Finally, a common sense ruling.
Finally, a common sense ruling.
The California Supreme Court changed the test to determine what is an independent contractor vs. employee to a new “ABC” test. The 2nd prong, is the tough one for employers.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. involved a trucking company which changed its policy from classifying drivers as employees to independent contractors. The Court applied a new “ABC” test that requires an independent contractor to pass ALL three tests:
City of Los Angeles: Technically, short term rentals are currently illegal in Los Angeles. ( (Chen vs. Kraft (2016) LA is slow moving but in April 2018 the City Counsel committee approved a measure to allow short term rentals but CAP the number of days that a primary residence can be rented out to 120 days a year. A “qualified host” category may also be included to allow more rental days. Neighbors (or the City) must approve if you want more than 120 days a year of short term rentals.
I love city reports such as this that cost tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to prepare:
Santa Monica: In 2015 Santa Monica passed a law requiring the “host” to also stay in the rental unit. Air BNB sued Santa Monica and in March 2018 the US Federal District Court denied Air BNB’s request for an injunction against the City indicating the City will win. It seems Air BNB has made over $31 million since 2015 in fees from Santa Monica short term rentals!
West Hollywood: In March 2018 West Hollywood banned renters from hosting short term rentals and the homeowners must be on site for at least 4 hours a day.
Pasadena: In January 2018 Pasadena enacted an ordinance to ALLOW short term rentals for 90 days a year and unlimited rentals so long as the host is on the premises. Air BNB must pay a tax and register with Pasadena.
Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach: No short term rentals are allowed.
New Labor Code Section 218.17 (AB 1701) makes a general contractor jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or other benefit payments or contributions of a subcontractor (at any tier).
Labor Code 218.7 provides “down-the-chain protection” to a sub-contractor’s employees if they are misclassified as as independent contractors or not paid. The bill applies even if the general contractor has paid the sub!!!! Labor Code 218.7 does not apply to public projects.
To quote the bill’s author, Tony Thurmond:
“This measure incentivizes the use of responsible subcontractors and helps to ensure the economic vitality of the construction industry and its role in the creation of good paying middle class jobs.”
To the GC, this means you are screwed. To the Property owner/Developer this means your construction costs will increase and small contractors will go out of business. To Employment lawyers they will file more lawsuits. To the Labor Board, they will hear more cases, etc.
In denying a motion to quash an unlawful detainer summons, the trial court may not restrict a defendant’s responsive pleading to an answer. Van Butenschoen v. Flaker; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – filed Oct. 16, 2017 Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 5258 Full text click here
This makes complete sense because the statute says that after denial of a motion to quash the defendant my respond as per law, including filing a demurrer.
Here is a great chart of civil procedure and court rules compiled by Bill Makinney at Pillsbury. There are some additions , or “legal secrets” I could add, but I’ll save that for another day. California State Court Timing Chart-2015
Attached is a chart of when the California Rules of Court says you need to file common documents in civil cases.
The statutes differentiate between calendar, business and court days. Sometimes a due date is longer or shorter than you may think. Here are two links to help:
The Los Angeles Superior Court “official” Date Calculator:
And here is one that does business, court and calendar days:
The general “extension rule” of CCP 12a which does apply to 3 Day Notices, does NOT apply to exercise of lease options. In a commercial lease, the civil procedure rule extending period to perform any lawfully required act past holidays, including Saturday, to next non-holiday did not apply to lease between commercial tenants and landlords, so the tenants’ attempt to exercise lease option was untimely, although last day to exercise option fell on Saturday and tenants attempted to exercise option the following Monday. Continue Reading Code of Civil Procedure § 12a does NOT extend time to exercise a lease option (Gans v. Smull (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 985
In an unpublished case, Durack v. Wang, B276086, on September 27, 2017 the Court stated that Civil Code 1717 does NOT apply in an action based upon CC&R’s so attorney’s fees can be awarded against a party who voluntarily dismissed an action! In this case Plaintiffs brought an action against their condominium homeowners association and several individual defendants and settled as to all defendants but one, then voluntarily dismissed their action against the hold-out defendant. Continue Reading Attorney’s fees Awarded on a Voluntarily Dismissed Case based on CC&R’s — Civil Code 5975(c)