JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Easily Make Simple Words Complicated
Bill on Bankruptcy: ResCap Report, a Bargain at $83 Million
As Expected, Noel Canning v. NLRB Headed to the Supreme Court
Bill on Bankruptcy: How Purchasers of AMR Stock Made a Killing
In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643 (“Meinhardt”), the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authorities over a procedural matter that will give CEQA litigants some certainty about when an appeal...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Jorge Luis Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., resolving a court of appeal split between the Second District (Wesson v. Staples...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills. In the Estrada decision, the California Supreme Court resolved a split of authority on the issue of whether trial courts...more
On 18 January 2024, the Supreme Court of California (Court) unanimously held that trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice claims brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)...more
Now That California Courts Have Been Stripped of Authority to Dismiss Unmanageable PAGA Claims, How Will Employers Manage PAGA Litigation? The California Supreme Court, on Jan. 18, issued its decision in Estrada v. Royalty...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
On March 23, 2022, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., ruled that courts do not have authority to strike a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal, held that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.” This decision creates a split of authority with Wesson v....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
In ZB, N.A., and Zions Bancorporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. S246711, __ Cal. 5th __, 2019 WL 4309684 (Cal. 2019) (ZB), the California Supreme Court held on Sept. 12, 2019, that California's Labor Code...more
In resolving a growing split among California courts, the California Supreme Court in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court faced the issue of whether actions for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 brought under the Private...more
• On September 12, 2019, in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson), Case No. S246711, the California Supreme Court held the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) does not allow recovery of unpaid wages under Labor Code Section...more
Almost two years ago, Money and Dirt covered a Fourth District California Court of Appeal opinion addressing an apparent split of authority regarding how a lender can enforce senior and junior deeds of trust on the same...more
On December 17, 2018, in Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center, (2018 S.O.S. 5945), the California Supreme Court addressed a split in authority on the issue of when a new owner, who has acquired title to property...more
In recent case of United Riggers and Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron and Steel Company ___ Cal. 4th ___ (May 14, 2018 Case No. S231549), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment...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
A referendum requiring either the rejection of an enacted zoning ordinance or submission to the voters that would leave in place zoning inconsistent with a general plan does not violate Gov’t Code Section 65860, according to...more
This edition examines recent labor and employment developments at the U.S. federal, state and local levels, including the House of Representatives' American Health Care Act and the Senate's Better Care Reconciliation Act, the...more
Arbitrator or Judge? California Supreme Court Weighs in - Why it matters - Yet again, the California Supreme Court considered arbitration in the context of an employment agreement, this time reflecting on whether a...more
In a unanimous opinion addressing a legal issue of statewide importance, the California Supreme Court resolved a split of authority and held that a governmental entity’s inadvertent release of privileged documents under the...more
Last year, I wrote about the Second Appellate District case of Ardon v. City of Los Angeles. In Ardon, the appellate court found that a public agency can waive statutory privileges that it otherwise would have if it produces...more
Decision Conflicts with a Separate Appellate Court Decision to be Considered by the California Supreme Court - In Great Oaks Water Company v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, originally issued March 26, the Sixth...more
Happy post-Thanksgiving! News flash for the background screening industry as well as users of background checks in California. The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Investigative Consumer Reporting...more