California Business Litigation Blog

Earlier this month the California Supreme Court ruled on 2 issues related to the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regarding the termination of hospital employee Antonina Lonicki.

Lonicki claimed she was suffering major depression and work related stress. On advice of her physician she requested medical leave and stopped coming to work. Lonicki’s request for medical leave was denied, but she was told she could take paid time off.
She was also told to return to work by a certain date or face termination.

Lonicki sought the opinion of a psychiatrist who documented her depression and recommended another 30 day medical leave. Her employer Sutter Health Central terminated her. She sued her former employer for violating the CFRA by firing her and by failing to follow CFRA procedures when questioning the validity of her sick leave.

Defendant (Sutter Health) moved for Summary Judgment. Sutter’s argument was that plaintiff was not entitled to medical leave under the CFRA because, in the period for which she sought medical leave, she had a part-time job at a different hospital (Kaiser) where her tasks were substantially similar to those she was hired to perform at defendant’s hospital in Roseville. Sutter further asserted that Lonicki’s part time job showed that she did not have a “serious health condition” as required for medical leave under CFRA and FMLA.

The Trial Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld the termination. Lonicki appealed and the California Court of Appeal also upheld the termination and Summary Judgment. Lonicki appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court refused to hold that working in a comparable job was "conclusive" evidence no serious health condition justified leave. This Supreme Court opinion paves the way for a trial in which Lonicki’s termination and rights under FMLA and CFRA will be determined.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

Internet giant Google has been sued by Aaron and Christine Boring for taking photographs of their property for Google Maps Street View feature. The problem is that the photos were taken from a private road.

For those who have not yet experienced Google Street View it is a feature of Google maps that allows users to actually “visit” the street via the internet through photographs providing a 360 degree view.

Not all cities have this Google feature available yet, but the Boring’s property was included last year. The images are captured by a car similar to the one seen above with an array of cameras mounted to its roof.

Google spokesperson Larry Yu said that the company has a policy of only taking photos from public streets. He also said that concerned citizens can contact the company if they want a photo taken down. Yu added “"We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site. We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."

In this case, damages may be difficult to prove since Google is not the only place on the web showing an image of the Boring’s home. The Allegheny County real estate Web site has a photo, a description of the home and the couple's name. The site contains similar information, including pictures, of nearly every property in the county.

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the photos (which are no longer on Google Streetview), a copy of the lawsuit (including the Boring’s home address) and a photo from the Allegheny County website.

Continue reading "Google Sued by the Borings for Invasion of Privacy" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   Internet

Bookmark:

Academy Award winning director Woody Allen filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking $10 Million from American Apparel for use of his image without permission. The lawsuit states that the actor and director does not endorse commercial products or services in the United States.

Allen’s image (shown at right courtesy of Frillr.com), appeared on two billboards in New York and Los Angeles for one week in May 2007. Allen appears as a Hasidic Jew, a character from his movie “Annie Hall”. The lawsuit calls the billboards "especially egregious and damaging."

In a statement, American Apparel defended their use of Allen’s image as “Social Parody” protected by the First Amendment. They also stated “We had no intention of selling garments through the use of Mr. Allen’s image … We will make every effort to resolve this with Mr. Allen in an amicable way.”

In addition to its clothing line, American Apparel, based in Los Angeles is known for its colorful CEO Dov Charney and its political efforts in favor of immigration reform.

Was this “Social Parody”, infringement or just an effort to generate publicity? While we may never know for sure, I predict it will go away quietly with a monetary settlement.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   False Advertising   Intellectual Property

Bookmark:

For over 45 years the Magic Castle has been the clubhouse of the Academy of Magical Arts (AMA). On February 21, 2008 the AMA flied a lawsuit against Magic Food & Beverage Inc., a company with an affiliation to Magic Castle Park LLC, the owner of the property, which has been for sale since last year. Although not a subsidiary of Magic Castle Park LLC, Magic Food and Beverage Inc. is affiliated through corporate officers and/or executives common to both entities. This information is based solely on the complaint filed, Case No: BC 385828, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawsuit includes 4 “Causes of Action” as follows:

• Trespass

• Trespass to personal property

• Assault

• Injunctive relief

The following sentence is heresay: AMA members have been told that the AMA wants to stay in the building known as the “Magic Castle”. NOTE: If the AMA governing board would like to make a formal statement to the contrary, I will post a retraction here.

Here is the question. If you were a tenant (AMA) in a 100 year old building (known as the Magic Castle) which was a small part of a parcel of land (10 plus acres) currently for sale and positioned for total redevelopment, would it be smart to sue those affiliated with your landlord if you wanted to stay?

This lawsuit appears to indicate the contrary. Personally, it would be unlikely that I would sue anyone affiliated with my landlord if I wanted to stay.

Following the filing of this lawsuit, the plaintiff (AMA) filed an ExParte application for temporary restraining order and an order to show cause RE: preliminary Injunction.

From the Court Document: “The Court has read and considered the above stated Ex Parte Application.

After argument of Counsel, the Application is denied.”

Continue reading "How Will Magic Castle/AMA Lawsuit Affect Its Future? " »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   Contract Litigation

Bookmark: