Orange County Litigation Attorney Blog

Orange County police officer claims wrongful termination

2012-02-14T20:49:07Z

A California man who was an officer with the Huntington Beach Police Department for 19 years has been fired. The termination of his employment has resulted in an employment law dispute in which he is seeking $500,000 in compensation.

At the time of the man's termination, he was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, which was launched because a camera that the man had checked in as found property contained pictures of his family. The former officer states that he regularly kept his wife's digital camera in his work bag and accidentally logged it as found property at the station.

]]> However, when he was fired, the man was also experiencing serious health issues and had applied for disability retirement. But his application for disability retirement was denied by the station.

The former police officer had a pre-existing heart condition. When his Internal Affairs investigation began, he was told it would be confidential and that he should not discuss it with other officers. But upon receiving notification from a colleague that his investigation had been leaked, he claims his heart condition worsened due to increased stress.

There is a continuing investigation into the man's claim that his personal information was leaked. However, although he says he was wrongfully terminated, his employer believes that his application for disability retirement was appropriately and legally denied and that he was lawfully terminated. In disputes such as this, it is typically indispensible that employers and employees alike seek advice from legal professionals who are familiar with employment law. The ins and outs of employee-related lawsuits can be complicated, and an experienced civil litigation attorney can help ease the process of reaching an equitable solution.

Source: The Orange County Register, "Former H.B. cop claims wrongful termination, wants $500,000," Jaimee Lynn Fletcher, Jan. 13, 2012

Intern files employee-related lawsuit for lack of compensation

2012-02-09T18:15:43Z

Unpaid internships are becoming more and more common in today's economy. Many California students take unpaid internships in an effort to obtain a paying job following college. These California students may be interested to know that employers offering unpaid internships are held to particular standards by the Department of Labor to ensure that unpaid employment opportunities are legal and that companies are not abusing their power in the use of unpaid employees.

An unpaid intern who worked for Harper's Bazaar has brought an employee-related lawsuit against Hearst Corporation, the publisher of the magazine. The intern claims her unpaid internship violated labor regulations and employment laws.

]]> Unpaid internships, although legal, must meet the standards set by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the FLSA, an unpaid internship is legal if it meets the following requirements:

The internship is educational
It benefits the student intern before benefitting the employer
Unpaid interns cannot replace regular paid employees
The employer must not gain any "immediate advantage" from the employment of the unpaid intern and, in some cases, may actually be disadvantaged
The employer and the intern must understand that there is no entitlement to wages for time spent as an unpaid intern

The careers website of Hearst Magazines states that the interns will not be paid for their internship, but will instead receive academic credit if they so desire. The website also states that "internships are to provide opportunities for students to gain valuable experience and exposure to the world of publishing."

Whether the commitments stated above by Hearst Magazines are enough to meet the standards of the FLSA will be determined by this intern's lawsuit.

The intern and her lawyers intend seek out other unpaid Hearst Corporation interns to join the class-action lawsuit against the publishing company.

Source: Reuters, "Unpaid intern sues magazine for minimum wage, overtime," Jonathan Allen, Feb. 1, 2012

California woman sues in gender-related employment law case

2012-01-30T22:45:44Z

A California woman has filed a lawsuit to recover $2 million for being denied the chance to make history as the first female firefighter at a California fire department. The woman's employment law claim states that she not only endured workplace discrimination but also experienced wrongful termination. She claims that she was abruptly informed by her superiors that if she did not sign a letter of resignation from the fire department, she would be terminated.

In January 2010, the woman became the first female to be accepted into the firefighter program, at which point she began her stint as a probationary firefighter. In the almost two years since she was accepted into the program, she says that she passed every test and completed every task.

]]> Yet in December 2011, only three weeks prior to the completion of her probationary period, she was informed that she should either sign a letter of resignation or she would be terminated. Upon asking for the reason, the woman claims that her employers were unable to give her a valid answer.

She signed the letter of resignation only so she would be able to apply for similar jobs with other companies. She is now working as a paramedic and makes only a fourth of what she could have made as a firefighter. Therefore, she has filed a $2 million lawsuit for gender discrimination and wrongful termination.

In addition to her wrongful termination claim, the woman also says that she was a victim of gender-based workplace discrimination and sexual harassment inflicted by her superiors and co-workers.

The woman says she had relied on securing the firefighter position and was planning her life accordingly by saving up to eventually have a house and a family.

Employees in California who are concerned that their rights have been violated through wrongful termination will likely want to consult with a legal professional with experience in employment law. An attorney can help ensure that all of the available options are considered and that due compensation is pursued in the event of a wrongful firing.

Likewise, employers who are facing an employee-related lawsuit will want to consult with an attorney who can help ensure compliance with current federal and California employment laws.

Source: 10news.com, "Woman to sue city of Carlsbad over firefighting job," Jan. 25, 2012

California employees urged to sign illegal non-compete agreements

2012-01-23T22:32:24Z

In the midst of the acquisition of New York Times Regional Media Group by Halifax Media Holdings, former New York Times employees were recently asked to sign non-compete agreements.

The non-compete agreements were posed as a condition for the former Times employees to be rehired by Halifax. The agreement states that employees may not "directly or indirectly... be employed by, perform services for, or hold any ownership interest in the business of operating a newspaper."

]]> This creates problems, however, because non-compete agreements are illegal in California. There are a few small exceptions to this rule, but as far as employees are concerned, it is illegal to force or even urge them to sign a non-compete and to condition employment upon their signatures. In addition, even if Halifax and the employees did agree to the inclusion of a non-compete clause in the employment contract, it would still be invalid and unenforceable under California law.

This recent development with Halifax trying to enforce the signing of non-compete agreements has created a delay in employment for former Times employees. Many of them have been left without information as to the potential outcome of the predicament or what their course of action should be.

Many of the employees are apprehensive and nervous about the future of their careers. They feel as if they're being strong-armed into the signing of an illegal non-compete agreement. It is important for California employees to understand that non-compete agreements are illegal and invalid. Employees cannot be forced to sign such an agreement as a condition of being employed by any company within the state.

The unsteady economy has created a breeding ground for mergers and acquisitions. Under these conditions, it is important to be aware of your rights as an employee of a company that may be undergoing such changes.

Source: The Atlantic Wire, "Former Times Co. Employees Prepare to Lawyer Up," Adam Clark Estes, Jan. 11, 2012

California software maker Symantec accused of unfair competition

2012-01-20T17:40:38Z

The California software company Symantec -- a maker of programs designed to identify and address privacy and performance issues on computers -- has been accused of violating California's unfair competition laws. The complaint seeks class-action status and says that Symantec is guilty of fraudulent inducement for trying to scare users into purchasing licenses for its dubiously protective software.

The man who filed the complaint hired a group of computer forensics experts who claim to have determined that trial versions of three of Symantec's products were designed to detect problems on computers, regardless if any existed.

]]> The complaint claims that three of the company's products -- PC Tools Registry Mechanic, PC Tools Performance Toolkit and Norton Utilities -- effectively function as scareware. These products, says the complaint, "invariably report, in an extremely ominous manner, that harmful errors, privacy risks, and other computer problems exist on the user's PC, regardless of the real condition of the consumer's computer."

Apparently, after the trial versions of the products complete a scan, the user is told that not all of the found problems can be fixed without purchasing a full license. The hired experts also claimed to have found that errors flagged as "High Priority" are not really harmful to the functioning of a computer. Further, the plaintiff says the products invariably report that a computer has a low rating in terms of the system, privacy and hard-disk health, though apparently no real assessment of the issues has been performed.

The accusations against Symantec were recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Residents in the Newport Beach area may also be dealing with similar issues related to California's unfair competition laws. In such cases, the plaintiffs and the accused parties would do well to be aware of all of their rights under the current rules and regulations. Consulting with an experienced business litigation attorney can help ensure that a reasonable resolution is on the horizon for all parties involved.

Source: pcworld.com, "Lawsuit Claims Symantec Sells Scareware-like Products," Lucian Constantin, Jan. 11, 2012

Litigation may hold up construction of California bullet train

2012-01-12T19:44:44Z

The proposed construction of a California bullet train may face construction litigation from numerous groups in favor of in-depth environmental review of the project. Since 2009, California lawmakers have exempted 10 large-scale highway construction projects from environmental review, and last year a proposed $800 million football stadium in Los Angeles was put on the environmental fast track. But opponents of the largest of these construction projects -- the $98 billion bullet train -- are concerned that legislators will allow similar easements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Since the start of the economic recession, lawmakers have allowed the sidestepping of certain aspects of the law in an effort to create thousands of construction jobs when people were badly in need of work.

]]> Now a Hollywood assemblyman has introduced a measure that would expedite environmental review for "public rail transit projects." For groups worried about the environmental and financial impact of the bullet train project, the measure was a cause for concern. For example, California farmers in the Central Valley have expressed their worries about the repercussions of the rail transit construction. The farmers fear their environmental protections may be violated.

Proponents of the project fear that litigation over its potential environmental effects could hold up construction for years. Construction unions and developers have long complained about the tedious process of getting a project approved in accordance with environmental law.

Current California law says that developers must write full and detailed reports regarding the pros and cons of large construction projects. Developers must also provide strategies for minimizing a construction job's effects on traffic, smog, noise and urban sprawl. After reading these reports, critics and organizations have the right to sue, and such construction litigation can sometimes last for years. If developers end up losing the lawsuit, they are sometimes required to undergo the time-consuming process of writing new reports. It will be interesting for readers in Orange County and the surrounding areas to see the outcome of any lawsuits that result from the proposed high-speed rail.

Source: Huffington Post, "California High-Speed Rail Critics Worry Approval Process Will Be Fast-Tracked," Lance Williams, Jan. 12, 2012

Class-action business litigation: Playstation users vs. Sony

2012-01-05T16:28:18Z

A class-action lawsuit was recently filed against Sony in a court in California. The business litigation suit alleges that Sony's recent changes to its Playstation Network terms and conditions agreement are unfair because they will prevent network users from being able to pursue class-action lawsuits against Sony. The changes to the terms and conditions would require users to resolve disputes individually. The lawsuit alleges that the altered terms are unlawful because they would force users to waive their legal rights.

Sony made the changes to its user agreement in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision that granted AT&T the right to include similar language in its user agreements. The AT&T language bars customers from launching class-action lawsuits, requiring them instead to solve their disagreements through arbitration proceedings. The recent changes in Sony's terms and conditions come after a previous lawsuit involving Playstation Network users. In that class-action case, network users complained because Sony dropped its support for the Linux operating system due to security concerns (hackers were utilizing the Linux feature to get around security barriers). The lawsuit relating to the discontinued Linux feature sought compensation for users in terms of the reduced value of the Playstation 3 product after the Linux removal, but a judge disagreed and later dismissed the action. Sony's recent changes to its user agreement would protect the company from this kind of class-action litigation in the future.

]]> According to a Sony spokesperson, a number of different companies protect themselves from business litigation by amending the terms and conditions of their agreements. Even Microsoft has done it, he said. The Sony spokesperson added that network users could opt out of the changes if they wished by sending a request to Sony in writing.

This class-action complaint, alleging that Sony committed unfair business practices, includes all people who bought a Playstation 3 game system and became Playstation Network customers before the changes to the user agreement were made. According to the Supreme Court, AT&T already won the ability to bar its customers from launching class-action complaints against it in certain situations. But whether or not Sony will be able to do the same remains to be seen, as this California filing makes its way through the federal court system.

Source: BBC News, "Sony is sued in US over 'no-sue' agreement," Dec. 21, 2011

Hooters settles employee-related lawsuit in California

2011-12-29T23:52:02Z

Many California residents are familiar with Hooters, the somewhat risqué bar and grill. Recent news concerning a class-action lawsuit filed against several Sacramento-area Hooters reports that both sides have reached a settlement. Of course, the entirety of the details concerning this business litigation were not released, but a few key points were revealed.

The lawsuit was initially filed in Sacramento Superior Court in March 2010. The case involved roughly 400 current and former Hooters employees. As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to relax certain uniform requirements, as well as guarantee break times for employees. In addition, the company agreed to pay employees for all Hooters-related work, provide lockers for employees and discontinue holding employees responsible when patrons fail to pay their bills. It was also announced that there would be some type of financial award in the class-action suit, though those details were not made fully available at the time of reports.

]]> According to a spokesperson for the California Restaurant Association, the industry implements business law polices that are often hard to follow. He went on to say that business litigation such as the one involving Hooters can sometimes cause needless complications for those employees who may not want to take a break at a certain time during their shifts. Restaurants, he said, are now in the position of mandating breaks, rather than allowing employees to make their own decisions.

As readers in Orange County know, litigation disputes are not uncommon. Even so, such cases can become expensive and time-consuming for everyone involved. That is why, when it comes to business litigation, professional legal assistance is often critical to expediting the process and ensuring a successful outcome.

Source: kcra.com, "Settlement Reached In Lawsuit Against Hooters," Danielle Leigh, Dec. 7, 2011

California tenants' rights dispute over alleged unpaid rent

2011-12-21T18:35:27Z

A California bar recently shut its doors as the result of a dispute between the bar owner and the owners of the property on which the business operates. Recently, the property owners filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit against the bar owner for unpaid rent. However, the bar owner has fired back in this tenants' rights dispute, alleging that the property owners failed to fix problems that substantially interfered with the business's use of the property.

An unlawful detainer is a type of lawsuit that refers to the continued possession of property following either the expiration or the termination of a lease. In this case, the owner of the bar allegedly owed $27,000 in unpaid rent to the property owners. He was subsequently ordered to pay $5,000 by mid-November to help cover the arrears, and then vacate the property on Nov. 30.

]]> However, the owner of the bar has said that there were substantial problems with the property since he took over and reopened the bar in 2008. These problems included water damage, as well as heating and air conditioning issues. He also says that the property owners refused to fix these problems and would not agree to let him make the repairs in exchange for reducing the due rent.

Under California law, a landlord typically has a duty to maintain the leased or rented premises. When a landlord fails to do this, the tenant may be entitled to withhold rent until the premises are repaired. Alternatively, if the tenant chooses to repair the premises without explicit permission, he or she may typically withhold the cost of repair from the paid rent. Here, because the property owners did not fix problems in the building in which the bar was located, the property owners may have failed in their duty as landlords. As the litigation dispute continues, the bar owner may well benefit from legal assistance in arguing that he lawfully withheld the rent. Likewise, the property owners in this case should be fully aware of their rights under current California law.

Source: The Orion, "Normal Street Bar shutters after litigation," Katherine Deaton, Dec. 13, 2011

California employment law dispute ends favorably for employees

2011-12-14T21:53:51Z

Four California real estate agents reportedly filed wage claims for nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime with the state Labor Commission. The California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Labor Standards heard the employee-related lawsuit on Oct. 27, 2010. Real estate is not normally known as a less-than-minimum-wage business, but employment law certainly extends to that industry, as well. The attention this case has garnered is cause for employers to be increasingly aware of the basic protections provided to workers under California law.

The settlement in this case requires that all four of the agents who filed the complaints are paid 100 percent of their judgment, plus an additional $25,000 each. The employing realty company is also required to pay attorney fees and expenses, to be paid out to the Labor Commissioner. The total payout in this case is $430,202.

]]> Employee-related lawsuits are becoming more common in California and elsewhere. Supporters of the decision in this particular case say that the ruling sends a message that minimum wages are the law and are enforced diligently. The realty company hit by the lawsuit is currently the subject of several claims and lawsuits throughout California. Those suits have been brought by other realtors who allege they have not been paid.

Additionally, the California State Labor Commissioner filed a separate lawsuit against the company in September. The commission seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime for other realtors. In California, employers are required to pay employees the minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, and employers would do well to stay abreast of changing federal and state employment laws to ensure that due compensation is paid for work performed. Regardless of the type of industry involved, a company's failure to pay what is owed can be the basis for legitimate legal claims. Likewise, companies should know exactly what their rights are with regard to breach of contract and other matters relating to services rendered.

Source: loansafe.org, "Settlement Reached of Over $580000 in CA Labor Commissioner vs. ZipRealty Wage Case," Alex Ferreras, Nov. 29, 2011

Successful construction litigation brings back U.S. Grand Prix

2011-12-08T21:46:37Z

Many California sports fans love auto racing, so they may be quite relieved to learn that the U.S. Grand Prix, an important Formula One race, will not be removed from the 2012 racing calendar after a contract dispute threatened otherwise. Reportedly, the contract dispute between Formula One and race organizers had led to halting construction of a $300 million racetrack being built in Texas specifically for the U.S. Grand Prix. In order to keep the popular and potentially profitable race on schedule, the construction litigation had until Dec. 7 to be resolved.

Work on the racetrack was stopped in mid-November, when developers demanded a contract from Formula One but hadn't gotten one. Race organizers then refused to resume construction until a contract was drafted.

]]> The head of Formula One reported that no contract had been issued because the organizers had not provided a letter of credit guaranteeing that the Formula One ownership would be paid its race fee. The Formula One boss went on to say that, if no solution was found by the time the schedule was ratified on Dec. 7 in New Delhi, the U.S. Grand Prix would be dropped from the racing schedule.

However, the business litigation led to a 10-year deal between race organizers and Formula One. The U.S. Grand Prix will be on the Formula One racing schedule for the first time since 2007.

Source: usatoday.com, "Formula One to return to U.S. at U.S. Grand Prix in Texas," Dec. 7, 2011

Construction litigation underway on proposed California roadway

2011-12-02T20:09:12Z

Orange County residents who are concerned with construction litigation may be interested to hear that a former California military base, up in Monterey, is at the center of a variety of pertinent litigation issues. After a large development project was approved by the county board, one organization that intends to preserve the base and nearby areas has filed suit, taking issue with whether or not particular aspects of the development project should move forward.

The preservation organization, called Keep Fort Ord Wild, alleges that the county board's agreement with developers commits the county to construction involving the realignment and expansion of a large roadway without a full environmental review of the potential impacts. The suit claims that the board's approval doesn't take into account the growth-inducing potential of the project and its effect on space for public recreation and wildlife habitats.

]]> Indeed, the road is considered a determining element to any proposed development in the area, including a proposed horse park project, which, if built, could help host the Summer Olympics. The county's Board of Supervisors already approved an agreement as part of a bid to build the roadway, which is larger and follows a different path than the one identified in an original plan regarding the reuse of the military base.

A spokesperson for the preservation group has said that the lawsuit's purpose is to bring about public review of the large development proposal. In response, the head of the board who approved the roadway said that a lawsuit against a proposal that hasn't yet been fully developed and has not yet been subject to environmental review seemed strange.

For readers in Orange County, the story of this litigation highlights the importance of staying abreast of current environmental and real estate law. Consulting with individuals who specialize in these areas can either help prevent litigation or help prepare a strategic case when litigation can no longer be avoided.

Source: montereyherald.com, "Lawsuit targets Fort Ord roadway," Jim Johnson, Nov. 20, 2011

Business litigation can help companies recoup costs

2011-11-22T22:58:07Z

Most California entrepreneurs would rather focus on the operation and development of their company rather than divert energies to business litigation. But, at times, these litigation disputes are unavoidable. For example, a Temecula-based construction company is suing Riverside County for $67 million for the county's 2009 decision to back out of a project to erect a new office complex for the district attorney's and public defender's offices. The county has tried repeatedly to have the suit summarily dismissed, but an Orange County Superior Court judge has recently scheduled a trial, which is to begin Nov. 29 in Santa Ana.

The construction company alleges that the decision by the county in early 2009 to withhold building permits for the project caused the company to default on agreements with subcontractors and abandon a viable enterprise. The company claims that the county's Board of Supervisors denied an application for building permits by declaring that the company had missed a February deadline to seek permits. But the construction company argues that it was unaware of a February deadline and only knew of an April deadline. Eventually, the county settled on a different relocation plan for the district attorney's and public defender's offices, and the construction company says it has suffered steep financial losses as result of the county's decision.

]]> The determination of the construction company to get a trial demonstrates why it is important for business owners to pursue their legal claims. No company acting in good faith should have to shoulder all the costs of a broken agreement. California business owners who believe that business litigation is necessary to resolve a contractual dispute may well gain by consulting an attorney experienced in the relevant law and procedure. Skilled consultation can offer support and provide objective advice as to where one stands in relation to the law, which can be the first step in satisfying one's legal claims and fighting for an equitable resolution.

Source: swrnn.com, "Temecula: Developer's $67 million lawsuit against RivCo set for trial," Nov. 16, 2011

Real estate litigation: environmental law used to block projects

2011-11-18T15:01:05Z

In an effort to stop a competing real estate construction project near the University of Southern California (USC), Conquest Student Housing has pulled a legal weapon out of its bag of tricks. That weapon is California's landmark environmental law, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Conquest owned 17 buildings that rented units to USC students. However, when the developer Urban Partners proposed to construct a new housing complex that would potentially house 1600 students, Conquest used CEQA as the focal point of its real estate litigation to block construction.

This case is something of a hybrid between environmental law and real estate litigation. On the one hand, Conquest is trying to prevent a competing developer from building student housing so close to Conquest's own real estate holdings, making it a real estate litigation issue. The fact that Conquest cites an environmental law to achieve those ends makes the case an environmental issue, as well. However, what appears to be at the heart of the issue is the desire of one company to stop its competitor from encroaching on what it believes is its territory, at least in the figurative sense.

]]> In California, all private building projects must comply with CEQA. It has been used to help preserve parts of the California landscape, such as the Mojave Desert, the Sierra Nevada, and the coastline. But the law that was designed to protect California's environment has spurred many different types of litigation, including this real estate litigation which some feel is an abuse of the legislative intent behind the statute.

Since its inception, CEQA has been used to prevent the demolition of homes in South Los Angeles for the Century Freeway. It has been used to stop the development of a golf course that would oust a herd of bighorn sheep from their canyon home near Palm Springs. These are the things for which the law was originally intended, but it has since also been used as the basis for real estate litigation between rival developers, builders and labor unions.

Real estate litigation is often contentious. Orange County residents who find themselves confronting contested real estate matters may want to learn as much as possible about CEQA. Indeed, not being aware of every legal option could result in a make-or-break situation.

Source: Los Angeles Times, "Firms turning to environmental law to combat rivals," Nov. 14, 2011

Welcome to Our Orange County Litigation Blog

2011-05-13T16:44:59Z

When you are facing a business dispute, a well-known and widely-respected litigation attorney is essential to protect your rights and your business. California's legal system can be confusing and intimidating, with a unique set of rules and a language of its own. An experienced attorney who understands the law and the litigation processes can help you evaluate your options and make the right decisions for your business, your employees, and yourself.

At William B. Hanley, Attorney at Law, we assist clients throughout Orange County who have been confronted with disputes relating to business or construction. We know how to quickly determine the next step in your litigation or appeal process.

Contact our office by e-mail or call us at 866-586-2038 to discuss your situation with an attorney.

Our Litigation Blog

We established this blog to provide valuable information to individuals throughout Orange County who are facing commercial or real estate litigation. We will regularly update this blog, posting on a wide range of litigation topics, including civil litigation, business litigation, construction litigation, and real estate litigation.

We welcome your participation in the discussions on this blog. Feel free to comment on posts that interest you.

Contact Our Office