gonzalezcheerleader.jpg_r900x493Yaaay! Lets hear it for the lawyers!  Cheerleaders are not classified as employees.  Labor Code 2754.  Note, this only helps California based team cheerleaders.  Assembly Women Lorena Gonzalez, was the sponger of this bill.  Lorena was a Stanford cheerleader, she is in the photo, second from the left.  She was a smart and hot cheerleader!

know the rules on blackboard
know the rules on blackboard

C.C.P. § 430.41 added to require demurring party to attempt to meet and confer prior to filing demurrer and file meet and confer declaration with demurrer; limits on subsequent demurrers; limits amendments to pleadings after demurrer.  This statute also makes other changes, but some useful parts of this new law are:Continue Reading Demurrers Require “meet and confer” before filing CCP §430.41

Confusion-300x300In law, every word has a meaning and often one statute contradicts another.  Today with more electronic service occurring, many statutes need to be updated to reflect that form of service of notice.  When that occurs, look at the structure of the statute and if it has a specific focus, (e.g. look at the object of the sentence) .  For example, rules calculating dates can be either upon service of a document OR mailing of a document.  “Mailing” is a specific fact, while “service” is more general.  While the basic/common rule is CCP 1013 referring to “after service”, other rules for specific documents are after “mailing”.  Think,  the postmarked date may differ from service.  An example is the deadline for service of a memo of costs after judgment is after the clerk/party mails notice of entry of judgment (CRC Rule 3.1700) So depositing into a post box at 6:00 p.m. Friday but it is picked up and postmarked the next Monday is mailing on Monday.  So look beyond the common “extension statute”  CCP § 1013 (mailing) and CCP §1010.6 (fax/overnight delivery) for others such as the following:
Continue Reading Statutes referring to Mailing use a different date For Calculation of Responses

The Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Chen v Kraft (2016) 243 CA4th Supp 13) allowed a landlord to evict a tenant for running short-term rental business out of his residential rental unit in Los Angeles.

In Chen, the Court affirmed a summary judgment granting possession to the landlord EVEN THOUGH

Property_Management_DummiesIn Von Nothdurft v. Steck, (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 524, the manager challenged the written management agreement with the landlord as being “unconscionable” or “an adhesion contract” so void.  The Court of Appeal said the agreement was fine and confirmed it was freely entered into.  The Court told the manager/tenant she could not have it both ways. Further, managers cannot claim to be “on call”, they are only paid for the time actually working, even if the manager is waiting for a tenant or worker to come to the property.  
Continue Reading Landlord can deduct a portion of the value of rental unit to resident manager as part of wages due

HOA-ROHIn Watts v Oak Shores Community Association (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 466, the Court said an HOA may impose reasonable regulations and charge reasonable fees that are related to short term rentals that are not imposed or charged other owners of longer term rentals.
Continue Reading HOA may charge fees short term rental fee to homeowner who rents to short term tenants (AirBnB)