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.

In 2024, the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal issued several opinions affecting dealerships and vehicle manufacturers. In particular, the courts’ opinions impact Lemon Law claims, the rights of a manufacturer to compel arbitration as non-signatories to the sales contract between the customer and the dealership, and impact of statutory offers to compromise under section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Of particular importance, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Rodriguez v. FCA which holds that Song-Beverly Act’s refund-or-replace provision applies to vehicles for which the manufacturer’s express warrant was issued with the sale and not for vehicles with a balance remaining on the express warranty.

As usual, the appellate courts have issued rulings that impact arbitration, specifically the enforcement of arbitration agreements. We have a separate section focusing on arbitration in the labor and employment context. But, here we discuss 2024 opinions impacting arbitration outside of labor and employment claims. The opinions focus on enforceability of arbitration provisions in websites, the enforceability of arbitration agreements by non-signatories, and enforceability of arbitration agreements signed by a representative or agent of a party.

As with prior years, the appellate courts issued multiple opinions relating to arbitration in the labor and employment context. Yet again, the courts showed an inclination to refuse to enforce arbitration provisions for most labor and employment claims based on unconscionability. And even for those cases that were compelled to arbitration, the courts made clear that an employer’s failure to pay the arbitration fees within the required time period constitutes a “material breach” of the arbitration agreement justifying withdrawal from arbitration and proceeding in court. As expected, the courts grappled with the interplay between the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River with the later California Supreme Court decision in Adolph v. Uber in cases involving arbitration of PAGA claims. The courts also provided guidance in cases involving the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act recently enacted by Congress. Finally, the courts were faced with interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act’s “transportation worker exemption” with mixed results for employers.

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.

2024 was a relatively quiet year with respect to appellate opinions relating to the landlord-tenant relationship. However, courts published opinions regarding the enforceability of limitation of liability clauses in leases and the rights of cotenants in large, multi-tenant commercial properties.

The courts of appeal published several opinions relating to anti-SLAPP motions focusing both on the procedural aspects of such motions, and the merits, especially relating to whether the underlying conduct constitutes protected activity.

Surprisingly, 2024 saw few opinions governing businesses, in general. However, the courts of appeal published opinions relating to policies and procedures for meetings of limited liability companies and the liability of a prime contractor for wrongful conduct by a subcontractor. In addition, one court of appeal issued an opinion relating to non-compete clauses in buy-sell transactions.

In 2024, courts of appeal issued several opinions relating to consumer protection including cases involving exposure to asbestos, cases alleging injuries caused by pharmaceuticals, and claims involving alleged false advertising.

In addition to the myriad labor and employment opinions, the courts of appeal also published opinions focusing on class actions in the labor and employment context. The opinions include discussions on class certification, employer-mandated travel requirements, first responders, and alleged wage statement violations.

Mike Brown was working as the fixed operations director for nucar auto group when, in August of 2024, he got a call from David Rosenberg. Rosenberg, whom Brown had worked for in the past, had an intriguing offer. Rosenberg, owner of DSR Motor Group, was working on an acquisition.

Outside capital can be a valuable resource whether to a dealer with only a few franchises seeking to grow his or her dealership group or a larger group looking to get even bigger. But the rewards also come with risks, as two examples of outside capital show.

If you’re considering working with a private equity firm in a buy sell deal, be prepared for hurdles you are unlikely to encounter with a traditional investor. There are advantages to working with PE, however.

While you may have seen headlines about private equity moving into the buy sell world, that can actually be something of a misnomer. It is generally more accurate to say that different forms of outside capital, of which private equity is one, are investing in automotive dealerships. Those investors differ in the amount they invest and terms under which they invest.

Scali Rasmussen announced today that Shareholder Jeffrey Erdman and Principal Jasmin Bhandari have been recognized by Los Angeles Business Journal as “Leaders of Influence: Minority Attorneys” in a special feature that published Monday. “We have profiled those standout minority attorneys considered to be particularly impactful on the legal scene while serving as trusted advisors in the LA region,” states the publication.

Plaintiffs Samuel Zarate, Jorge Chavez, and Aldo Isas sued California Collision and its owner, George Osorio, for various wage and hour claims. The Complaint asserted no less than eleven causes of action: (1) misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay wages earned; (5) failure to give meal breaks; (6) failure to give rest breaks; (7) waiting time penalties; (8) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; (9) failure to reimburse for business expenses; (10) unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (11) as to Chavez and Isas, violations of Labor Code section 1198.5 for failure to timely allow them to inspect or receive copies of their personnel records.

Edgar Gonzalez was employed by Nowhere Santa Monica (“Nowhere Santa Monica”), one of 10 related limited liability companies (“non-Santa Monica entities”) operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. During his employment, Gonzalez signed an arbitration agreement in which he agreed to resolve any employment-related disputes with “Nowhere Santa Monica, LLC DBA Erewhon-Santa Monica” through arbitration. Gonzalez was terminated after only five months of employment. After his termination, Gonzalez filed a putative class action lawsuit against Nowhere Santa Monica and the other non-Santa Monica entities, alleging various wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code. He alleged that all ten entities were his joint employers.

The IRS has released the new standard mileage reimbursement rate for the new year, raising the 2024 rate of 67 cents per mile to 70 cents for 2025. Employers are obligated to reimburse employees for reasonable expenses associated with the employees using their personal vehicles for work purposes (excluding their normal commute to/from work), such as offsite meetings, training, and work-related errands.

On December 26, 2024, a mere three days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted an injunction staying enforcement of FinCEN’s beneficial ownership information reporting requirement, the same court has now reversed itself, reinstating the injunction and giving businesses an indefinite reprieve from the filing requirement. In effect, In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN.