party claiming waiver in California

2025Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1 , 33–34 (Waller).) “ ‘The burden … is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and “doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver.” ’ ” (Waller, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 31 .) A “trial court may properly resolve an issue of waiver as a question of law when the underlying facts are undisputed.” (Old Republic, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 679 .) The evidence submitted in connection with Fry’s third motion established by clear and convincing evidence that Calcot did, ind

2025Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1 , 33–34 (Waller).) “ ‘The burden … is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and “doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver.” ’ ” (Waller, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 31 .) A “trial court may properly resolve an issue of waiver as a question of law when the underlying facts are undisputed.” (Old Republic, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 679 .) The evidence submitted in connection with Fry’s third motion established by clear and convincing evidence that Calcot did, ind

2020The burden, moreover, is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does 7 not leave the matter to speculation, and ‘doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver.’” (City of Ukiah v. Fones (1966) 64 Cal.2d 104, 107-108 .) Here, it is uncontradicted that Jon Small, who was not represented by counsel, moved for dismissal of the action based on Thomas Allen’s bankruptcy.

2016Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31 (Waller).) “ ‘The burden . . . is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and “doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver” [citation].’ ” (Id. at p. 31, quoting City of Ukiah v. Fones (1966) 64 Cal.2d 104, 107-108 .) A key component of the doctrine of waiver is intent; consequently, the mere failure to call attention in a denial letter to an exclusion or limitations provision is not enough to bar the insurer from asserting such a defense. ( Waller, supra, at

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2016"Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right." (13 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Equity, § 193, p. 533.) "The pivotal issue in a claim of waiver is the intention of the party who allegedly relinquished the known legal right." (DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Cafe & Takeout III, Ltd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 54, 60 .) " 'The burden, moreover, is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and "doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver." ' " (Ibid.) Rangappa did no

2014The burden, moreover, is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the 5 matter to speculation, and “doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver.”’ [Citations.]” (DRG, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 60 .) Herrera asserts the parties’ intent regarding attorney fees is clearly demonstrated in the language of the Agreement.

2024“The application of any of the exceptions enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) depends entirely on a detailed 9 analysis of the relevant facts by the juvenile court. [Citations.] If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395 , 402–403.)

2022(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“The juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies. [Citations.] The party claiming an exception to adoption has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the exception applies”]; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 [same].) Ronald did not do so, raising only a general objection to adoption at the section 366.26 hearing and requesting the court order the Department to evaluate legal guardianship as the permanent plan for the children.

2020If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H., supra, at 3 p. 575.) On the other hand, “ ‘[w]hen the benefits from a stable and permanent home provided by adoption outweigh the benefits from a continued parent/child relationship, the court should order adoption.’ ” (In re Jasmine D., supra, at p. 1350 ; In re Autumn H., at p. 575.) The party claiming the exception ha

2016If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); accord, In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 (C.F.).) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail o

1993(BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1252 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 ] [erroneous legal concession not waiver because not intentional and knowing].) “The burden is on the party claiming the waiver to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that “does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain . . . ” (Pacific Valley Bank v. Schwenke (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 134, 145 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 298 ], quoting In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 469 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 683 P.2d 248 ].) Waiver requires “ ‘sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel

1993(BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1252 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 ] [erroneous legal concession not waiver because not intentional and knowing].) “The burden is on the party claiming the waiver to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that “does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain . . . ” (Pacific Valley Bank v. Schwenke (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 134, 145 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 298 ], quoting In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 469 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 683 P.2d 248 ].) Waiver requires “ ‘sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel

2019Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 729 .) Once the party claiming the privilege "establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply." (Costco, at p. 733; § 917, subd. (a).) Here, there is no dispute that Gilleon had an attorney-client relationship with Hoover.

2018Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723 , 729, 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 .) Once the party claiming the privilege "establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is *611 presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply." ( Costco , at p. 733, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 , 219 P.3d 736 ; § 917, subd. (a).) Here, there is no dispute that Gilleon had an attorn

2020(People v. Montgomery (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1021 ; accord, In re Marcos B. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 299, 308 [defense counsel has the right to propose questions for the in camera hearing].) 9 Between the original question being framed in the negative, an evidentiary objection causing a lengthy gap, and a readback, there may be some ambiguity in what Schnautz meant in answering “Yes.” 21 Schnautz stumbled over how to spell or pronounce Edgerrin’s name and did not appear to know who he was.

2020(People v. Montgomery (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1021 ; accord, In re Marcos B. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 299, 308 [defense counsel has the right to propose questions for the in camera hearing].) 9 Between the original question being framed in the negative, an evidentiary objection causing a lengthy gap, and a readback, there may be some ambiguity in what Schnautz meant in answering “Yes.” 21 Schnautz stumbled over how to spell or pronounce Edgerrin’s name and did not appear to know who he was.

2026The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368 .) There are limited circumstances permitting the court to find a “compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) One such circumstance is the beneficial parental relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re

2026The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368 .) There are limited circumstances permitting the court to find a “compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) One such circumstance is the beneficial parental relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re

2016If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); accord, In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 (C.F.).) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail o

2015(C.F., supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 555 ; Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 .) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 (Jasmine D.).) 22 The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing the existence of any circumstances that constitute an exception to termination of parental rights.

2022The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.” (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing the existence of any circumstances that constitute an exception to termination of parental rights.

2022The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a parent[-]child bond.” (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.) The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing the existence of any circumstances that constitute an exception to termination of parental rights.

2024“The application of any of the exceptions enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) depends entirely on a detailed 9 analysis of the relevant facts by the juvenile court. [Citations.] If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395 , 402–403.)

2022(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“The juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies. [Citations.] The party claiming an exception to adoption has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the exception applies”]; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 [same].) Ronald did not do so, raising only a general objection to adoption at the section 366.26 hearing and requesting the court order the Department to evaluate legal guardianship as the permanent plan for the children.

2016Merrill & Sons (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1833, 1841 .) "Our review of an arbitration award requires us to extend to it every intendment of validity and the party claiming error has the burden of supporting his contention." (Ibid., citing Cobler v. Stanley, Barbert, Southard, Brown & Associates (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 518, 526 ; Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 (Evans).) Unless one of the enumerated statutory grounds exists, a court may not vacate an arbitration award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its 3 Knysh contends that Garcia waived his right t

2015Merrill & Sons (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1833, 1841 .) "Our review of an arbitration award requires us to extend to it every intendment of validity and the party claiming error has the burden of supporting his contention." (Ibid., citing Cobler v. Stanley, Barber, Southard, Brown & Associates (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 518, 526 ; Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 (Evans).) As explained in Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 48 Cal.4th 665, 676 , " 'It is well settled that "arbitrators do not exceed their powers merely because they assign an erroneous

1993(BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1252 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 ] [erroneous legal concession not waiver because not intentional and knowing].) “The burden is on the party claiming the waiver to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that “does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain . . . ” (Pacific Valley Bank v. Schwenke (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 134, 145 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 298 ], quoting In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 469 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 683 P.2d 248 ].) Waiver requires “ ‘sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel

1993(BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1252 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 682 ] [erroneous legal concession not waiver because not intentional and knowing].) “The burden is on the party claiming the waiver to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that “does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain . . . ” (Pacific Valley Bank v. Schwenke (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 134, 145 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 298 ], quoting In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459, 469 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 568 , 683 P.2d 248 ].) Waiver requires “ ‘sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel

2021(See Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733; Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818, 825 .) The party claiming the privilege must show the “dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication was one of attorney-client.” (Clark v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 37, 51 ; Costco, at pp. 739-740.) As stated, Plaintiffs in their return admit that the e-mail about which their counsel sought to question Catalano was from Novartis’s in-house counsel to other Novartis employees and marked privileged and confidential.

2004Code, § 917.) However, the party claiming privilege has the burden to show that the communication sought to be suppressed falls within the terms of the statute. [Citations.] It is also established that a communication which was not privileged to begin with may not be made so by subsequent delivery to the attorney. [Citation.]” (Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818, 824-825 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 752 ].) Here, the showing made by La Jolla Cove at best demonstrated that Durisoe and Baxter possessed certain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, but was inadequate

2019As codified in Evidence Code section 954, the attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure confidential communications between lawyer and client. 5 (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 292 (Los Angeles County Bd.).) A "confidential communication" in this regard "means information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence . . . ." (§ 952.) It "includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship." (Ibid.) "The party claiming the privilege

2018As codified in Evidence Code section 954, the attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure confidential communications between lawyer and client. 5 ( Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282 , 292, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 107 , 386 P.3d 773 ( Los Angeles County Bd. ).) A "confidential communication" in this regard "means information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence ...." (§ 952.) It "includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship." ( Ib

2021(In re Cristella C. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1372-1373 ; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 ; Rule 5.725(d)(2); Evid.

2015The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368 , original emphasis.) There are only limited circumstances which permit the court to find a “compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing the existence of any

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2025Chadbourne).) “[T]o determine whether a communication is privileged, the focus of the inquiry is the dominant purpose of the relationship between the parties to the communication.” (Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 .) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the oppon

2016Merrill & Sons (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1833, 1841 .) "Our review of an arbitration award requires us to extend to it every intendment of validity and the party claiming error has the burden of supporting his contention." (Ibid., citing Cobler v. Stanley, Barbert, Southard, Brown & Associates (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 518, 526 ; Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 (Evans).) Unless one of the enumerated statutory grounds exists, a court may not vacate an arbitration award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its 3 Knysh contends that Garcia waived his right t

2015Merrill & Sons (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1833, 1841 .) "Our review of an arbitration award requires us to extend to it every intendment of validity and the party claiming error has the burden of supporting his contention." (Ibid., citing Cobler v. Stanley, Barber, Southard, Brown & Associates (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 518, 526 ; Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 157 (Evans).) As explained in Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 48 Cal.4th 665, 676 , " 'It is well settled that "arbitrators do not exceed their powers merely because they assign an erroneous

2024“The application of any of the exceptions enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) depends entirely on a detailed 9 analysis of the relevant facts by the juvenile court. [Citations.] If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395 , 402–403.)

2003(In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ]; see also In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 402-403 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ].) The party claiming an exception to adoption has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the exception applies.