Whether a worker is classified as an independent contractor or an employee is of critical importance to businesses. By way of example, if a worker is classified as an employee, she is given the protection of the California Wage Orders and is entitled to regular meal and rest breaks as well as overtime compensation. If …
In a recent case, Baker Marquat LLP v. Kantor 2018 DJDAR 3685, (April 25, 2018), the California Court of Appeal held that in a binding fee arbitration, the submission and consideration of a confidential brief that contained claims not included in the arbitration demand was an ex parte communication. The Appellate Court found that the arbitration award …
In a recent California Supreme Court case, the Court resolved a split between Appellate Courts about whether a contractor can withhold payments to a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute “ exception to the State’s prepayment laws if the dispute concerns any dispute between the parties or if the dispute must be directly relevant …
In a recent California Court of Appeals case, the Court considered a matter of first impression: Can a Landlord be held liable to a commercial tenant for damage to a tenants property, resulting from an alleged sewage backup, when the tenant (who had a month to month tenancy after its lease had expired) had stopped …
In a recent case, the Forth District Court of Appeal held that a complaint that fails to state an amount of damages or states that it will be an amount “to be proved” is void not just voidable. In Airs Aromatics v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies 2018 DJDAR 5045, the Court set aside a $3 million default …
In a case decided Monday, June 4, 2018, the California Supreme Court held that an insured employer that is sued for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision of an employee is entitled to coverage even when the alleged damage is caused by the intentional act of an employee. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. Ledesma & Meyer Construction …
In the recent case of Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) WL 3017203, the 2nd District of the California Court of Appeal considered the “Vehicle use exception” to the “going and coming” rule of employees commuting to work. An employee’s commute to and from work is generally not considered to be within the course and scope of …
When Is An Employer Liable During an Employee’s Commute to Work? Read More »
Julander, Brown & Bollard successfully defended an indemnity cross-complaint against its client, Arlon LLC, who was also awarded all of its attorney’s fees incurred in the defense. Arlon sold its vinyl manufacturing business to Arlon Graphics in 2011. As part of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Graphics agreed to assume responsibility under the existing building lease. …
In a recent case in 2nd District of the California Court of Appeal, Vasquez v San Miguel Produce, Inc. (2018 DJDAR 789), the Court held that an agency or similar relationship between a nonsignatory and one of the parties to an arbitration agreement allows enforcement of arbitration by the nonsignatory. In the case, plaintiffs were employed by Employers …
On Monday, February 25, 2019, Judge Linda Marks of the Orange County Superior Court issued a favorable ruling on a motion for summary judgment brought by Julander, Brown & Bollard in a case that was scheduled to go to trial in March of this year. The ruling will remove JBB’s client, a large New York …