Category: News

Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hunter), Case No. S230051 (5/24/18) Criminal defendants served Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with subpoenas seeking public and private communications, including any deleted posts or messages, from the social media accounts of the homicide victim and a prosecution witness. The providers asserted the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et […]Continue reading

COURT LIMITS SCOPE OF ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE The California Supreme Court clarified the outer limits of the anti-SLAPP statute in terms of when an action meets the “arising from” prong. In Park v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 1057, the university denied tenure to a professor based on alleged national-origin [...]Continue reading

Mr. Krongold recently received board-certification in civil trials by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA). The State Bar of California accredits the NBTA to offer certification in various legal specialties, including civil trial advocacy. The elaborate screening of credentials that all NBTA board certified attorneys must successfully complete includes: demonstration of substantial trial experience, […]Continue reading

February 2016 – Steven L. Krongold was listed in A.M. Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys for Intellectual Property Litigation and related matters. Only attorneys recommended by their clients are included in the directory. The listing in this specialized resource confirms the attorney’s credentials as an individual with an established history of serving insurers and self-insured […]Continue reading

Fraud, duress, and unconscionability can invalidate contracts. In Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 899, the California Supreme Count examined the unconscionability defense involving an arbitration agreement between a car dealer and customer.  The vehicle was a 2006 pre-owned Mercedes-Benz S500 purchased for $53,498 and financed at 4.99%.  A dispute arose concerning the […]Continue reading

The parol evidence rule is tricky. The rule provides that a court cannot look to extrinsic evidence–words or conduct beyond the terms themselves–to alter or add to a written agreement that was intended by the parties to be the final expression of their deal. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal.4th 336, 343. The […]Continue reading