A new California Court of Appeal decision, Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, elaborates on how to prove that documents signed online, digitally, are authentic, and therefore have the same effect as a handwritten signature. Read More
By Andrew P. Holland and Jared M. Ahern
Rule 26 may be the most important Federal Rule of Civil Procedure because it governs discovery, which is arguably the most important part of modern civil litigation. On December 1, 2015 Congress amended Rule 26 to make “proportionality” a more prominent part of the rule.1 Generally, proportionality requires striking a balance between the need for the information sought in discovery with the burden imposed on the party who would have to supply that information. Read More
By Andrew P. Holland and Jared M. Ahern
Is a consumer likely to be confused when a company that makes butter uses the same trademark as a company that makes fishing tackle (hooks, lines, sinkers, floats, rods, reels, baits, lures, spears, nets, gaffs, traps, waders and tackle boxes)?1 The court’s answer in Hugunin v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc. was a resounding no.2 815 F.3d 1064 (7th Cir. 2016).
James Hugunin, along with two of his companies, sued the dairy company Land O’ Lakes, Inc. for trademark infringement after it demanded that he cease using the “LAND O LAKES” mark without a license.3 Land O’ Lakes counterclaimed for trademark dilution.4 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all the claims, observing that “in this unusual case two firms sued each other though neither had been, is, or is likely to be harmed in the slightest by the other.”5 Read More
The court stated that this was a “case of first impression” and posed the issue as “whether an employee who has exhausted all permissible leave available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL)…may nevertheless state a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).”
The California Supreme Court’s Harris decision, discussed in our last post, not only clarifies the standard of proof and alters remedies available to an employee in mixed-motive cases, it provides guidance and raises questions on several practical aspects of employment law and litigation.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. City of Santa Monica established a new standard of proof in mixed-motive discrimination cases and dramatically changed the remedies available in those cases.
A California Court of Appeal has written another chapter in the unfinished epic struggle between the federal and California courts over the enforceability of employment arbitration agreements. And it reads against enforceability. The decision, Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., is of practical value, and provides guidance on drafting and implementing an employment arbitration agreement…
California law prohibits anyone driving on public roadways from using a wireless telephone unless the phone is configured for hands-free listening and talking and used in that manner while driving. Carl Nelson is one person who would not willingly accept the ticket he received for his phone while stopped at a stop-light.
Bill claimed his Facebook and MySpace passwords and user names were confidential and, more importantly, that his communications with friends on Facebook and MySpace were privileged from disclosure, much like a confidential communication between an attorney and his or her client. The court in McMillan v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 9/9/10) rejected his contention.
Another California court has ruled that an agreement between an employer and employee that all employment related claims must be arbitrated, instead of taken to court, is unenforceable. In this most recent case, Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corporation, the court found that the employer could not force the dispute into binding arbitration…