Articles Tagged with Los Angeles Business Lawsuit

Published on:

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has ruled that Walmart truck drivers are not entitled to an additional $80 million in a class action lawsuit settlement. The complaint was filed in 2008 with hundreds of California truck drivers claiming that they did not receive at least minimum wage for performing certain tasks. Although the judge denied the plaintiffs’ claim to the $80 million, Walmart will still have to abide by the initial $54 million settlement that was awarded in an earlier jury decision.

walmart-truckclose-up-side-view_129821854433586541-001Walmart asserts that its truck drivers are among the best paid in the industry, with many of them earning between $80,000 and $100,000 per year. Moreover, their attrition rate is low, and the judge commended them for taking rapid action to comply with evolving compensation laws. The drivers argued in their lawsuit that their employer compensated them only based upon miles driven and specific activities rather than hours worked, which constituted a violation of state law. Accordingly, the drivers claimed that they did not receive adequate compensation for tasks like washing and inspecting trucks. They further argued that they were not appropriately paid for mandatory 10-minute breaks and 10-hour layovers.

In November 2016, a jury of seven agreed with the drivers, awarding them approximately $54 million in back pay. This latest decision came in response to the plaintiffs’ request for an additional $5.8 million for restitution, $54.6 million in liquidated damages and $25.6 million in penalties. The judge went along with the request for $5.8 million in restitution, but denied the other claims, saying that there is not sufficient evidence that Walmart acted in bad faith or with “dishonest and wrongful motive.”

It’s possible that Walmart may still appeal the decisions by the judge and the jury. However, they scrapped their former driver-compensation package in 2015 in favor of a new one that is in compliance with California law. Because compensation laws change periodically, it is only sensible for all business owners to have their compensation practices reviewed by an employment attorney on a regular basis. This may prevent a company from finding itself involved in a similar class action lawsuit.

Published on:

Ownership of some of the most well-known Beatles songs has been on a tortuous path for decades. Sir Paul McCartney, a former Beatle and writer or co-writer of many of the group’s biggest hits, is taking legal action to reclaim the rights to his creations. It’s an ongoing odyssey with no end in sight.

Beatles-Imagine-2902823-001McCartney is the author of many famous Beatles songs. Sometimes collaborating with John Lennon, he wrote tunes like “Love Me Do” and “Yesterday.” However, the rights to those songs were often immediately signed away. Most of the rights were lost between 1962 and 1971. Various publishers snapped up the rights, but by the 1980s, publisher ATV owned most of them. When an Australian businessman who owned a controlling share in the songs put them up for sale in 1984, Michael Jackson notoriously outbid Paul McCartney to become the owner of the Beatles’ catalog.

In fact, Jackson and Sony formed Sony/ATV, with the Beatles’ works being among the company’s major assets. The Jackson family sold their share of the company to Sony after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death. Now that Sony/ATV can claim sole ownership, McCartney is suing them to regain ownership of his work.

The lawsuit, which was filed in New York, is based on a facet of the 1976 Copyright Act, which stipulates that any creative works made prior to 1978 be returned after 56 years to their originators. McCartney’s filing is timely considering that he and Lennon first began writing together in 1962, precisely 56 years before 2018. Accordingly, a court could decide that McCartney may reclaim the lucrative rights to his songs as early as next year.

McCartney has been trying to reclaim those rights for many years. Thus far, Sony/ATV is unwilling to accommodate his request. They cite a long-term relationship with McCartney, and express disappointment that the musician filed the lawsuit, which they call unnecessary and premature.

The battle over the rights to the Beatles’ catalog is likely to continue for many years, which only highlights the need for individuals and companies to protect their intellectual property rights.

Published on:

A heated lawsuit between 21st Century Fox and Netflix reveals a great deal about the inner workings of Hollywood while also providing useful insights for employers in California and across the country. This high-profile case is a helpful reminder about the necessity of consulting with employment attorneys to cement formal contractual agreements with workers.

Employment-Contract-44108074-001

The lawsuit was filed by Fox in September 2016. In their complaint, they cite a “brazen campaign” by Netflix “to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives.” Mainly at issue are two former Fox employees who now work for Netflix. One of these employees is Marcos Waltenberg, a 10-year veteran at Fox who was a vice president of promotions. The other was Tara Flynn, a vice president of creative affairs who was hired by Fox in 2012.

Waltenberg is a legal alien who needed employer sponsorship to maintain his green card status. In 2012, he asked his supervisor at Fox for a raise. The human resources department responded by saying that they were not required to sponsor Waltenberg’s green card renewal. When Waltenberg dropped his request for a raise, Fox helped him get his green card.

Flynn says she was pressured to take a three-year contract at $75,000 per year even though the compensation was well below the $250,000 annual salary that was typical for her position. She knew that her salary was well below that of two male executives who formerly held the job. When Netflix approached her with a better offer, she let her supervisors know that she was leaving, and that’s when things got ugly.

Waltenberg and Flynn were under contract with Fox when they gave notice. In a response to the complaint, defendants argue that the contracts that are forced on rank-and-file employees at Fox are too reminiscent of the studio era when the lives of actors were micromanaged by executives. The response further contends that these contracts unlawfully constrain employee mobility.

This lawsuit serves as a reminder to all California employers. Companies and HR departments need to regularly review their employment contract practices to ensure that they are keeping up with changing laws.

Published on:

With the passage of Proposition 64 in November, California became one of a handful of states to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. Many residents are thrilled with the outcome, but the new law is leaving employers wondering what their rights are.

Marijuana-legalization-94540729-001The good news is that the authors of Proposition 64 foresaw that marijuana legalization might pose a problem to numerous industries. That’s why there is a provision in the law that explicitly maintains the employer’s right to prohibit the use and possession of marijuana, particularly on any work sites. Accordingly, any company is perfectly within its rights to keep their drug-free workplace policies on track, though it does make sense to ensure that everything is in order.

Now is the perfect time to meet with an employment attorney to make certain that an existing company drug policy is sufficiently broad. If a drug policy is not already in place, then it is definitely time to craft one, a project that takes time and considerable legal expertise. Under the new law, employers are still permitted to require pre-employment drug tests, and they maintain the right to not hire candidates who test positive for marijuana. Even if the drug was obtained and used legally, the employer does not have to accept such use among their prospective employees. However, it is critical that any pre-employment drug screenings are conducted fairly and impartially, without any discriminatory element.

Under California’s new law, employers are also permitted to conduct drug tests among existing employees. Once again, it is crucial that this be done in a non-discriminatory manner. Moreover, companies may want to review their written drug policies with all employees to make it clear that marijuana use is not appropriate or acceptable. Management may also need to sit down with human resources staff to ensure that they are ready to field questions from employees.

California’s revolutionary Proposition 64 may have made recreational marijuana use legal, but it still allows employers to make important safety decisions. If you have any questions about how California’s new recreational marijuana law will affect you and/or your employees, feel free to contact me, attorney Rich Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. You may also use the form on the right side of this page.

Published on:

A company’s intellectual property is easily one of its most valuable assets. It’s vital to protect this information at all times, and to ensure that all necessary legal precautions have been taken. Even when a company’s owners think they have done everything correctly to protect their intellectual property, things can still go wrong.

Lawsuit word breaking through red glass to illustrate legal action brought by a plantiff against a defendant in a court of law through opposing lawers or attorneys

That is the case for a Santa Barbara-based startup called Olaplex LLC. The company claims to have pioneered a revolutionary three-step process for protecting hair while it is being bleached in a salon. Bleaching is harmful to hair, causing it to become dry, brittle and damaged. Nonetheless, many people still undergo the treatments, particularly celebrities who must change their hair color for various roles. The result is lighter hair, but at a high cost.

Olaplex set out to change that with a new chemical bonding process that was designed to protect hair strands during the bleaching process. They filed a patent application to protect their invention, which they called Olaplex Bond Multiplier No. 1. It debuted in 2014 and quickly began winning awards. L’Oreal, a French-based conglomerate known for many beauty products, began trying to lure away certain Olaplex employees early in 2015. When that effort didn’t prove successful, L’Oreal and Olaplex entered negotiations in which the larger company proposed to acquire the startup.

Confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements were signed. However, the deal eventually fell through. Olaplex started noticing a few months later that L’Oreal seemed to be selling a product that was remarkably similar to theirs. What’s more, their advertising campaign seemed strangely familiar.

Olaplex has now filed a patent infringement and false advertising lawsuit against L’Oreal. The plaintiff argues that the defendant gained access to secret, proprietary information while the acquisition negotiations were underway. Olaplex argues that this gave L’Oreal access to their exclusive chemical process, which the older company then used to create a knock-off product.

Officials from L’Oreal strenuously deny the allegations. Nonetheless, this entire situation is a crucial reminder of how important it is for all companies, large and small, to protect their intellectual property with the help of an experienced attorney.

Published on:

We celebrate Veterans Day on November 11. Americans honor the brave men and women of the armed forces who risk their lives to protect our freedom. They include past and present members of the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard, Air Force, and the Coast Guard.

A Veterans Day design of a heart and American Flag with a red, white and blue background

Originally called Armistice Day, major hostilities of World War I were formally ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, when the Armistice with Germany went into effect.

Here are a few quotes to mark this occasion:

“On this Veterans Day, let us remember the service of our veterans, and let us renew our national promise to fulfill our sacred obligations to our veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much so that we can live free.” 
Congressman Dan Lipinski

“This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” Elmer Davis

“Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.”  Billy Graham

“How important it is for us to recognize and celebrate our heroes and she-roes!” Maya Angelou

“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.” Arthur Ashe

“Duty, Honor, Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.” Douglas MacArthur

Published on:

A U.S. magistrate judge has made an important ruling that will allow plaintiff’s counsel to serve notice of a lawsuit on the defendant via Twitter. The ruling may help to set precedent in similar cases where a party in the U.S. wants to sue a foreign defendant.

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.

The case at hand was brought by St. Francis of Assisi. A non-profit that provides help to refugees, the organization wanted to sue the Kuwait Finance House, Kuveyt-Turk Participation Bank and an individual named Hajjaj al-Ajmi. Service on the first two defendants was relatively straightforward, but the plaintiff was having difficulty locating al-Ajmi.

St. Francis of Assisi was alleging that the three defendants had funded a Christian genocide in countries like Syria and Iraq. However, service of the complaint had to be completed before the case could proceed. Al-Ajmi had already been identified by the United Nations and the U.S. government as a financier of terror group ISIS. He is known to have organized numerous Twitter campaigns to raise funds for the organization under several different Twitter handles.

That’s why counsel for plaintiffs petitioned the judge for the opportunity to serve the complaint on al-Ajmi via Twitter. Traditional methods had already failed. Plus, because Kuwait is not a signor of the Hague Convention, it wasn’t possible for service to be completed through some sort of centralized or government authority.

Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted the plaintiff’s request to serve notice via Twitter. Writing that Twitter was “reasonably calculated to give notice” and that the effort “is not prohibited by international agreement,” Beeler opened the door not only for St. Francis of Assisi, but also for other plaintiffs who want to serve a lawsuit on a foreign national that seems to be able to avoid service by regular means.

The ability to serve a lawsuit via Twitter doesn’t guarantee that al-Ajmi will respond or that he will ever pay any money that the court may decide is owed to the plaintiffs. Nonetheless, the fact that such unconventional service is being allowed may prove to be beneficial for other plaintiffs in similar situations.

 

Published on:

The Consumer Product Safety Act, or CPSA, and legislation like it, makes it a crime to sell products that are the subject of a safety recall. Nonetheless, that is precisely what the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, says that retail giant Best Buy did between 2010 and 2015. The retailer recently agreed to pay a $3.8 million penalty to the CPSC for breaking the law.

Compliance and Violation words on green road or street signs to illustrate the important choice between following or ignoring vital legal rules, guidelines, laws and regulations

The CPSC accused Best Buy of continuing to sell 16 products even after those items had been recalled. Ranging from cameras and laptops to dishwashers and electric ranges, each product posed a safety hazard. A recalled dehumidifier sparked a fire after being sold by a Best Buy store years after it should have been quarantined from sale. Given the more stringent clauses of the CPSA, which was amended in 2008, it was only a matter of time before the CPSC took notice.

Best Buy stated that they had a recall system in place during the 2010 to 2015 period. However, the CPSC found that Best Buy’s system for finding and getting rid of recalled products was ineffective. Among the findings, the CPSC says that the Best Buy system failed to permanently block product codes for recalled items. Additionally, some of those product codes were reactivated or the system functions that should have prevented a sale were overridden.

In addition to paying the $3.8 million penalty, Best Buy must also set up a much more robust system for identifying recalled products and preventing them from being sold. This system will include an internal component of controls and procedures as well as an element that requires reporting information to the CPSC.

Best Buy’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for all retailers. The CPSC is growing increasingly vigilant about enforcing the CPSA, and that means that more companies are going to see large penalties being levied against them. It is more important than ever for retailers to understand the CPSA and to stay informed regarding current government and manufacturer recalls. Working with an experienced business attorney is one of the best ways to ensure compliance.

Published on:

Most people think Snapchat is just a fun messaging app. They use it to send photos and videos that self-destruct seconds after being viewed. Snapchat also features an app that makes it possible to creatively alter photographs. Known as “Lenses,” this app is what makes it possible for the photo’s subject to sport floppy dog ears, hearts instead of eyes or a floral headband. Now, this capability is at the center of a potential class action lawsuit.

Magnified illustration with the word Social Media on white background.

Illinois residents Jose Martinez and Malcolm Neal filed a complaint in Los Angeles in May of 2016, arguing that Snapchat violated their state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act. The law is aimed at preventing biometric identifiers from falling into questionable hands and sprang from concerns about how the necessary technology used to collect biometric identifiers might be used without the user’s knowledge or permission.

The lawsuit contends that Snapchat is collecting and maintaining detailed biometric information on their customers. This is being done without the knowledge and consent of the users, which is contrary to Illinois’ law.

Snapchat categorically denies the allegations, arguing that their service is not capable of collecting complex biometric information that would allow them to identify the face of one user as opposed to another. Instead, they say that the technology involved is merely for object recognition, which makes it possible for the program to determine which objects in a photo are faces and where the eyes, nose and mouth are located. Moreover, Snapchat denies that they are in any way storing the data that is used in the Lenses app.

Snapchat is not the first social media platform to be sued over similar technology. Both Facebook and Google are facing legal battles relating to face-recognition software that automatically identifies particular people in photographs.

This lawsuit is only in its beginning stages. It was moved to the federal courts in July 2016, and Snapchat may be facing stiff fines if their software is determined to be guilty of violating Illinois’ law. This incident demonstrates the powerful need for businesses to understand the laws of states where they will be operating.

Published on:

Sometimes, the only appropriate way to respond to a lawsuit is by filing a countersuit. At least, that seems to be the philosophy of Groupon, Inc. The story began a few months ago when International Business Machines, better known as IBM, filed a lawsuit against Groupon. IBM claimed that Groupon, which is an e-commerce marketplace that connects subscribers with merchants in their local area, infringed four of its patents.

Balance in digital background / A concept of technology law or tIBM claimed that at least two patents that are related to its late-1980s telecommunications service Prodigy are clearly infringed by the technology upon which Groupon bases its services. In their complaint, IBM asserts that they deserve compensation from Groupon for the newer company’s use of IBM’s patented technology. An IBM spokesperson notes, “Over the past three years, IBM has attempted to conclude a fair and reasonable patent license agreement with Groupon.” Frustrated in these efforts, IBM filed a lawsuit in Delaware where the company is organized.

Groupon chose to file a countersuit in Illinois, where it has its home base in Chicago. Among other charges in the complaint, Groupon skewers IBM as a “relic of once-great 20th Century technology firms.” Moreover, Groupon asserts that the technology giant “has now resorted to usurping the intellectual property of companies born this millennium.” A spokesperson from Groupon said in an emailed statement to journalists that: “Unfortunately, IBM is trying to shed its status as a dial-up-era dinosaur by infringing on the intellectual property rights of current technology companies, like Groupon.”

Groupon alleges in its countersuit that IBM actually infringes its patented technology with its WebSphere Commerce software. Merchants can use WebSphere to track customer orders and sales as well as offer special deals and pricing based on the customer’s current geographic location. Groupon insists that much of this technology has already been patented by them, which entitles them to royalties from the “billions of dollars in revenue that IBM has received” from their unfair use of Groupon’s technology.

The outcome of these cases remains pending, but the situation highlights the need to protect intellectual property and perform appropriate due diligence before developing new technology.