News & Analysis as of

Contract Terms CA Supreme Court

Perkins Coie

California Supreme Court Upholds Reduced Rent Remedies in Cotenancy Clauses

Perkins Coie on

Key Takeaways - - In JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, the Supreme Court of California upheld the validity of a cotenancy provision in a retail lease, affirming that in certain instances where clauses are drafted...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

To Sever or Not to Sever, That is the Question For Courts Reviewing Employment Arbitration Agreements for Enforceability

Less than a year ago, the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. opined, in the context of employment arbitration agreements, that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

California Supreme Court Decides Cotenancy Provisions Are Here to Stay

Husch Blackwell LLP on

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

Patton Sullivan Brodehl LLP

Commercial Lease Co-Tenancy Clauses: California Supreme Court Weighs In

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

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

“Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on

In 2003, the California Supreme Court adopted a stringent test to determine whether an employer had waived its right to compel arbitration of an employee’s claims.  The most critical, and often determinative, factor was...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements

In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

California Supreme Court Says Severing Unconscionable Terms From Arbitration Agreements Is a Question of Fairness

On July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision that could provide courts in the state with significant discretion to refuse to enforce employment arbitration agreements even if only one term is determined...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

CA Supreme Court: No Three-Strikes Rule For Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

CDF Labor Law LLP on

In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that courts cannot refuse to enforce arbitration agreements simply by finding that three or more provisions are unconscionable. Rather, courts must use a three-prong...more

Allen Matkins

If Corporate Charters Are Contracts, Must They Be Signed By The Corporation?

Allen Matkins on

Recently, Professor Ann Lipton wrote that the California Supreme Court has granted review of EpicentRx, In.c v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 5th 890 (2023), review granted 539 P.3d 118 (2023).   This was a case that I...more

Holland & Knight LLP

California's New Nationwide Focus on Noncompetition Agreements

Holland & Knight LLP on

For decades, California has taken arguably the most pro-employee-mobility position on noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements in the country – generally, post-employment noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements...more

Payne & Fears

Going Rogue: Navigating a Business Through Fraud or Unethical Conduct by a Co-Owner

Payne & Fears on

Part Two of a Series - Payne & Fears’ Business Litigation Group helps businesses and their owners with wide-ranging disputes. In our practice, we’ve noticed that in disputes among business partners there are common issues...more

Allen Matkins

California Supreme Court Denies Review Of Default Interest Decision

Allen Matkins on

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

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

California Supreme Court Gives Employee Two Bites of the Class Action Apple

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, No. S261247, that could have a far-reaching impact on the relationships between staffing companies and their clients....more

Lathrop GPM

The Franchise Memorandum - Issue # 262

Lathrop GPM on

California Supreme Court Applies Independent Contractor Standard Retroactively; Does Not Reach Applicability to Franchises - The California Supreme Court has held that its Dynamex decision applies retroactively, answering...more

Patton Sullivan Brodehl LLP

When Business Competition Goes Too Far: Interference With At-Will Contracts

The American economy’s capitalist features promote the need for healthy business competition.  One of the judiciary’s jobs has been to draw lines as to when that competition goes too far, without stifling legitimate...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: July 2020

Payne & Fears on

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) - Summary: The ministerial exception, grounded in First Amendment’s religion clauses, barred teachers’ employment discrimination claims where teachers...more

Snell & Wilmer

Service Contracts Are Not Express Warranties Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

Snell & Wilmer on

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

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Only A Contracting Party May Sue Under Government Code Section 1092

Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more

Carlton Fields

The Conflict Between Choice-of-Law Provisions in Insurance Policies and a State’s Fundamental Public Policy

Carlton Fields on

Many contracts include a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to use a particular jurisdiction’s set of laws to govern the contract. These provisions promote predictability. No matter where a dispute may arise...more

Payne & Fears

California Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Arbitration Agreements that Require Civil Litigation Procedures for Wage Claims

Payne & Fears on

On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court held in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, S244630, that a mandatory arbitration agreement may be unenforceable against employee wage claims if it requires the employee to forego the “Berman”...more

McManis Faulkner

Is California’s McGill Rule Still Good Law?

McManis Faulkner on

On June 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in three separate cases that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017) — otherwise...more

Allen Matkins

Mirabile Dictu! Court Finds No Per Se Application Of Non-Compete Ban

Allen Matkins on

California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 declares void "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind". The California Supreme Court famously...more

Pillsbury - Policyholder Pulse blog

California Puts Teeth into Confidentiality Provisions. Lawyer Gets Bitten.

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

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

California Supreme Court Holds Monster Energy Can Pursue Claim Against Attorney for Breach of Confidentiality in Settlement...

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, et al., California Sp. Ct., Case No. S251392 (July 11, 2019) - Brief Summary - The California Supreme Court ruled that where an attorney signs a settlement contract under the notation:...more

Jones Day

A Growing Trend: Employee Non-Solicitation Provisions Are Under Attack in California and Elsewhere

Jones Day on

California courts are known for the skepticism with which they approach post-employment restrictive covenants. Until recently, however, they have generally enforced covenants restricting individuals from soliciting their...more

31 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide