In White v. Square, Inc. S249248 (August 12, 2019), the California Supreme Court held that an online business violated the Unruh Act by discriminating based upon occupation (or other protected categories of people) and the discriminated person has standing to sue even if the person did not enter into a contract for the services because
A Stipulated Judgment Can Be an Unenforceable Penalty (Use an incentive for a discount, not an increase if a default (Red & White Distribution v. Osteroid Enterprises (2019)
A stipulated judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty under Civil Code §1671(b) where the stipulated judgment for $2.8 million bore no reasonable relationship to the range of actual damages the parties could have anticipated from a breach of their agreement to settle a dispute for $2.1 million. (This is established law under Ridgley v. Topa Thrift
The Decline of Civilization (We are Fuct’d!) –Iancu v. Brunetti (June 24, 2019)
The U.S. Supreme Court just FUCT’d the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) prohibits the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous” trademarks. Respondent founded a clothing line that uses the trademark FUCT. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office decided the trademark was prohibited under the Lanham Act. The U.S. Supreme Court held that
Lawyer Civility Includes More Than a Pro Forma Attempt to be Civil” (LaSalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127.)
The day after a responsive pleading was due, plaintiff’s lawyer sent defendant a letter and an email telling her that the time to respond was past due and threatening entry of default if a responsive pleading was not filed by the next business day. When a pleading was not filed by 3:00 p.m. the next business day, plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for entry of default. Defendant quickly hired a lawyer who filed a motion to set aside the default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subdivision (b). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the default, despite a fact-filled declaration describing how defendant had been up to her neck taking care of urgent personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal reversed and quoted from Code of Civil Procedure § 583.130 that “. . . all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition,” and concluded: “Attorneys who do not do so are practicing in contravention of the policy of the state and menacing the future of the profession.” (LaSalle v. Vogel (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Div. 3, June 11, 2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127.)
Continue Reading Lawyer Civility Includes More Than a Pro Forma Attempt to be Civil” (LaSalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127.)
Fraudulent Conveyance Damages Apply to DELAY’S in paying a judgment! (Berger v. Varum (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1013)
Plaintiff sued for fraudulent transfer. Defendants then paid the judgment, but instead of dismissing his complaint, plaintiff amended it to seek damages caused by the delay in paying the judgment. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer. On appeal, plaintiff argued his amended complaint asserted a common law fraudulent transfer claim, which gives rise to
Sexual Harassment Training Now Applies to Small Businesses
Employers with 5 or more employees (not including independent contractors), must provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of sexual harassment training to all non-supervisory employees by January 1, 2020, and once every 2 years thereafter. An employer includes a person who regularly receives
Employers can now inquire into an applicant’s salary history (Labor Code §432.3, 1197.5)§
Prior law prohibiting an employer from asking or relying upon the applicant’s salary history is modified. Employers may now inquire into an applicant’s salary expectation for the position being applied for such as for seniority or merit. Sexual based salary decisions remain illegal. Labor Code §§ 432.3 and 1197.5. Effective January 1, 2018.
Cannot Require, Induce or Condition employment upon the signing of a release or non-disparagement agreement unless part of an existing dispute. (Govt. Code 12964.5
An employer cannot require the execution of a release or non-disparagement agreement in exchange for any condition of employment and broadened non-employee harassment. Changes to the laws concerning harassment, discrimination, etc. (Government Code § 12940, 12965, 12923, 12950.2, and 12964.5) broadened the definition of harassment to include any type of harassment, not merely sexual,
Late Fees in a 3 day Notice Are almost always unenforceable (Excellent analysis by the Court)
The primary published case is Del Monte Properties & Investments, Inc. v. Dolan (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, 24. In Del Monte the Court held that the landlord must prove that the actual losses caused by late payment of rent were extremely difficult or impracticable to determine. Moreover, an agreement to the term setting
2019 New Laws for Real Estate Issues
Here is a summary of some of the larger new real estate oriented laws for 2019.
- Landlord Tenant: Evictions – Three Days’ Notice Excludes Holidays and Weekends: When counting a three days’ notice to pay rent or quit or a three days’ notice to perform covenant or quit, or in responding to a complaint