On August 11, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressing the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s statutory requirements for timely...more
After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed...more
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more
In an August 12, 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit emphasized important differences between the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”)—differences which might...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Dana Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp. relieves some pressure for employers, holding that late payment of arbitration fees does not result in an automatic...more
The use of arbitration clauses in employment and consumer-related contracts is ubiquitous. California law requires companies facing employment and consumer claims in arbitration to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more
In its August 11, 2025 decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (S284498), the California Supreme Court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, the 30-day arbitration fee payment rule. While...more
Case Background - A sanitation employee at Golden State Foods Corporation, signed an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) at the start of his employment. In 2020, after reporting alleged...more
Abraham Lincoln once famously said that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” While this statement has been demonstrated to be true more often than not, what happens when (1) the pro se representation is not...more
In CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (2025), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside), issued a published opinion that clarifies a recurring procedural dilemma in civil litigation:...more
Since the passage of Senate Bill 328, there has been a movement calling on Illinois Governor Pritzker to veto Senate Bill 328. Advocates for the veto include the American Tort Reform Association, the American Property...more
Welcome to WilmerHale’s bulletin on recent trade secret case law and relevant news items. We’ve affectionately nicknamed it “Readily Ascertainable” because, unlike a trade secret, it should be easy to figure out....more
Q: I am involved in pending litigation and would like to get a receiver appointed. The facts of the case, however, don’t exactly fit into the types of cases enumerated in Cal. Civ. Pro. Code §564(b). Is there some other bases...more
Since its enactment in 2019, Code of Civil Procedure 1281.98, which governs arbitration fee payments, has been inviolate: arbitrators do not have the unilateral power to extend the fee payment deadline; “checks in the mail”...more
In Part Five of the New Laws series from Best Best & Krieger LLP (BBK), new legislation for 2025 focusing on the Brown Act, Environment, Public Contracts, Affordable Housing, Elections and Employment Law includes key...more
On April 4, 2019, Vadim Gorobets sued Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC based on allegations the defendant had violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (California’s “lemon law”). On October 15, 2020, defendant...more
California employers will soon be able to more easily obtain temporary restraining orders (TROs) to protect employees from harassment before conduct has escalated to acts of violence or credible threats of violence under a...more
Those who litigate in California state courts, take note: Changes are coming to the state’s summary judgment statute for the first time in 20 years. Assembly Bill 2049 (AB 2049), signed into law this summer, introduces...more
While many Californians consider the legality of cannabis to be settled law, the ongoing conflict between California and federal laws on the subject continue to give rise to unexpected outcomes when it comes to real property...more
The Third District Court of Appeal held that it was proper to award respondents costs for the preparation of CEQA administrative record documents as the prevailing party, even though petitioners had elected to prepare the...more
Lawyers, like all humans, experience the full gamut of life’s difficulties. Sometimes those intrude into the practice of law itself, up to and including CEQA litigation. On September 26, 2024, the First District Court of...more
A recent California appellate case clarifies the application of the statute of limitations to trust amendments. In Smith v. Myers (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 586, a dispute arose between the decedent’s children and his widow...more
Lawyers love obscure rules about giving three-day notices—the kind that California landlords hate. The decision in City of Alameda v. Sheehan, published September 13, 2024, teaches that there is a wrong way to issue a notice...more
The obvious preference for the average person is never to be involved in litigation. For those forced to become party to a lawsuit, however, the dream then becomes prevailing on a motion for summary judgment. With such a...more