California Postpones Energy Disclosure Requirements (Again)

I previously wrote about the California Nonresidential Energy Use Disclosure Program, which requires nonresidential building owners to disclose to prospective buyers, tenants and lenders, their building’s energy use data and ratings for the most recent year.  Building owners whose buildings have gross square footage equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet but less than 10,000 square feet, were required to make energy disclosures to potential buyers, tenants and lenders on or after July 1, 2014.  That date has now been changed to July 1, 2016. The California Energy Commission (CEC) cited...

read more

New Case Involves Specific Jurisdiction on Out-of-State Company

In January, I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, limiting the exercise of general jurisdiction over a foreign company being sued in California when the claims presented did not occur in the state nor did the foreign company have substantial contacts with the state. It did not take long for the Daimler decision to make an impact here in California. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, (Court of Appeal Number A140035)(Opinion filed July 30, 2014), was a case where a non-resident pharmaceutical company was being sued by both resident...

read more

Silicon Valley Business Neighbors Fight Over Easement

Disputes between neighbors can often get heated and become fraught with emotion. Although the most common neighbor disputes involve residential properties, a conflict between a medical device company and a law firm in Silicon Valley shows how adjacent commercial property owners can also become entangled in contentious quarrels. Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC, (Sixth Appellate District Case Number H038643)(Opinion Filed July 15, 2014) Jonathon Owens and Thomas Haverstock were two patent attorneys in Sunnyvale. Their law firm, Haverstock & Owens, was a tenant in the building they owned at...

read more

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing in Gay Jury Selection Case

On June 24, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied a sua sponte call for a rehearing en banc by an active judge of the court, in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., Case Number 11-17357, (9th Cir. 2014) (opinion filed January 21, 2014). I previously wrote about this decision, concerning the application of heightened scrutiny to a peremptory strike of a juror who was perceived to be gay, in an antitrust lawsuit involving two pharmaceutical companies, here. In the January 21, 2014 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that during jury selection, equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on...

read more

California Supreme Declines to Impose AED Duty

On June 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Verdugo v. Target Corp., 704 F.3d 1044 (2012) and answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question: “In what circumstances, if ever, does the common law duty of a commercial property owner to provide emergency first aid to invitees require the availability of an Automatic External Defibrillator (‘AED’) for cases of sudden cardiac arrest?” The Court concluded that past California decisions do not support a common law duty where businesses are obligated to acquire and maintain AEDs on their premises and therefore...

read more