The Current State of the Holder Rule: Friend or Foe? — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Recent Developments in California's Arbitration Landscape — FCRA Focus Podcast
Lemon Law Shakeup: Rodriguez vs. FCA US Has Unexpected Result – Moving The Metal Podcast
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
Forum selection clauses have long been a feature of commercial contracting. Since then-Chancellor Strine’s decision in Boilermakers Local 154 Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp., Delaware corporations have routinely included such...more
On April 24, 2025, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a contract provision restricting liability for willful injury was unenforceable under California Civil Code section 1668. This decision was in response to...more
On April 24, 2025, the California Supreme Court held that contract clauses that limit damages for injuries caused by willful tortious conduct are prohibited by Section 1668 of the California Civil Code....more
On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of California passed down a unanimous decision in a lawsuit closely watched by commercial real estate landlords and retail tenants that involved the validity of so-called cotenancy...more
The California Supreme Court weighed in on the validity of commercial lease co-tenancy provisions with its recent opinion in JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC. A commercial lease co-tenancy clause conditions a...more
...NLRB Issues Final Rule on ‘Joint Employer’ Standard On - October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a final rule titled “Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status,” which rescinds and...more
California Civil Code Section 1671 provides that a liquidated damages provision is either presumptively valid or invalid depending upon the subject matter of the contract. If the contract involves “the retail purchase, or...more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decisions: Cam-Carson, LLC v. Carson Reclamation Authority, et al., Case No. B312729: Plaintiff, a commercial real estate developer joint venture, sued the City of Carson...more
In 2012, the California Legislature enacted changes to the California Insurance Code that provide protections intended to shield consumers from losing life insurance coverage due to late or missed insurance premium...more
Section 496(a) of the California Penal Code criminalizes the receipt of stolen property. Section 496(c) provides that a person injured by a violation of Section 496(a) may "bring an action for three times the amount of...more
In a recent Alabama federal court decision, aptly captioned Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance American, Inc., the plaintiff reinsured brought three counts of bad faith against the defendant...more
In Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 1246, the California Supreme Court found that service contracts are not express warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Act did not otherwise...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019). On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California...more
claims often end in confidential settlements, as do many insured liabilities. But does it matter if lawyers sign a settlement agreement approving “as to form and content”? Last month, the California Supreme Court answered...more
This month’s key California employment law cases involve reporting time pay and potential liability of payroll companies for wage and hour violations. ...more
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...more
On February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of California issued its decision in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, holding that employees may not sue their employers’ payroll companies for wage claims in connection with their employment....more
On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court determined that an employee cannot sue a payroll company for breach of contract under the third party beneficiary doctrine, and that it is inappropriate to impose a tort duty...more
On Feb. 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court struck a decisive victory in favor of payroll companies, issuing a unanimous opinion that an employee is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between her employer and its...more
Eddie Money Beats Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Free Speech Right - Symmonds v. Mahoney, 31 Cal. App. 5th 1096 (2019) - After 41 years, singer/songwriter Edward Joseph Mahoney (aka "Eddie Money") terminated the...more
At least, not directly. Can an employee sue her employer’s payroll services provider for alleged violations of California’s wage and hour laws? According to a recent decision from the California Supreme Court, the answer...more
In Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (S238941), the California Supreme Court has created new protections for payroll companies in lawsuits involving claims of labor violations. Although previous case law has held that employees with...more
Last week, the California State Supreme Court struck a decisive victory in favor of payroll companies, issuing a unanimous opinion that an employee is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between her employer and its...more
• The California Supreme Court recently held that an employee could not pursue contract and tort claims against a payroll service provider for unpaid wages. • The Court found that (1) an employee was not a “third-party...more