Source: https://www.newmeyeranddillion.com/news.php?cat_id=17
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:15:57+00:00

Document:
Scott Satkin gives a status update and lessons learned from the class action litigation underway for consumers affected by the Yahoo! data breaches. California federal judge Lucy Koh recently rejected a settlement that had been agreed on by the parties and criticized the amount of attorneys' fees included in the proposed settlement.
An international brokerage firm is challenging the Nevada Real Estate Division's ("NRED") publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State.
If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada.
We love convenience. Unlocking phones or door locks at the touch of a finger or a glance. Having a fool-proof and secure way of identifying others with minimal effort or chance of error. Not having to remember the myriad of secured passwords because of biometric authentication. However, for those using a system that relies on gathering, maintaining, and using biometrics, from a fingerprint to a face, they must be careful. Even without an actual breach of biometric identifiers, failure to comply with proper standards may lead to disastrous results. Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation that even though no "actual injury" occurred, a technical failure to comply with Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act or "BIPA" would be enough to create private causes of action. This single decision is now rippling through federal courts across the United States, including those within the 9th Circuit.
At some point in every food industry business’ lifetime, there will be a discussion about cutting costs and increasing profitability. That discussion will inevitably present the go-to strawman villain, the “middleman.” Theoretically, the fail-safe plan of cutting out the middleman will surely cut costs and increase profitability, except when it doesn’t. Given the increase in consumers’ emphasis on convenience of middleman delivery apps, I suggest a different approach – embrace it, fully. Just recently, Starbucks announced its launch of a joint venture with Uber Eats to get in on the coffee delivery game. Spoiler Alert: it’s going to work, and here’s why.
Once again, a massive data breach has caught the attention of the cybersecurity world. However, this data breach is different from other recent breaches that were from a single database (like the Marriott / Starwood guest database) because it brings together a collection of data across multiple sources. To avoid negative repercussions from this latest breach, it is recommended to determine whether your private information was compromised, and consider changing password habits.
On January 13, 2019, PG&E announced that it would be filing a petition on January 29, 2019, under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The advance notice was required pursuant to a new California law requiring 15 days’ notice to employees of a change in control (including bankruptcy) of the employer. PG&E’s impending bankruptcy will present challenges for those doing business with PG&E on a continuing basis. If that’s you, here’s what you need to know to stay informed and ahead of the curve.
On January 9, the parties to a derivative suit against several former directors and officers of Yahoo! Inc., which was based on a series of data breaches in which an estimated three billion user accounts were compromised, reached a $29 million settlement. The settlement, which included approximately $11 million in attorney’s fees with the remaining $18 million going to the company, is reportedly the first of its kind – previous derivative suits had resulted in settlements that only required changes in corporate governance and relatively small fee awards. If this settlement signals the beginning of a new trend, executives whose companies experience a data breach could find themselves on the hook for a similarly sizable amount.
Directors and Officers liability insurance is one of the most important, yet least understood types of coverage. Regardless of how carefully they conduct business, directors, officers and managers make many difficult decisions that sometimes lead to accusations that they have acted wrongfully. For-profit companies, non-profit organizations, educational institutions and privately held companies purchase this type of insurance to protect the company and its directors, officers and managers by providing them with liability coverage.
In the modern information age, data has become one of society’s most valuable commodities. More and more information is being put out into the world all the time, and businesses, and even entire industries, centered on collecting and then selling data have sprung up. Others have seen more success in making data freely available to attract views and clicks and earning money indirectly, such as through ad revenue. This business model is the foundation of the social networking phenomenon, as well as many other data services. But what happens when another business collects, or “scrapes,” that freely available data and then uses it in a way that the original aggregator disapproves of, or that may even be harmful to their business? Does doing the initial work to create or collect data entitle a company to control how that data is used, or should it be expected that this type of behavior will occur when information is made freely available on the internet?
Last year was the year of #MeToo and the Time’s Up movements. This year, is the year California responded, by enacting ten new laws to combat harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Here is a quick overview of what companies need to know as they prepare for 2019.
Yet another unfortunate reminder that the threat to your privacy and your business by hackers is real and not close to abating. Marriott International Inc. announced today what may be the second largest data breach in history. If you are a consumer or a business, here is what you need to know about what happened and what steps you need to take if you are affected.
Cybersecurity is a growing concern for today’s businesses. While it’s always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company’s cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization’s cybersecurity has been compromised.
German manufacturer eQ-3 has found itself under siege by a botnet known as "Hide ‘N Seek." This pernicious malware has infected tens of thousands of eQ-3’s smart home devices by compromising the device’s central control unit. Once a device has been infected, the malware spreads to other Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices connected to the same wireless network. IoT devices have become the prime target for botnet attacks. As opposed to computers, laptops, or other larger computing devices, the smaller storage capacity and lower processing power of IoT devices limit the amount and complexity of the security measures that can be installed—making them an easier target for botnets.
2018 has been a pivotal year for consumer data protection, with sweeping new laws being passed to ensure increased consumer data privacy around the world. In May, Europe’s General Data Protection Law, or GDPR, took effect. In June, the California Legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), a bold new digital data privacy law that is the first of its kind in the United States. The California law becomes effective on January 1, 2020, and will launch a new era of data privacy and protection in the U.S.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) has made significant changes to the regulations for Proposition 65 warnings required for certain consumer products and locations (e.g., enclosed parking facilities and hotels). These changes became effective August 30, 2018. If your business has not yet reviewed the new Prop. 65 regulations, or has never conducted a Prop. 65 audit, now is the time to do so.
It’s official. The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed its general rule that geographic restrictions within non-compete agreements must be reasonable. More specifically, geographic restrictions must be limited to areas where the enforcing party has “established customer contacts and good will.” Employers should take stock of the language used in their non-compete agreements with current and prospective employees that include geographic restrictions.
A computer fraud policy holder recently won an important victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case entitled, American Tooling Center v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America. If your business has suffered or suffers a loss due to fraudulent money transfer instructions and your insurance carrier denied your claim, American Tooling Center could be your ticket to getting your insurance carrier to cover your claim.
People in the U.S. are becoming increasingly aware that their personal data is being shared in ways they never imagined as companies like Facebook, Uber, Safeway and Target are tracking and selling their personal information on a regular basis. Many people feel helpless in stopping companies from sharing their data. A coalition located in Oakland, California, right in Silicon Valley's backyard, believes it is high time for people to have more control over their own personal data.
Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Michael Shonafelt authored an article that was published by Law360 on April 10, 2018. The article summarizes the implications of the Aptos Residents Association v. County of Santa Cruz for Telecom CEQA Exemptions.
On February 5, 2018, the Sixth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in a case called Aptos Residents Association v. County of Santa Cruz (2018 WL 1069730). The case affirms that wireless telecommunications networks in the public rights-of-way are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Michael Shonafelt of Newmeyer & Dillion argued the case on behalf of respondent, the County of Santa Cruz, and real-party-in-interest, Crown Castle NG West LLC. The court ordered the case for publication on February 27, 2018.
There is no comprehensive federal statutory scheme governing breaches of consumers’ private data. However, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has a history of trying to protect consumers’ private data based on its general mandate to regulate unfair business practices pursuant to the FTC Act. Importantly, the FTC’s power to do so has been upheld by at least one court.
North Korea was recently identified as the powerhouse behind the WannaCry ransomware attack that swept across 150 countries and 200,000 computers. Panicked hospitals cancelled thousands of operations, ambulances were diverted, and concerns about security of individual medical information bubbled to the surface. Businesses of all types and sizes were forced to contend with the expensive aftermath. Businesses should evaluate their business practices and insurance policies to find what ways they can offset the risk and kinds of costs arising out of these kinds of attacks.
The Supreme Court has spoken: The Legislature said what it meant, and meant what it said. In its decision in McMillin v. Superior Court (Van Tassell), the California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act is “the exclusive means of recovery for damages identified in [SB800] absent an express exception,” such as contract, warranty, and fraud. The Supreme Court held that even if a plaintiff tries to plead around SB800, the builder can still enforce the right to repair. The Supreme Court disapproved Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, in which a lower court had held that the Right to Repair Act was never intended to supplant common law causes of action like negligence and strict liability.
Just in case you didn’t spend your holiday down time reading through all of those new California employment laws, here’s a quick overview of six laws that became effective on January 1, 2018, that may impact your business.
Our hearts go out to those families and businesses who have suffered losses due to the recent fires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. We hope everyone in Sonoma, Napa, Orange County, and nationwide affected by these tragic events are somewhere safe. As someone who lost a house in a fire growing up and now is an attorney who helps both residential and business policyholders, there are a few pieces of wisdom I’d like to pass along to help prepare for the worst.
On September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law.
Nevada has long been hailed as one of the most business-friendly jurisdictions in the United States and one of the most benevolent to its domestic corporations. From a corporate standpoint, Nevada has been nicknamed the “Delaware of the West” for many years. Perhaps partially in an effort to shed that ostensibly complimentary comparison and move the Silver State into its own singular identity as a corporate haven, the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature enacted Senate Bill 203, which pronounces Nevada’s intent to rely solely upon Nevada law for determining liability of directors and officers of a Nevada corporation.
The Equifax breach is a reminder that all companies, large or small, are at increased risk for a cyberattack. The FBI has stated that cybercrime is an issue for any company attached to the internet, and third-party vendors are being targeted through various scams to gain access to larger systems. With cyber risk as one of the hottest topics of the 21st century as cyber threats are on the rise, and because post-breach expenses and liabilities can be catastrophic and unpredictable, businesses and risk managers are increasingly looking to insurance coverage to limit risk.
The California Attorney General’s 2016 Data Breach Report found 3 out of 5 Californians were victims of data breaches and that data breach victims were significantly more likely to experience identity theft. Notifying consumers of a data breach promptly after it happens allows and encourages them to take proactive measures (such as cancelling susceptible credit cards, purchasing identity theft prevention services, and so forth) to prevent identity theft. When consumers affirmatively act to prevent identity theft, they also minimize the amount of damages they might otherwise have that your company may ultimately be liable for.
Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
Construction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects.
After the entry of a civil judgment, the judgment creditor may proceed to execute on and collect the judgment against the judgment debtor under the framework and procedures set forth in Chapter 21 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and Rule 69 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP). NRCP 69(a) provides, “In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor … may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in these rules.” (emphasis added). The plain language of the rule, therefore, and the use of the term “any person,” rather than “any party,” presupposes that there may be non-parties to the judgment or underlying litigation from whom the judgment creditor may need to obtain discovery in order to aid in the collection of the judgment.
For several decades insurers and insureds alike agreed that a construction defect case involved only a single occurrence. Relatively recently, however, some insurers have reversed course and began to argue that each such case involves several occurrences. What precipitated this radical shift in approach? Did insurers alter the fundamental terms of standard general liability policies?
California’s Equal Pay Act (the “Act”), Cal. Lab. Code section 1197.5, is widely recognized as one of the most aggressive and pro-employee wage discrimination laws in the nation. The Act was intended to combat systemic wage discrimination by making it easier for employees to prevail on wage discrimination claims and by offering claimants greater protection from retaliation for bringing such claims. Recent amendments to the Act have left many employers uncertain of how to evaluate and justify wage anomalies and ensure compliance with the Act. Employers and practitioners hoped to receive additional guidance from the court in Coates v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CV-01913-LVK (“Coates”), one of the first high-profile cases addressing wage discrimination under the revised Act. As discussed below, however, the case settled before trial late last year, leaving employers still in need of judicial guidance.
In eminent domain cases involving the taking of property where a business is operated, the owner is entitled to compensation for the loss of goodwill. While business goodwill can often be difficult to quantify, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal in The People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Presidio Performing Arts Foundation, Case No. A145278 (November 3, 2016) (Presidio), may help to ease some of the burden on business owners in making such compensation claims. The Presidio court found that there is no single valuation method for quantifying business goodwill, and establishes that a business need not even be profitable in order to claim/receive compensation for its business goodwill.
It is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
Most employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations.
OSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
Even though most people consider themselves to be reasonable and easy to get along with, most people also have had the uncomfortable experience of running into a dispute with one of their neighbors. Whether commercial or residential properties are involved, neighbor disputes run the gamut from loud noise, to cars parked in front of driveways, to tree roots or overhanging limbs, and to boundary line disputes. The list of things neighbors can get into fights about is endless and often emotionally charged.
As the clock struck midnight on January 1st and 2016 became a distant memory, no doubt you had a glass of champagne in one hand and a stack of new employment laws in the other. What? No!? Don’t fret, we have you covered. Here’s a reminder of some of the new laws that went into effect January 1, 2017, that may impact your business.
With ramifications for consumers, homeowners, and the entire construction industry, Newmeyer and Dillion recently submitted an Amicus Brief to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of United Policyholders concerning liability insurance issues. In Haley et al. V. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. Inc. et al., N&D weighed in on the review of a district court ruling, Wisconsin law, arguing that the ruling should be reversed in order to uphold the integrity of insurance coverage and protection for policyholders within the construction industry. This appeal addresses whether insurance companies may interpret a standard insurance policy to exclude coverage for construction defect claims, even though policyholders pay to obtain insurance coverage against those very same construction defect claims! If affirmed, the district court’s ruling would be directly counter to the plain meaning of a widely used insurance policy, contrary to the reasons why that policy was purchased, and against Wisconsin public policy of requiring contractors to have insurance coverage.
When drafting operating agreements, amendments or joinders to operating agreements for limited liability companies formed in the State of California, practitioners should take note of changes to California limited liability company (LLC) law affecting the fiduciary duties of the managers and members.
Every day we read about fires, floods and other tragedies that occur. They seem to be so prevalent, now than ever before. The old notion that “it can’t happen to my family” is not the best approach to being ready if you are faced with a claim. Preparation is the key to readiness in the world of insurance. These five tips can easily be implemented just in case!
The legal industry has forgotten that it is a service industry. Outside counsel are missing opportunities to add value to their in-house counterparts, simply by failing to ask what the in-house attorneys want and need. In-house attorneys are missing the opportunity to receive assistance at the time and in the manner that would be most useful to them. The press of business thwarts efficiency.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly referred to as “Superfund,” is a federal statute that provides funding and cost-recovery to address our nation’s worst hazardous-waste sites. While CERCLA generally vests United States District Courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all related controversies, section 113(h) of the Act delays such jurisdiction while the United States Environmental Protection Agency supervises or undertakes environmental response action plans. What impact does this delayed federal jurisdiction have on state law claims brought in state courts? Short answer: “You’re out of here!” Litigants are precluded from bringing claims in state court that “challenge” environmental response actions under CERCLA during the pendency of those actions.
Many of us have purchased disability, dismemberment and life insurance policies. Senior executives, managers, doctors and lawyers often purchase these products early in their careers and then forget about them. They are reminded of the purchases only when premiums are auto withdrawn from their accounts.
After developing a business concept and starting up a business, many small business owners decide that to grow and move to the next level it is necessary to hire employees. This is a big step for young businesses and there are key items these business owners should consider in the process, such as whether the existing business structure still makes sense and how to properly document employment relationships. By addressing these important issues early in the process, a business owner lays an important foundation for success in the future and mitigates the risk of certain pitfalls along the way.
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law.
Recently, I received a call from the owners of one of my clients who explained the shocking news that they had apparently lost the right to their limited liability company’s (LLC’s) name. Why? They failed to timely file their required periodic statement of information with the California Secretary of State. They wondered whether I could help bring their LLC back into good standing. Quickly thereafter, I was able to confirm that in fact my client’s LLC was “SOS suspended” and that their company’s name had been taken by another party during the suspension. I called my client to confirm that they would have to revive their LLC by (1) filing a statement of information, and (2) paying the outstanding fees and penalties imposed by the Secretary of State. But first, they would need to change their LLC’s name. Because this name had deep family roots and a great deal of sentimental value, the news was understandably not well received, and they were left wondering, how could this have happened?
If you own a home youʼve probably been keeping at least one eye on Zillow lately. Housing values have largely crawled back from 2008 lows - and in many cases have surpassed their 2006 high-water marks.
Good news for some. Bad news for many.
By now, most employers are aware that misclassifying employees as independent contractors to reduce operating expenses is a bad idea. While not having to pay income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, workers’ compensation and other costs for workers may seem attractive at first, the potential consequences of misclassifying employees as independent contractors can be devastating; obligating the employer to pay for unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, and business expenses, in addition to hefty statutory fines. Sometimes, however, whether a worker should be classified as an employee or independent contractor is not entirely clear, especially given the rise of the gig economy. In hope of greater guidance, many people have closely followed the string of legal challenges that have plagued Uber Technologies Inc.’s (“Uber”) practice of classifying its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Those of us observing the battle from the side line will have to wait for a clear determination, however, because Uber recently settled two class actions brought by California and Massachusetts’ drivers claiming that Uber of misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. Yet, employers can still glean several important tips from examining Uber’s suits and settlements.
Six months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling - with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease.
Filing a lawsuit against a government entity can be a daunting task given the complexities of tort claims requirements and governmental immunities. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, Case No. C07020 (Jan. 20, 2016) provided welcome clarification as to the proper legal standard for an inverse condemnation action based upon activities of a government entity which cause water damage to private property.
Should You Form a Corp or an LLC?
Earlier this year, with California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. issued Executive Order B-29-15 (the “Executive Order”) aimed at conserving water supplies and reducing water waste throughout the State of California. For the first time in California’s history, this Executive Order directed state agencies to implement immediate measures to save water, increase enforcement against water waste, invest in new technologies, and streamline government response to ongoing drought conditions.
How many times has the modern lawyer been informed, and even warned, of his or her obligation to preserve clients’ electronically stored information (ESI)? Countless. In this day and age, every lawyer has heard of the latest Sedona Principles, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to ESI- not to mention the eminent Zubulake opinions that jumpstarted it all.
Most business owners and Human Resources advisors are acutely aware of employers’ obligations regarding accurately and timely paying employees. Problems can arise, however, with the method of delivering wages and providing wage statements. As with other wage and hour violations, California imposes costly penalties on non-compliant employers. Ensuring your company is squared away regarding the method of paying employees and providing them with wage statements can save you significant time and money. This article reviews basic principles under California law regarding the method of paying employees and delivering wage statements.
In Beacon Residential Community Assn v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, the California Supreme Court issued a broad ruling creating potentially extensive liability for architects who are the principal designers of residential projects. The Court held that such design professionals owe a duty of care to purchasers and can be liable for negligence even when they do not build the project and do not exercise control over construction decisions.
In March 2015, the Office of Administrative Law approved amendments to regulations promulgated by the Fair Employment & Housing Council (FEHC) interpreting the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). The updated CFRA regulations will take effect on July 1, 2015. When the FEHC announced its proposed changes to the regulations, its stated objectives were to supplement existing CFRA regulations, clarify confusing rules, and adopt some of the parallel Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations. This article reviews basic principles under the CFRA and then summarizes the changes that will go into effect on July 1.
Next year will mark the 45th anniversary of the enactment of the California Environmental Quality Act (known more commonly by the acronym “CEQA”), which was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970.
FCC's new guidelines adopted in December 2014 set some new guidelines to be aware of under Section 6409.
Contractors are routinely compelled by lenders to sign agreements to subordinate mechanic’s liens as a condition to fund construction loans. Such agreements memorialize the contractor’s assent to subordinate its mechanic’s lien rights to the lien of the deed of trust securing the lender’s construction loan.
A well-conducted diligence process identifies surprises (for good or ill) before too much time and money have been sunk into a transaction.
The Contractor's State License Law was amended, effective January 1, 2014, to revise the insurance requirements for limited liability companies seeking to obtain or renew contractor licenses. Limited liability companies will be able to obtain liability insurance from either admitted carriers or surplus line carriers to satisfy the insurance requirements imposed by the law.
In Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
With over one billion people on Facebook and over 200 million on Twitter, social media is a booming force that has worked its way into the employment sphere. Reconciling employee and employer rights in this sphere is a new and developing area of law that creates uncertainty for employers. In 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) began investigating complaints related to employee social media activity, at times involving very public complaints and embarrassing anecdotes regarding places of business.
Wage and hour disputes just became more expensive for California employers. In Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819 [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242], the California Court of Appeal held that employees may, in certain circumstances, allege that violations of the Labor Code resulted in their constructive discharge.
If you are contemplating forming a limited liability company in California or are a member or manager of an existing limited liability company doing business in California, you should take note of recent changes in California limited liability company law. These changes may affect your business.
Sophisticated businesses include indemnity clauses in their contracts to protect against costs and liability in the event a lawsuit arises out of the transaction. What may surprise you is that the Nevada Supreme Court has made rulings over the last several years that have eviscerated the protections those indemnity provisions were supposed to provide.
One of the first hurdles contractors face when they get involved in a construction project may be the bidding or contracting process. Under California law, a contractor's approach toward this process will vary greatly depending on whether the project is private or public.
The due diligence period is a buyer's opportunity to 'kick the tires' of a property it is considering acquiring by performing a variety of investigations and studies. A well-conducted diligence process will yield benefits by identifying surprises (for good or ill) before too much time, money and effort have been sunk into a transaction.
Nothing in real estate development creates more confusion or poses the potential for more future problems than the decision of when to terminate a single purpose entity (SPE) used with the development of a residential project. While terminating an SPE should be straightforward, deciding when to terminate is more complex than one may think.
The bleak economy of the past six years touched nearly every individual and business in California and the country. As the housing market recovers and the economy begins to grow, optimism seems to be taking hold.
The Court of Appeal in North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance Co. recently issued a significant opinion finding that statements and notes made by an insurance company's employee can be used as evidence that an insurance company has a duty to defend its policyholder in a lawsuit.
"Friends for Fragile X names new board members"
"PEOPLE: Friends for Fragile X names new board members"
"Newmeyer & Dillion Hires Jonathan Terry as Partner"
"You Are Not Out of the Woods Yet!"
"Movers & Shakers - Jonathan Terry"
"Still Unclear on ADA Accommodations?"
"A heartfelt effort for a good cause"
"Navy Reserve Legal: Support, Assistance and Expertise"
"Why are some attorneys better negotiators than others?"
"Karl Foster - Bay Area People"
"CRE Law Firm Continues Bay Area Expansion with New Hire"
"Top California Business And Real Estate Law Firm Newmeyer & Dillion Expands Its Walnut Creek Branch"
"How Clean are Your Contracts?"
"Newmeyer & Dillion Hires Three Attorneys"
"Brandon Clouse - Bay Area People"
"Newmeyer & Dillion Hires Transaction Specialist Karl Foster For Walnut Creek Office"
"Day of Reckoning for Securities Class Actions"
When the fledgling California State Legislature convened for its first session in the old State Capital of San Jose in the year 1850, it enacted legislation to open the roads of the state to a new form of communications technology: the telegraph. The new law was titled “an Act concerning Corporations.” Among other things, it conferred on telegraph corporations “the right to construct lines of telegraph along the public roads” throughout the width and breadth of the new state.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in fine
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.