The Appellate Courts published several opinions on a host of civil procedure issues ranging from the impact of statutory offers to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, statutes of limitations, choice-of-law, personal jurisdiction over non-California defendants, recoverable costs, admissibility of expert opinions, amending of pleadings, trial continuances, preservation of issues on appeal, and issuance of sanctions for discovery abuses. These opinions apply to all civil cases irrespective of the underlying substantive issues.

The appellate courts, as with prior years, were faced with a host of issues related to labor and employment cases including whistleblower actions under various federal and state statutes, cost-shifting in FEHA cases, and cases involving union activity. Of particular importance, in a long-awaited opinion, the California Supreme Court held that courts do not have discretion to dismiss PAGA claims simply because they are unmanageable.

California Supreme Court follows federal law in holding that a showing of prejudice is no longer required when deciding whether a party has waived a right to arbitration.

In the past several years, dealers have had to deal with a plethora of disruptions to their businesses, including COVID-19, supply chain issues, semiconductor chip shortages, and now cyberattacks. On June 19, 2024, CDK Global, Inc. (“CDK”), a dealership DMS provider holding a majority of its relevant market share, was brought to its knees by ransomware cyberattacks. Out of an abundance of caution, CDK took all of its systems offline, significantly disrupting the operations of more than 15,000 dealerships across North America. On June 21, 2024, Bloomberg News and Reuters reported that Blacksuit, a well-known cybercriminal team, was behind the ransomware attack.

California and Federal courts of appeal published opinions on a wide variety of employment-related cases including wage and hour, whistleblower retaliation, discrimination/ADA, class actions, PAGA claims, and workers compensation. The results are a mixed bag for employers. Of note, the United States Supreme Court was given the opportunity to rule on a crucial ADA issue: whether an ADA “tester” has standing to challenge a business’ failure to provide disability accessibility on its website even if the tester had no plans to visit the business’ premises. Unfortunately, SCOTUS “punted” by dismissing the appeal on a procedural technicality. As a result, the issue remains unresolved.

Both the Federal government and California enacted legislation raising the minimum wage for certain workers. California has also passed several bills that protect employees in variety of ways relating to cannabis use, non-compete agreements, workplace safety, right to organize, retaliation, and reproductive rights.

Employers were overwhelmed with countless obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic, through legislation and emergency standards that focused on the interests of employee safety and wage loss. However, in its recent decision in Corby Kuciemba et al. v. Victory Woodworks Inc., the California Supreme Court drew the line in favor of employers by ruling that employers are not responsible for the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ family members.

Federal law requires employers to physically inspect identity/eligibility documents substantiating a new employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. within three days of hire as part of completing the Form I-9 Eligibility Verification. Effective March 2020, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) relaxed the physical inspection requirements due to concerns about COVID-19 spread from physical proximity and contact.

On July 11, 2023, in unanimous court opinion, a three judge San Francisco appellate court panel overturned a trial court ruling in favor of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), holding that employers are required under California law to reimburse employees for work from home expenses regardless of whether such work from home was the result of government actions to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

For almost three years, California employers operated under the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards that were implemented by Cal/OSHA early in the pandemic, and revised as the pandemic situation evolved. Now, with the decline of the COVID-19 emergency situation, Cal/OSHA has implemented new permanent COVID-19 standards that took effect on February 3, 2023. So what employer obligations remain?

COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL) was recently extended to December 31, 2022. As we previously reported, this did not afford additional time off to the employee, but extended the time to request leave if they still had unused time. Finally, there is an end to this provision - no further extensions have been made.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has made clear that it intends to modify and/or limit the use of so-called “Short-Form” warnings required by Proposition 65.

Cal/OSHA's COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), which was first adopted November 2020, is set to end after December 31, 2022. Instead, the Standards Board announced it will be voting on a proposed “permanent” standard at the next meeting on December 15, 2022. While it is called the permanent standard, it would only last for two years.

In California, another year means another set of new employment laws that impose burdens on employers. The 2022 legislative session was no exception, with new laws passed and signed that address employment-related pay disclosure requirements on job postings, required bereavement leave, extended COVID-related leave, and family medical leave, to name a few areas. The good news for California employers is that none of the new laws make revolutionary changes to employee rights or employer responsibilities, but employers nonetheless need to understand these changes and adjust their practices to avoid potential liability in the future. Some laws passed do not go into effect for another year or two, allowing additional time for compliance (such as the cannabis anti-discrimination law).

When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) amended the Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) in 2021, some of the new provisions were set to become effective December 9, 2022 (16 CFR 314.5). In light of economic disturbances from the COVID-19 pandemic that exacerbated supply chain issues and caused delays in the availability of information security systems, as well as a shortage of qualified information security workers to implement such systems, the FTC has announced they will extend this deadline until June 9, 2023.

You own the business but not the building where it all happens. Consider your commercial lease options as a critical component of your business. In California, there is no standard lease agreement—every commercial lease is unique, and nearly every substantive paragraph, clause, provision and term can impact your business.

Scali Rasmussen announced today that Founder and Managing Shareholder Christian Scali and Shareholder Halbert Rasmussen are recognized as 'Legal Visionaries' in the Los Angeles Times' second annual Business of Law magazine. The special supplement spotlights professionals who have exhibited noteworthy achievements over the last two years, including client successes, leadership positions within their firm and community at large, board affiliations and recognitions.

Bleach, hand sanitizer, single use plastic bags all were necessary to human health and safety during the pandemic. Will they be blackballed again once there is a cure, or will we stick by our old tried and true friends?

COVID-19 and the chip supply shortage has made new vehicle inventory scarce. This has resulted in fewer vehicles available for sale. And as the pandemic ends and people are getting back to their workplaces, demand continues to rise for new vehicles. A fundamental principle of economics is that price inflation results as supply dwindles and demand rises. Specifically, as retailers seek income equilibrium to meet normal operating expenses amid reduced sales volume, artificially created by a reduction in supply, their only choice is to increase the sales price of their remaining inventory.

Per CAL OSHA, employers must exclude from the workplace employees or employee groups who have been exposed to COVID-19. Employers must pay these excluded employees their regular pay and benefits. Under the new revised CAL OSHA revised Emergency Temporary Standard, discussed below, this pay is not to come from Covid-19 sick pay supplemented by the State of California, regular sick pay, vacation time or anything other than regular pay roll.