An innovative provider of sophisticated legal services in over 45 practice areas.

Welcome to the Weintraub Tobin Resources Page

Browse below for news, legal insights, information on presentations and events, and other resources from the Weintraub Tobin legal team.

Law360: Luggage Co. Says Marvel’s ‘Avengers’ Box Set Rips Off Suitcase

Published: August 6, 2012

Attorneys Anjani Mandavia, Audrey Millemann and Marvin Gelfand filed a trademark action against Marvel Entertainment. The case has been reported in the following publications:

Law360: Luggage Co. Says Marvel’s ‘Avengers’ Box Set Rips Off Suitcase (Published August 3, 2012)

To read the full story, click the link above.

The Hollywood Reporter: Marvel Sued by Luggage Company Over ‘Avengers’ Box Set Packaging (Published August 3, 2012)

To the read the full story, visit www.hollywoodreporter.com.

Employers: Relying on an Arbitration Provision In Your Employee Handbook May Not Protect You

Published: August 1, 2012

by James Kachmar
The Labor & Employment Law Blog

As this blog frequently reminds its readers, California state courts take a hard look at arbitration agreements in the employment context. The recent case: Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family Services, from the Second Appellate District of California provides additional support for why employers need to be extra careful in establishing enforceable arbitration provisions.

Mr. Sparks was hired as Vista Del Mar’s controller in April 2007 and was terminated three years later. He claimed he was fired in retaliation for complaints he had made about various employment practices. After filing his complaint in state court, Vista Del Mar filed a petition to compel arbitration of the dispute citing a provision in its employee handbook that all employment matters were subject to binding arbitration. The trial court denied the petition and refused to order the matter to arbitration. The California appellate court affirmed this decision (by a split 2-1 vote).

After Mr. Sparks was hired, he received a 2006 employee handbook and signed an acknowledgement that he had received and reviewed the handbook and agreed to abide by its terms. An arbitration provision appeared on pages 35 and 36 of the handbook in the same font and style as the other provisions in the handbook. The employee handbook contained language that it was not intended to create a contract of employment and both the handbook and acknowledgement stated that the employer was free to change, rescind or add to the policies, benefits or practices described in the handbook.

Mr. Sparks was later provided a 2009 employee handbook but (for some reason) was not asked to sign a new acknowledgement. The arbitration provision was nearly identical in the 2009 handbook as the 2006 handbook but provided additional language that the employee, in acknowledging receipt of the handbook, would also be agreeing to the inclusion of the arbitration provision.

The appellate court began by recognizing that “[a]rbitration is recognized as a matter of contract and a party cannot be forced to arbitrate something in the absence of an agreement to do so.” Although the subject arbitration clause provided for the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the appellate court ruled that California state law would determine whether there was a binding contract to arbitrate and not the FAA.

In holding that the arbitration policy in the 2006 handbook was unenforceable, the Court found the following facts persuasive:

• The arbitration provision was not prominently distinguished from the other clauses nor was there any place for the employees to acknowledge it in writing;

• The acknowledgement of receipt of the handbook made no reference to the arbitration provision (unlike the later 2009 handbook);

• The handbook was “distributed” to all employees with language that suggested it was informational rather than contractual;

• The arbitration provision was “illusory” in that the employer could unilaterally modify the handbook, including the arbitration provision, at any time;

• The rules of the American Arbitration Association which were referred to in the arbitration policy were never provided to Mr. Sparks;

• There was no evidence that the arbitration provision was subject to negotiation nor did it provide any express provision for discovery rights should arbitration be ordered.

The Sparks case is a reminder to employers that they need to be extra careful when presenting employees with arbitration clauses and must take care to ensure that the employee’s acceptance of the arbitration policy is properly documented. Merely relying on the fact that an employee handbook has an arbitration provision is unlikely in itself to allow an employer to compel an employee’s lawsuit into arbitration.

Ask the Experts: Shared vacation property can pose a challenge.

Published: July 26, 2012

Sharing ownership of a vacation home can pose a dilemma. This week, Sacramento estate planning attorney Kay Brooks answers a reader’s question on that topic.

Q: My boyfriend and I recently purchased a vacation home. For now, the title is held in joint tenancy because we could not agree on what would be the fairest thing to do if one of us should die. We both have living trusts where each of our assets are transferred upon death. The problem is: My boyfriend wants his son to inherit his half of the property after he dies. I see potential problems in having to share ownership with his son. What if something happens and he needs money? Can he force me to sell the house or buy him out? I don’t think it’s fair that the son would be entitled to assets from the property just because he is kin. I would be the one paying the mortgage and keeping up with the maintenance. Can you offer any solutions so that both parties are satisfied? The son is currently 17 years old and my boyfriend is 20 years my senior. Thank you.

To read Kay Brooks answer, visit the Ask the Experts column here on Sacbee.com.

Gary Bradus Named as One of the Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers in 2012

Published: July 25, 2012

  1. SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 25, 2012 – Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin, a business law and business litigation law firm, congratulates Gary Bradus on being named as one of the Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers of 2012. To receive this honor, Bradus earned the highest point totals in the Northern California nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.

According to the website, “Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.” Only five percent of lawyers practicing in Northern California are selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers annually. The lawyers who receive the highest point totals in the Northern California region are also recognized in the Super Lawyers Top 100 List.

In addition, the firm applauds its 21 attorneys who were named as 2012 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars:

2012 Northern California Super Lawyers:

  • Gary L. Bradus, Business/Corporate
  • Dale C. Campbell, Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Christopher Chediak, Business/Corporate
  • Janet Chediak, Estate Planning & Probate
  • Edward J. Corey, Jr., Trust & Estates Litigation
  • Kelly E. Dankbar, Trust & Estates Litigation
  • Paul E. Gaspari, Business Litigation
  • Joseph S. Genshlea, Business Litigation
  • Louis A. Gonzalez, Jr., Real Estate
  • Shawn M. Kent, Business/Corporate
  • David L. Krotine, Real Estate
  • Mike Kvarme, Real Estate
  • Hilary L. Lamar, Estate Planning & Probate
  • Audrey A. Millemann, Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Charles L. Post, Employment & Labor
  • Kenneth J. Sylva, Real Estate
  • Lizbeth (Beth) V. West, Employment & Labor

2012 Northern California Rising Stars:

  • Meagan D. Christiansen, Employment & Labor
  • Chelcey E. Lieber, Employment & Labor
  • Jeffrey Pietsch, Business/Corporate

About Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin

Now with over 70 attorneys strategically located in three cities across California, Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is one of the most dynamic, fastest-growing law firms in California. We specialize in business, corporate and securities law; real estate finance and transactional work; entertainment, new media and intellectual property law; and business litigation. Our clients range from national institutional entities to regional businesses and individuals with personal and professional legal needs.

We dedicate ourselves to understanding our clients and helping them with their changing business challenges.

Ask the Experts: How Best to Handle Loans Between Family Members.

Published: July 25, 2012

This week, Sacramento estate planning attorney Kay Brooks answers readers questions in the Sacramento Bee column “Ask the Experts.”

Q: I have a rental property valued at $265,000, the mortgage balance is $151,000 at 5.75%. I’m considering a loan to pay off this balance from my father’s living trust account, which is in excess of $400,000. I am the sole heir and these funds are just sitting in money market accounts making .25%! I would set up documents for the loan for tax purposes pay the monthly interest to my father’s account at 2.00% with a 5-year payback schedule. If my father passed, how would these funds $151,000 which would be outside the trust be viewed by the IRS? Is there an amount of money that can be outside the trust without being subject to probate or tax? – Walt, Sacramento, CA

To read Kay Brooks answer, visit the Ask the Expert column here on the Sacbee.com

Upcoming Seminar: The Complex Web of Leaves and Accommodation Laws – Sacramento

Published: July 24, 2012

Download: Leaves & Accomodations.pdf

Summary of Program

Employers continue to grapple with this very difficult area of employment law. It is not enough to focus on just one law when an employee is unable to work or is absent from the workplace due to some medical condition or injury suffered by the employee or his or her family member. Instead, employers need to understand and comply with how the courts, and various federal and state regulatory agencies, are interpreting the interplay between a number of laws like the FMLA/CFRA, ADA/FEHA, PDL, USERRA, and workers’ compensation. This seminar is designed to help employers and HR professionals understand this complex interplay and to provide some practical guidance on administering leaves and absences.

Some of the topics to be discussed include:

  • What Does Each Law Provide: A Summary of the Statutes.
  • A Discussion of the Difference Between “Statutory Leaves” and “Wage Replacement Benefits.”
  • Determining Under What Circumstances the Statutory Leaves and/or Wage Replacement Benefits May Overlap and How to Evaluate and Determine the Employee’s Entitlements and the Employer’s Obligations Under Each Law.
  • The Importance of Engaging in the “Interactive Process.”
  • What are the Courts saying? Recent case law.
  • Effective Documentation: Policies, Leave Administration Documents, and Medical Certifications.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Registration and Breakfast

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Program

Location:

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Parking validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th St.

*This program is also available via Webinar. Please indicate when you RSVP.

************

There is no charge for this seminar.
Approved for 3 hours MCLE Credit;

HRCI credits available upon request

RSVP:

Ramona Carrillo
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.558.6046
Fax: 916.446.1611
rcarrillo@weintraub.com

Ask the Experts: Boyfriend Wants to Leave Half of Vacation Home to His Son

Published: July 20, 2012

This week, Sacramento estate planning attorney Kay Brooks answers readers questions in the Sacramento Bee column “Ask the Experts.”

Q: My boyfriend and I recently purchased a vacation home. For now, the title is held in joint tenancy because we could not come to an agreement as to what would be the fairest thing to do if one of us should die. We both have living trusts set up where each of our assets are transferred into upon death. The problem is that my boyfriend wants his son to inherit his half of the property after he dies.

I see potential problems in having to share ownership with his son. What if something happens to him and he needs money? Can he force me to sell the house or buy him out? I don’t think it’s fair to me that the son would be entitled to assets from the property just because he is kin. I would be the one paying the mortgage and keeping up with the maintenance. I am fine with leaving my half to my boyfriend, but he wants to revisit the lawyer in a few years and change the trusts so that his son has a stake in the house.

Can you offer any solutions so that both parties are satisfied? I should mention that the son is currently 17 years old and my boyfriend is 20 years my senior. Thank you for your time.

To read Kay Brooks answer, visit the Ask the Expert column here on the Sacbee.com

Ask the Experts: What about legal fees that are lower than typical fees?

Published: July 19, 2012

This week, Sacramento estate planning attorney Kay Brooks answers readers questions in the Sacramento Bee column “Ask the Experts.”

Q. I noticed that an earlier Bee column stated that $1,500 – $4,500 is the going rate for a will and trust; however, I have family members that claim that they have attorneys that can do it for as little as $750. Why the huge difference? – Bryan, Sacramento, CA

To read Kay Brooks answer, visit the Ask the Expert column here on the Sacbee.com.

Upcoming Seminar: The Complex Web of Leaves and Accomodation Laws – SF

Published: July 13, 2012

Summary of Program

Employers continue to grapple with this very difficult area of employment law. It is not enough to focus on just one law when an employee is unable to work or is absent from the workplace due to some medical condition or injury suffered by the employee or his or her family member. Instead, employers need to understand and comply with how the courts, and various federal and state regulatory agencies, are interpreting the interplay between a number of laws like the FMLA/CFRA, ADA/FEHA, PDL, USERRA, and workers’ compensation. This seminar is designed to help employers and HR professionals understand this complex interplay and to provide some practical guidance on administering leaves and absences.

Some of the topics to be discussed include:

  • What Does Each Law Provide: A Summary of the Statutes.
  • A Discussion of the Difference Between “Statutory Leaves” and “Wage Replacement Benefits.”
  • Determining Under What Circumstances the Statutory Leaves and/or Wage Replacement Benefits May Overlap and How to Evaluate and Determine the Employee’s Entitlements and the Employer’s Obligations Under Each Law.
  • The Importance of Engaging in the “Interactive Process.”
  • What are the Courts saying? Recent case law.
  • Effective Documentation: Policies, Leave Administration Documents, and Medical Certifications.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Registration and Breakfast

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Program

Location:

Le Meridien Hotel
333 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

*This program is also available via Webinar on August 23. Please indicate when you RSVP.

************

There is no charge for this seminar.
Approved for 3 hours MCLE Credit;

HRCI credits available upon request

RSVP:

Ramona Carrillo
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.558.6046
Fax: 916.446.1611
rcarrillo@weintraub.com