Business Law Journal

What happens when a judge issues a decision based on legal authority that does not exist?  And what happens if the party adversely affected by that phony decision was oblivious to that fact until after the order was issued?  In what feels like a sign of the times, the California Court of Appeal recently confronted an issue that would have been unthinkable a few years ago: a court order based, in part, on case law that was entirely fabricated by a computer program and no one blinked an eye—at least until it was too late.

In a pivotal 2025 decision, the California Supreme Court confirmed that businesses can be held to forum selection clauses even if doing so means waiving the procedural right to a jury trial under California law. This holding underscores a critical consideration for contract formation: what may seem like a routine contract clause can significantly alter your legal rights. Businesses must be vigilant during negotiations to ensure dispute resolution terms do not unintentionally undermine their position in future litigation.

In Amundson v. Catello, the California Court of Appeal reversed an order for the partition of property by sale, emphasizing that a clear ownership interest is required for standing to initiate a partition action. The recent decision also examined the limitations on an heir’s ability to act on an expected inheritance, reinforcing that property rights remain uncertain until probate and administration are finalized.