Blog

California Postpones Energy Disclosure Requirements (Again)

Posted by on Sep 2, 2014 in Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on 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,...

read more

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

Posted by on Jul 30, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on 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...

read more

Silicon Valley Business Neighbors Fight Over Easement

Posted by on Jul 15, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on 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 &...

read more

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing in Gay Jury Selection Case

Posted by on Jun 24, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on 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...

read more

California Supreme Declines to Impose AED Duty

Posted by on Jun 23, 2014 in ADA Website Compliance, Disability Access Litigation (ADA), Los Angeles Business Litigation, Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on 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...

read more

Mistakes Re Future Little Defense to Breach of Contract

Posted by on Jun 20, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Mistakes Re Future Little Defense to Breach of Contract

No one can predict the future. Instead, when entering into business agreements, the contracting parties assume that the current state of events will remain unchanged many years down the line. But the future is uncertain and a change in circumstances can often lead one party to forgo the entire value of the contract. A recent case from the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District shows how making critical assumptions can render performance financially untenable if those assumptions do not hold up. In these situations, the...

read more

Real Estate Brokers and Dual Agency

Posted by on Apr 9, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Real Estate Brokers and Dual Agency

In California, a real estate broker is allowed to represent both the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction so long as the required disclosures are made and the broker obtains the written consent of both the seller and the buyer. In this dual agency situation, the broker has a fiduciary duty to both the seller and the buyer and must exercise reasonable skill and care and disclose all facts that are known and may materially affect the value or desirability of the property. The dual agency situation is most...

read more

CA Supreme Court to Review DPA Case

Posted by on Mar 26, 2014 in ADA Website Compliance, Disability Access Litigation (ADA), Los Angeles Business Litigation, Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA Supreme Court to Review DPA Case

The California Supreme Court granted a request from the Ninth Circuit to decide the following question of California law: “The California Disabled Person Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 54 et seq. (‘DPA’) provides that ‘[i]ndividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities…and privileges of…places of public accommodation…and other places to which the general public is invited.’ Id. Section 54.1(a)(1). Does the DPA’s reference to ‘places of...

read more

Koreatown’s Vermont for Sale

Posted by on Feb 4, 2014 in Koreatown, Los Angeles Commercial Real Estate Litigation, Uncategorized | 0 comments

Visitors to Koreatown will have seen the construction on Vermont Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. The Vermont, a new high-rise apartment complex that broke ground two years ago, is now for sale by Miracle Mile based J.H. Snyder Development Co. Once completed, the new residential apartment complex will be comprised of two towers standing 23 and 29 stories and feature 464 units. The construction is estimated to have cost $200 million. In addition to residential units, the Vermont will also feature 31,500 square feet of retail space on the ground...

read more

Ninth Circuit Will Not Rehear Bob Marley Case

Posted by on Jan 22, 2014 in Los Angeles Business Litigation, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ninth Circuit Will Not Rehear Bob Marley Case

On January 22, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Universal Music Group (UMG) in a case involving licensing rights to Bob Marley’s music. I wrote about the decision in my monthly newsletter, Business Litigation Matters, here. To recap, the Ninth Circuit originally held that Rock River did not have to prove that it did not have a valid business expectancy in order to proceed with its intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (IIPEA) claim. Both UMG and Rock River claimed...

read more