News/Events/Blogs

As the State of California looks to plug a massive hole in its budget, the regulated community can expect agencies with the authority to generate revenue by imposing civil penalties to become even more active. Those sued for the first time by agencies seeking to recover civil penalties sometimes assume their case will be decided by a jury. A recent decision by the California Supreme Court demonstrated the complexity of the issue.

In Nationwide Biweekly Administration,

In 2015, world-renowned boxers Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. faced off in what was promoted as the “Fight of the Century.” After twelve largely uneventful rounds, the fighters and fans walked away without much fanfare—no knockout, no technical knockout, just a scorecard victory for Mayweather.

Leading up to the fight, Pacquiao’s camp extolled his excellent fitness and preparedness, describing him as being in “pristine condition” and boasting that he was “a freak” and “better than I’ve ever seen him.” After the fight,

 

The duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence is an affirmative obligation.  Yes! Attorneys and their clients must take action to ensure preservation of discoverable documents.  The duty to preserve evidence arises when a party knows, or reasonably should know, that the evidence is relevant to pending or future litigation. (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217.)  Simply, a party should preserve evidence when the party is on notice of potential litigation or investigation.

In Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three), squarely addressed the question: “May a trial court find a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine when the objecting party submits an inadequate privilege log that fails to provide sufficient information to evaluate the merits of the objections?” The answer, “No.” Id.

California recently passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, described by Former Gov. Jerry Brown as a “historic step” for California consumers, “giving them control over their personal data.”  He claimed that the law “forges a path forward to lead the nation once again on privacy and consumer protection issues.”

This is not just political puffery.  The Consumer Privacy Act has broad-ranging implications for the rest of the country, not just California. 

Litigation tends to be expensive, increasingly so due to the burdens of discovery. (You can thank the advent of emails, text messages, and other forms of communication now documenting conversations that used to take place by phone or in-person.) Litigants often find themselves tempted to use discovery as a bludgeon against their opponent, a means of extorting a righteous plaintiff or defendant into settling the case because the cost of proving the truth is simply too onerous.

 

By: Ryan E. Abernethy

In this age of expensive class-action litigation, many California companies have found solace in their arbitration agreements. Under certain circumstances, the enforcement of such agreements includes the dismissal of class action claims. This has largely been made possible by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which requires judges to enforce a wide range of written arbitration agreements notwithstanding contrary state law. California courts have a long history of delivering rulings that attempt to narrow the scope and effect of the FAA.

Although private actions against companies for the failure to ensure access to their websites for individuals with disabilities have increased significantly in recent years, both Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have yet to provide clear guidance as to what constitutes compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Given the potential financial consequences facing a business which fails to provide equal access – including significant damages and attorneys’ fees – this lack of statutory or regulatory guidance can be quite problematic.

Social media has become part of our daily lives. Information is routinely disseminated in the public sphere via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media outlets. It is therefore no surprise that we often see high profile litigation play out in the media as much as it does in the courtroom. For this reason, many attorneys and clients seek the assistance of a public relations or media consultant to advise them on issues such as the assessment and mitigation of risks,

Can an employee sue the employer’s payroll service for failure to correctly process and report payroll?  According to the California Supreme Court recent decision in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, the answer is no.

In examining the claim, the Court held that when an employer hires a payroll company, providing a benefit to employees with regard to the wages they receive is ordinarily not a motivating purpose of the transaction.