We're proud to announce that Founder & Managing Shareholder Christian Scali has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers list as a "top rated Franchise & Dealership attorney."

A trial court in Alameda County gave a win to employers: entering an order allowing Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. to recover $125,000 in costs from the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

Effective January 1, 2012, the Wage Theft Protection Act required that all employers provide each non-exempt employee with a written notice containing specified information at the time of hire. The notice must be in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employees. The Act also requires that the Labor Commissioner provide employers with a template that complies with the requirements of the notice.

The new year brings a number of payroll, accounting and benefits adjustments that employers and employees alike should keep in mind. Here are a few areas in which updates should be noted.

With the enactment of Senate Bill No. 235 (“SB 235”), California state courts have moved closer to the Federal courts which requires disclosure of initial information in discovery.

Scali Rasmussen Principal Jasmin Bhandari has been selected as a nominee by Los Angeles Times for its annual 'Inspirational Women Awards'. The publisher states that the nominees' "leadership stands out as a beacon to many, standing shoulder to shoulder with successful professionals throughout Southern California."

As auto manufacturers announce plans to add ever more electric vehicles to their product portfolios, many also are requiring their dealer bodies to make substantial investments to prepare to sell those vehicles. In some instances, the manufacturer also is attempting to assume some aspects of the sales process previously controlled by the dealer.

Ford dealers are worried that some aspects of the Model e program are a slippery slope leading to the agency model of selling vehicles. In an agency model approach, the manufacturer sets the price and manages the online customer relationship. The dealer serves as the delivery point for the vehicle.

As countries around the world move forward with plans to phase out the internal combustion engine, luxury and high-performance brands are coming to grips with perhaps the most significant change in automotive history: conversion to electric vehicles (“EVs”). The change brings feelings of frustration and grief, but also anticipation and excitement to manufacturers, dealers, and customers alike.

Some dealers are finding that the next generation isn’t interested in staying in the retail auto business. Selling cars still appeals to many who grew up at their family dealership, however.

The Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule targets bait-and-switch tactics, junk fees; includes clear protections for military members, who are frequent targets for vehicle scams.

The 2023 legislative session touched on a wide array of business topics. The new laws do not affect all businesses, but are nonetheless worth every business owner’s attention, as they may shape you conduct business in California in the future. In particular, California continues to pass legislation aimed at minimizing the impact of climate change.

As with prior years, California enacted additional legislation with the goal of limiting catalytic converter theft. Dealerships will need to take the necessary action to comply with these new laws. AB 473 is a victory for dealerships in that, among other things, it closes a loophole used by manufacturers during the Protest process. And, as with new laws governing businesses, in general, California has passed additional legislation aimed at minimizing the impact of climate change that targets the vehicle and dealership process.

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.

As with private employees, California has passed legislation that provides certain protections for employees of public entities.

The most important civil procedure-related bill passed by California relates to arbitration in employment actions. Previously, if a court denies an employer’s motion to compel arbitration and the employer files an appeal, the civil action was automatically stayed during the pendency of the appeal. In an effort to protect employee rights, California passed SB 365 which now gives the trial judge the discretion to stay the civil proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.

On October 31, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (“OSHA”) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that aims to promote safe and healthy workplaces and protect workers who speak out about unsafe working conditions. As a result, employers must prepare for increased safety and health enforcement efforts by both NLRB and OSHA. The goal of this collaboration is to strengthen health and safety protections for workers. Among other matters, the MOU sets forth a process for information sharing, training, and outreach between the NLRB and OSHA.

California employers are going through the annual year-end scramble to update policies and practices to comply with the rash of new laws that are taking effect in the upcoming new year. Understandably, businesses in the state are frustrated with the potentially onerous obligations they must keep up with.

In recent years, Cal-OSHA has modified and refined heat illness prevention requirements for outdoor work areas. Now, employers will be facing new Cal-OSHA requirements for indoor work areas. In the past several months, the Cal-OSHA Board (“Board”) has issued multiple rounds of revised standards on Indoor Heat Illness Prevention, with public comment on the most recent revisions closing on November 28, 2023. The Board is scheduled to vote on the latest version in early 2024.

In Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc., a California Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred by not staying Applied Materials’ (“Applied) trade secret misappropriation claims against rival Mattson Technology (“Mattson”) while Applied pursued arbitration against its ex-employee who allegedly absconded with confidential information and provided it to Mattson.