The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
How to Secure Advances to Fund Legal Fees
Legislative Update: Cannabis, COVID-19, COMAR and More
Let's Talk About How Much It Costs To Get Divorced
Employment Law and Attorney Fees from the Employee Perspective | Jason Smith | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Let's Talk Retaining a Family Law Lawyer
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
THE PAPER CHASE
VIDEO: Are PA Workers Compensation Attorney Fees Now Taken from Medical Benefits Too?
What Should I Do If My Employer Failed to Pay Me Wages?
6 Key Takeaways | Ethics Developments in California
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
Who pays attorney fees in a divorce proceeding?
SEC Whistleblower Program: What Employers Need to Know
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Must Disclose What Clients Pay
Bill on Bankruptcy: Stockton May Win the Battle, Lose the War
The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to...more
The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, affirming in part that the arbitration agreement contained some substantive unconscionability but remanding the case to determine whether...more
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more
A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California recently held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment must clearly state that attorneys’ fees and costs are limited or waived, as Arvest Central...more
On February 27, 2023, in a much anticipated decision, California’s Second District Court of Appeal overruled the trial court by determining that the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) did not violate...more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decision earlier this week: Travis et al. v. Brand et al., Case No. S268480: Government Code section 91003(a) gives trial courts discretion to award attorney’s fees to “a...more
The California Supreme Court last week issued a decision in Siry Investments vs. Saeed Farkhondehpour that could dramatically expand the remedies available to partners or others in a commercial dispute who are victims of...more
In a long-awaited opinion — Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour — the California Supreme Court held that California Penal Code section 496 can apply to a business dispute. The opinion resolves a split of authority among...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
Finding a good dance partner can be difficult. If all goes well, your and your partner's steps and turns are in sync, and you both are happy with the resulting dance. But occasionally, your dance partner may make a misstep...more
The California Supreme Court has ruled in Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. that the FTC Holder Rule’s limit on a consumer’s “recovery” to the “amounts paid by the debtor” under the contract does include the consumer’s...more
On May 26, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc., et al., Case No. S267576, 2022 WL 1672918 (May 26, 2022). The court held that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “Holder...more
On March 1, the Supreme Court of California held oral arguments in Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, Inc., No. S267576 (2021). The appeal may decide (at least under California state law) whether the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC)...more
Last month, the FTC issued an advisory opinion clarifying that the Holder Rule does not preempt any state laws that put more liability on banks that are the “holders” of a loan contract, and in particular, the rule does not...more
The California Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an appeal in Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc., a case with significant implications for the amount of money a plaintiff can recover when proceeding against a dealer/seller...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Involving the California Environmental Quality Act - Despite relatively few published opinions this year, there were significant appellate court rulings on a range of topics,...more
Can the sledgehammer remedies of California Penal Code section 496 — treble (triple) damages and attorney fees — apply for misappropriation of an LLC’s property? The California Supreme Court is set to answer that question...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just did something that was more than just a bit out of character—it rejected the opportunity to find that California had once again overstepped its bounds by creating judicial rules disfavoring...more
2018 Year in Review: Public agencies prevailed in 65% of CEQA cases analyzed. Over the course of 2018, Latham & Watkins lawyers reviewed all 57 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases, both published and...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Under the California Environmental Quality Act - The California Supreme Court issued its only CEQA opinion of 2018 at the end of the year. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the...more
Employee Non-Solicitation Provision Was An Unenforceable Restraint - AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 5669154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) - AMN and Aya are competitors in the business of providing...more
This month’s key employment law cases address pre-employment physicals, appeals from California Labor Commissioner awards, and background checks. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018)...more
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good...more
It is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Mountain Air Enterprises v. Sundowner Towers, addressing a simple but important question regarding attorneys' fees provisions in commercial contracts: If a contract...more