Business Law Journal

In Buchheim v. Anaya (Cal.App.2d, Aug. 25, 2026, No. B339494) 2026 WL 2490938 (“Buchheim”), a California Court of Appeal recently analyzed a dispute concerning a series of financial transactions between a lender and borrower who had been working together over many years to buy and flip residential real estate. In Buchheim, the Court of Appeal held that in financial matters, unexplained statements of fervent belief lose to an objective record of fact, even on summary judgment.

Many California businesses incorporate in Delaware. It is a common, and sometimes sensible choice. But incorporating elsewhere does not let a company sidestep the protections California law provides its resident shareholders. A new decision from California’s Court of Appeal, Salamon v. Orchid Global, Inc., drives that point home — and it is required reading for anyone who owns shares in, sits on the board of, or advises a Delaware company that calls California home.

In Haun v. Pagano (Cal.App.4th, Feb. 18, 2026, No. D084385) 2026 WL 455372 (“Haun”), a California Court of Appeal recently analyzed the impact of a unilateral fee-shifting provision involving competing claims for financial elder abuse brought under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Child Protection Act (codified as Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.) In Haun, the Court of Appeal held that section 15657.5(a) does not bar an award of attorneys’ fees for defense work that overlaps entirely with the successful prosecution of the prevailing petitioner’s own financial elder abuse claim.

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 Zackary Diamond v. Scott Schweitzer, et al., California Court of Appeal recently addressed whether a broad release and waiver of liability form, signed by a patron to a racing event as a prerequisite to gaining access to the pit area, released the racetrack’s owners from alleged negligence claims arising from an injury sustained as a result of a punch by a third party.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that the waiver and release protected the racetrack’s owners from such claims and affirmed summary judgment in their favor.

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. 

In Camden Systems, LLC v. 409 North Camden, LLC, a California Court of Appeal recently affirmed that a limited liability company (“LLC”) “shall have all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business activities”, which included ratifying its prior acts. Moreover, the California Court of Appeal affirmed that a member does not have standing to challenge actions taken before it became a member of the LLC, of record or beneficially; and that LLC operating agreements may (with some limitations) deviate from and supersede statutory default provisions.

In VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the importance of drafting a contract with a clear understanding of every word and clause, and the effect each has on the contract as a whole.

In modern business, nearly every employee and executive has access to, and uses a computer on a regular basis.  In line with this, employers expect that work computers will be used solely for work, and that work e-mail accounts are property of the employer, not the individual employee or officer.  However, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal found that something more is required:  without a clear policy in place prohibiting the use of an employer’s e-mail accounts for personal purposes and informing employees that their work e-mail accounts are subject to review, an employer may be prohibited from doing so, and evidence collected in that manner may be inadmissible if a dispute arises.  What’s more, your lawyer may be prevented from representing you in any disputes with the employee whose e-mail account you accessed if these proper protections are not in place.

Since its passage in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has required “places of public accommodation” to make modifications to promote accessibility for disabled persons.  But what about websites?  We previously discussed the practical and legal complications of the ADA and California’s corresponding Unruh Civil Rights Act with an earlier post here.  Although they can be accessed by the public, a website is not a physical location, even though it may sell physical goods and services.  This question has split Federal Courts of Appeal for years.  Some have held that websites only exist in cyberspace and therefore are not “places” governed by the ADA.  Others have held that a website does qualify as a “place,” so long as it is advertising goods and services provided at a specific physical facility.  The California Court of Appeal had not addressed this issue or its implications for the Unruh Act.