For many employers, a key tool for in avoiding litigation costs is to require employees to go to arbitration rather than file disputes in Court. The California Private Attorneys General Act or “PAGA” remains a persistent threat to employers because current California law prevents arbitration of these claims. With a quick glance at the database on the California Department of Industrial Relationships, it is easy to see the consistent increase in these types of cases and the risk they pose to employers. But there may be a change on the horizon…

Scali Rasmussen announced its continued support for an event benefiting SAGE, a national nonprofit serving LGBTQ+ older adults.

Building on its mission to promote a truly diverse legal system and in recognition of Black History Month, law boutique Scali Rasmussen announced its continued financial support for scholarship programs benefiting law students of color, including transgender and nonbinary students.

A plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion based in part on the Declaration (under penalty for perjury ) of a relevant witness. The defendant then obtained the deposition of that witness, and found that the individual executing the Declaration said that they had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged, and had signed the document because they were pressured by Plaintiff’s counsel.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) went into effect on January 1, 2020, requiring the provision of certain notices, including that businesses inform consumers of their: (1) right to know, (2) right to delete, (3) right to opt out, (4) and right not to be discriminated against for exercising any rights the CCPA provides. In the class action case plaintiff Kaupelis sought discovery that included the personally identifiable information of persons that complained about defects in the chainsaw that was the subject of the action. The defendant resisted production of this information in reliance on the CCPA arguing that the CCPA expanded the privacy rights previously provided under California law and that the court should “protect the consumers’ PI by allowing consumers an opportunity to opt out from disclosure.” The Court noted that historically Courts engaged in a balancing test, balancing the need for the discovery against the privacy interests involved, and that the CCPA did not set aside that body of law. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, stating that “[n]othing in the CCPA presents a bar to civil discovery. Notably, no other case has so held. And the statute itself explicitly says that it is not a restriction on a business’s ability to comply with federal law,” which would include the Federal Code of Civil Procedure provisions concerning discovery.

Acrylamide is a chemical that results, inter alia, when foods are browned in cooking, such as when foods are baked, fried, or roasted. The State of California has determined that consuming acrylamide increases the risk of cancer. That finding has resulted in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requiring warnings, pursuant to Proposition 65, of that hazard (although the amounts that trigger the warnings are somewhat in flux).

A recent California Court of Appeals decision confirmed that courts have discretion to strike claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). The only requirement for such damages to be taken away from an action is that the trial Court hold that the claims will be “unmanageable at trial.”

Plaintiff Morales, in 2016, accepted a full-time position at a flooring store. He had numerous duties related to the warehouse, including cleaning, accepting deliveries, making deliveries, and assisting customers. His hours were 8 AM to 6 PM on weekdays, and 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. When Plaintiff requested compensation for overtime hours, he was fired.

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, Lab. Code 2698) provides a means whereby counsel seeking compensation for a given Plaintiff who has not received overtime or meal breaks or similar benefits can bring suit on behalf of all similarly situated employees of the defendant company. If suits are brought under this statutory framework, notice must be provided to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) (the relevant regulatory Agency).

In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018),the Supreme Court held that in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of California’s wage laws, the “ABC test” applies. The ABC test holds that a worker is an independent contractor only if the hirer can establish “…A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.”

Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of employees of the defendant, claiming a violation of wage and hour laws and, specifically, failure to provide proper meal breaks. The trial court granted, and the Appellate Court upheld, a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant.

The Supreme Court made a decision that objectively benefits Plaintiffs who bring actions under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov. Code 12940, subd. (j), 12960, when alleging, as in this case, harassment.

When an employer fails to provide meal, rest or recovery periods, it is required to provide compensation for same based on the “regular rate of compensation”

The Court in this case clarified the law regarding when a judge must recuse themselves in light of a conflict. Plaintiff Chaganti had brought a lawsuit and gone to trial against Cricket and New Cingular, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of AT&T. The lawsuit was brought regarding a commercial lease in which the named lessee was “AT&T Wireless PCS” and where rent was paid by “AT&T.”

This case involves an anti-SLAPP motion. The Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation, Code Civ. Proc., 425.16) statute provides that a defendant can bring a motion to strike causes of action alleged by a plaintiff in any case “arising from any act of [the defendant] in furtherance of the [defendant’s] right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue…” Code Civ. Proc.§ 425.16, subd. (b).

Plaintiff Park filed a lawsuit alleging that his former attorneys, who had represented him from 2003 to 2012 in connection with his casino businesses were intentionally interfering with the expansion of that business. The law firm allegedly used confidential information gained as a result of their prior representation to assist his competitors and to prejudice regulators against Park’s purchase of two additional casinos. This allegedly amounted to breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with financial gain. The motivation of the law firm was ostensibly the fee dispute that had resulted in the severance of the attorney-client relationship.

While a property owner is as a general rule liable for injuries that occur on its premises, that is not always the case. In this matter, the Supreme Court found a sizeable exception to that general rule. Plaintiff was hired by a contractor to perform work on the defendant’s property. The contractor removed a protective cover from what turned out to be a live circuit. Plaintiff was working in the area, and triggered an arc flash that caused burns to a large portion of his body.

Plaintiffs had trained to compete in Taekwondo in the Olympics and filed suit against their former coach for sexual abuse. Plaintiffs named the US Olympic Committee and the USA Taekwondo organization for negligence for having not prevented the abuse.

The Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to fees for attorney time spent after the plaintiff rejects a 998 offer, so long as the plaintiff ultimately recovers more than the 998 offered. The Court explained that the trial court retains broad discretion to evaluate post-offer attorney fees and costs and to reduce the fee recovery if appropriate, but it may not deny all fees from the date of the offer when the plaintiff’s decision to continue to litigate results in a more favorable judgment or award. In this case since Plaintiff ultimately settled for 10% more, plaintiff was entitled to fees for the time after the 998 offer was rejected.

The Court of Appeal’s holding in this case makes it so that a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise can virtually never include an indemnity provision. Plaintiff Khosravan, an employee in an Iranian Oil Facility where a consortium involving a predecessor of Chevron had some control of operations, contracted mesothelioma from asbestos exposure and filed suit against Chevron. Chevron made a section 998 offer of dismissal in exchange for a waiver of costs, but that offer also included a requirement that the plaintiffs indemnify Chevron from any further claims made by the plaintiffs, their heirs, or third parties, including claims for loss of consortium. Chevron prevailed on a motion for summary judgment, was entitled to costs, and was able to recover its expert costs pursuant to its section 998 offer, as plaintiffs had to pay items of cost they would not have had they accepted Chevron’s offer including a waiver of costs.