Viewing entries by
CKB VIENNA
If your employee is injured on the job, you are going to need to respond appropriately by having them seek medical help, securing the workplace, documenting the incident, reporting the incident to the appropriate authorities, and cooperating with your employee’s compensation claim. Steps 1, 2, and 3 below should be taken nearly simultaneously.
California imposes a number of burdens on employers to ensure that the diversity of the state’s general population is reflected in the workplace, including anti-discrimination requirements, sexual harassment prevention training, and boardroom diversity requirements. California’s diversity requirements are numerous, and the following is only a sample.
You can take advantage of the overlap between California real property law and estate law to benefit your estate plan by retitling real estate, forming living trusts, and other measures. The following represents only a few of the many ways that you can structure real estate ownership to benefit your estate plan.
Buying a home in California implicates a multitude of legal concerns such as the sellers’ required disclosures, title insurance, the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, and the possibility of Mello-Roos taxes. It is important for you to develop a basic familiarity with these concerns before you finalize your purchase.
Docket: 12-17403
Opinion Date: June 23, 2014
Judge: Smith
Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Class Action, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably.
Download Opinion Here
Docket: 12-55578
Opinion Date: June 23, 2014
Judge: Watford
Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Class Action, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Download Opinion Here
Docket: 12-55156
Opinion Date: June 20, 2014
Judge: Paez
Areas of Law: Construction Law
Candelaria, CCIC, and Otay (collectively, defendants) appealed the district court's judgment in favor of Ramona, the supplier of rental equipment, in Ramona's action under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3131-3134. The court held that Ramona's notice of demand was timely as to rental equipment furnished more than ninety days before the notice. The court joined its sister circuits and held that if all the goods in a series of deliveries by a supplier on an open book account are used on the same government project, the ninety-day notice is timely as to all the deliveries if it is given within ninety days from the last delivery. Concluding that there was no risk of double liability to Candelaria, the court affirmed the district court's award in damages, holding that all amounts due for all the rental equipment furnished to Otay for construction of the project were properly in the ninety-day notice. The court affirmed the district court's ruling not to award damages for invoices submitted on or after June 10, 2008, where Ramona had commercially reasonable justifications for choosing not to mitigate its damages prior to that date. Defendant's claim that Ramona waived its right to collect service charges was waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Download Opinion Here
