445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2350, Los Angeles, California 90071

Tag Archives: California Supreme Court

California’s New Standard For Determining Workers’ Status Widens

Last year, the California Supreme Court abruptly changed the standard for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor of the hiring company.  In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), a case involving delivery drivers for a package company, the Court unanimously held that a […]

Awarding Attorneys’ Fees (Or Not)

A contractual clause requiring an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in litigation can have a significant impact on the parties’ decisions to file or pursue a case.  On the one hand, a potential plaintiff who believes he has a valid claim may be emboldened to sue.  On the other hand, the prospect […]

California Supreme Court Invalidates Arbitration Clause

Once again, the California Supreme Court has waded into the arbitration thicket.  This time, the Court found unenforceable an arbitration clause that prohibited a consumer from seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the public, not just in the arbitration, but in any forum whatsoever.  If nothing else, this latest decision highlights the dangers of over-reaching […]

Jurisdiction Over Corporations Quietly Restricted – Probably For Good

In a major, although widely unappreciated shift, the United States Supreme Court has significantly restricted the ability of courts to exercise jurisdiction over corporations.  This change reduces the likelihood that a corporation has to appear in a court to answer for alleged conduct that has little to do with their operations in that state.  No […]

Enforcing Arbitration Clauses

Last month, my colleague, Alan Steinbrecher, discussed the risks of electing to litigate despite the existence of a binding arbitration provision.  This month, I will explore two recent California court decisions that demonstrate the different views courts take of the enforceability of such provisions. In the first case, the Ninth Circuit held that a motion […]