Of all the discovery tools available to litigators, depositions are undoubtedly the most important, particularly a deposition of an opposing party, i.e. a party-deponent. Not only does the deposition provide substantive testimony necessary to properly evaluate the case from a purely legal standpoint, but the deposition of a party-deponent allows all counsel to assess the witness herself, an equally important aspect of risk assessment. How will the party-deponent present to a jury? Is she credible? Will she “crumble” in response to tough questions? Does her body language reflect dishonesty or uncertainty? Our clients are always made aware of both the specific testimony provided by a party-deponent—and its impact on the case—and our impression of the witness. Again, both aspects are necessary for the client to properly evaluate its risk.

The phrase “jury selection” sounds like attorneys select who is going to sit on the jury. That’s a bit inaccurate—trial attorneys instead attempt to exclude those potential jurors for that case that they do not want to be a juror. Attorneys are provided with a group of potential jurors and then ask questions (“voir dire”) to determine whether that potential juror is one they want to sit in judgment on the case.

Once a contract is executed between parties, it is often assumed—wrongly—that the only remedy for a problem that may subsequently arise is to sue for breach of contract and seek money damages. In fact, depending on the circumstances under which the contract was formed, the best remedy for the problem may be to simply unwind the agreement entirely and restore the parties to their pre-contract position. This is the remedial power of the legal right of rescission.

In a recent case successfully prosecuted by Scali Rasmussen, a vehicle dealer sought recovery of amounts improperly withheld by the vehicle manufacturer, following the termination of the dealership franchise at the dealer’s election. The action was based on California Vehicle Code Section 11713.13. Pursuant to Section 11713.13, the manufacturer was obligated to repurchase certain of the remaining dealer inventory at dealer cost. Following the termination, a dispute arose regarding the amounts withheld by the manufacturer from the repurchase amount for that inventory owed to the dealer.

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.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) provides consumers with a variety of rights regarding the collection, selling, and sharing of their personal information. Some of the latest amendments to the CCPA expand mandatory disclosures when businesses share consumer information with other businesses (which can include vendors and contractors). However, it is important to know how to classify third-party businesses for purposes of maintaining compliance with the CCPA.

Human Resource and Compliance departments are scrambling to prepare for changes in California’s consumer protection laws. The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) goes into full effect on January 1, 2023 which makes a variety of changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that was passed in 2018. Amongst many of the changes, CPRA provides consumers the right to know, modify and delete their information that a business collects. Many of these changes are applicable to information that human resource departments maintain.

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.

Office relationships and romances can be problematic, but they are bound to happen, even post-pandemic when businesses are operating in a digital space. For any employer, there should be safeguards and protocols to ensure employees are working in a healthy environment.

Although the California Covid-19 Paid Sick Leave bill ended in September 2021, a new bill has been put in place to continue paid sick leave for those affected by Covid-19. This new bill is effective February 19th, 2022 and is retroactive to January 1st 2022. The key similarities and differences between the 2021 bill and the new bill are listed below.

For many employers, a key tool for in avoiding litigation costs is to require employees to go to arbitration rather than file disputes in Court. The California Private Attorneys General Act or “PAGA” remains a persistent threat to employers because current California law prevents arbitration of these claims. With a quick glance at the database on the California Department of Industrial Relationships, it is easy to see the consistent increase in these types of cases and the risk they pose to employers. But there may be a change on the horizon…

Scali Rasmussen announced its continued support for an event benefiting SAGE, a national nonprofit serving LGBTQ+ older adults.

Building on its mission to promote a truly diverse legal system and in recognition of Black History Month, law boutique Scali Rasmussen announced its continued financial support for scholarship programs benefiting law students of color, including transgender and nonbinary students.

A plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion based in part on the Declaration (under penalty for perjury ) of a relevant witness. The defendant then obtained the deposition of that witness, and found that the individual executing the Declaration said that they had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged, and had signed the document because they were pressured by Plaintiff’s counsel.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) went into effect on January 1, 2020, requiring the provision of certain notices, including that businesses inform consumers of their: (1) right to know, (2) right to delete, (3) right to opt out, (4) and right not to be discriminated against for exercising any rights the CCPA provides. In the class action case plaintiff Kaupelis sought discovery that included the personally identifiable information of persons that complained about defects in the chainsaw that was the subject of the action. The defendant resisted production of this information in reliance on the CCPA arguing that the CCPA expanded the privacy rights previously provided under California law and that the court should “protect the consumers’ PI by allowing consumers an opportunity to opt out from disclosure.” The Court noted that historically Courts engaged in a balancing test, balancing the need for the discovery against the privacy interests involved, and that the CCPA did not set aside that body of law. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, stating that “[n]othing in the CCPA presents a bar to civil discovery. Notably, no other case has so held. And the statute itself explicitly says that it is not a restriction on a business’s ability to comply with federal law,” which would include the Federal Code of Civil Procedure provisions concerning discovery.

Acrylamide is a chemical that results, inter alia, when foods are browned in cooking, such as when foods are baked, fried, or roasted. The State of California has determined that consuming acrylamide increases the risk of cancer. That finding has resulted in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requiring warnings, pursuant to Proposition 65, of that hazard (although the amounts that trigger the warnings are somewhat in flux).

A recent California Court of Appeals decision confirmed that courts have discretion to strike claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). The only requirement for such damages to be taken away from an action is that the trial Court hold that the claims will be “unmanageable at trial.”

Plaintiff Morales, in 2016, accepted a full-time position at a flooring store. He had numerous duties related to the warehouse, including cleaning, accepting deliveries, making deliveries, and assisting customers. His hours were 8 AM to 6 PM on weekdays, and 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. When Plaintiff requested compensation for overtime hours, he was fired.

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, Lab. Code 2698) provides a means whereby counsel seeking compensation for a given Plaintiff who has not received overtime or meal breaks or similar benefits can bring suit on behalf of all similarly situated employees of the defendant company. If suits are brought under this statutory framework, notice must be provided to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) (the relevant regulatory Agency).

In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018),the Supreme Court held that in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of California’s wage laws, the “ABC test” applies. The ABC test holds that a worker is an independent contractor only if the hirer can establish “…A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.”