In Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829 the California Supreme Court answered a legal question sent to it from the Federal Court asking if the relevant wage order and statutes. The Court held that California does not adopt the federal FLSA permitting application of the (federal) de minimis rule when the employer required the employee to work “off the clock” several minutes per shift. The Court held that the state wage and hour rules do not permit the de minimis “Defense”. Read more …
Continue Reading Starbucks Must Pay for All Employee’s Work, even if just a drip of time! (Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829)
California will now allow out-of-state and foreign lawyers to provide legal services in international commercial arbitrations conducted in California SB 766. (CCP § 1297.185)
The new CCP §1297.185 essentially over rules the 1998 California Supreme Court case known as Birbower holding that lawyers from foreign nations could not
Limits on Civil Subpoenas (No Telephone records without consumer consent)
Phone company records are difficult to obtain. I say difficult, not impossible. Even with a validly issued civil subpoena, the phone company will not comply without a notarized written consent from the consumer who “owns” the phone number. You need a signed and notarized form such as this: Sprint Consent to Release Information
Pub. Util.
Free Real Estate Forms!!
Here is your gift from the Google University School of Law courtesy of Chicago Title. Free real estate forms!!!!
https://www.chicagotitleconnection.com/documentforms.htm
Deeds, Affidavits, Deeds of Trusts, Promissory Notes, Homestead, Non Responsibility, Preliminary Change of Ownership, Reassessment Exclusion, and much more.
Enforcement of an Arbitration Clause is for the Court not Arbitrator to Determine
In an unpublished opinion, Milder v. Holley, B267974 (2/5 1/31/17) the Court of Appeal on a gateway issue, found that a judge decides if there was fraud in the inducement to enter into an arbitration agreement in California. ( Citing Johnson v. Siegel (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1095.) This is separate from fraudulent inducement to enter into the contract which happens to contain an arbitration clause. The latter is to be decided by the arbitrator. (Citing Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh Inc. v. 100 Oak Street, (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323.) Read more …
Continue Reading Enforcement of an Arbitration Clause is for the Court not Arbitrator to Determine
Expanded Insurance Coverage for Additional Insureds (Pulte Home v. American Safety)
In Pulte Home Corporation v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2017) 14 CA5th 1086 a homeowner sued for latent construction defects. The General Contractor sought a defense under its sub’s general liability policy as an additional insured. The insurer denied coverage because the subcontractor’s work was completed work as opposed to “ongoing work”. The GC sued
Private Court Reporters Can Only Charge what the Govt. Code Allows for a Copy of the Proceeding
In Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1037, the court stated the fees allowed for an official transcript in Government Code sections 69950 and 69954 are the max a private reporter can charge of a proceeding in front of a judge. I love this ruling because I use private reporters for almost all
FEHA employee protections against adverse attorney fee/cost awards trump CCP 998
Arave v. Merrill Lynch (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 525 reinforces that in labor law employees have nothing to lose from suing. Plaintiff sued his employer under FEHA and lost. The defendant employer previously served a CCP 998 offer to settle of $100,000 which was rejected. The employee lost his case and the trial court awarded $83,000
Attorney Fees Denied to Employee who proved discrimination but did not win any monetary damages
In Bustos v. Global P.E.T. (2018) 19 CA5 th 558 an employee who proved discrimination as a motivating factor due to his disability (carpal tunnel syndrome vs. employer who said it was an economic lay off) lost an award of attorneys fees and costs under Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 CA4th 203
Starting January 1, 2019 Alimony Tax Deduction is Eliminated!
I guess Congress persons do not pay alimony. Part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that Internal Revenue Code §71 is now eliminated so any divorce alimony agreements made after December 31, 2018 will no longer result on a tax deduction for alimony paid. The key is the divorce settlement or decree must