	Filed: 12/14/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's appendix filed.: Volume 1 of 3; Pages 1-448
	Request

15	Filed: 12/14/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's opening brief.: Defendant and Appellant: Tesla, Inc. Attorney: Raymond A. Cardozo
	Request

14	Filed: 12/1/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.: Defendant and Appellant: Tesla, Inc. Defendant and Appellant: Tesla Motors, Inc.
	Request

13	Filed: 10/12/2023, Entered: None
	Record on appeal filed.: R-1(e-filed) Entire Record Electronic
	Request

12	Filed: 10/12/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: 08/03/2023. Designating 8.124 with RT.
	Request

11	Filed: 10/12/2023, Entered: None
	Certificate of county clerk filed: Filed 10/03/2023. Appellant elected to proceed per CRC 8.124 with RT. No further record shall be coming from Superior Court.
	Request

10	Filed: 10/4/2023, Entered: None
	Received copy of: Paper copy of civil case information statement
	Request

9	Filed: 9/29/2023, Entered: None
	Civil case information statement filed.: Defendant and Appellant: Tesla, Inc. Attorney: Raymond A. Cardozo (order attached)
	Request

8	Filed: 9/15/2023, Entered: None
	Default notice sent; no case information statement filed, or statement incomplete.
	Request

7	Filed: 8/20/2023, Entered: None
	Filing fee.: Check # 1039957, Legal Support Network, LLC
	Request

6	Filed: 8/20/2023, Entered: None
	Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: 08/03/2023. Designating 8.124 with RT.
	Request

5	Filed: 8/3/2023, Entered: None
	Association of attorneys filed for: for aplts Tesla; Tellado associates Cardozo;
	Request

4	Filed: 8/3/2023, Entered: None
	Civil case information statement filed.: Defendant and Appellant: Tesla, Inc. Attorney: Christina Theresa Tellado from Tesla;
	Request

3	Filed: 8/3/2023, Entered: None
	Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: from aplts Tesla et al.; no interested;
	Request

2	Filed: 7/27/2023, Entered: None
	Notified parties of local rules and procedures.
	Request

1	Filed: 7/27/2023, Entered: None
	Notice of appeal lodged/received.: Filed 07/24/2023 by Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc. appealing order from 07/07/2023.
	Request