Law Office

Uncategorized

In Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v. Newton et al., Robert G. Klein filed an action on behalf of Bridgepoint and Salter

In Bridgepoint Construction Services, Inc. v. Newton et al. (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, 9/4/18), Robert G. Klein filed an action on behalf of Bridgepoint and Salter, one of Bridgepoint’s two shareholders in Santa Barbara County.  Thereafter, the defendant cross-complained against Bridgepoint, Salter, and Ram, Salter’s business associate.  In December, 2014, Robert G. Klein represented all 3 of these parties.  In January, 2017, Newton, a Defendant, and the other shareholder in Bridgepoint successfully moved to disqualify Robert G. Klein from representing Salter, and Bridgepoint because Bridgepoint and Salter have conflict over indemnity claims.  Undeterred, in February, 2017, Robert G. Klein filed a cross-complaint against Newton, et al. for Ram.  In Arizona, Robert G. Klein continued to represent Salter, and Bridgepoint in a federal action.  Thereafter, Bridgepoint successfully moved to disqualify Robert G. Klein from representing Ram.  The trial court did so because Robert G. Klein represents Bridgepoint in an Arizona action while in the California action Bridgepoint and Ram both seek to recover damages from the same pool of money.  The court of appeal agreed with the trial court, and found that Robert G. Klein’s representation of Bridgepoint, and Ram simultaneously, albeit in different actions, required automatic disqualification.  Further, the representation of Ram against Bridgepoint, a former client in the California action, required disqualification where there was a substantial relationship between the subject matter, and the attorney obtains confidential information.  Here, Robert G. Klein obtained confidential information when he had access to Bridgepoint’s expert in review of its financial records.  In the Court of Appeal, Robert G. Klein unsuccessfully argued that there is no conflict of interest because his clients and former clients all sue the same people.  The Court of Appeal found that unpersuasive because of Robert G. Klein’s clients sought recovery from the same finite pool of money.  Robert G. Klein argued that disqualification deprived Ram of the counsel of his choosing but the Court of Appeal noted that occurs in nearly every instance of disqualification. Next, Robert G. Klein argued that the conflict of interest was hypothetical but the Court of Appeal disagreed given that all of the parties in question sought relief from the same funds.  Robert G. Klein also unpersuasively asserted that Bridgepoint’s cross-complaint was a sham which the Court of Appeal declined to do on appeal.

Ninth Circuit rules boat owner has no duty to keep a lookout

In Holzhauer v. Rhoades (2018 9th Cir.) 2018 WL 3795779, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a boat owner who is a passenger on his boat has no duty to keep a lookout unless the owner-passenger knows that the person operating his boat is likely to be inattentive or careless or the owner-passenger was jointly operating the boat at the time of the accident. The joint operation is not viewed over the course of the entire trip, but instead at the time immediately preceding and concurrent with the accident.

Los Angeles County Superior Court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s wage and hour complaint

In Shine v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1070, the Los Angeles County Superior Court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff’s wage and hour complaint on res judicata grounds because his claim could have been raised in a prior wage and hour class action that was settled.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, and held that the release in the prior action was broad enough to encompass the claims asserted in Shine’s action.

Ninth Circuit held that trademark co-existence agreements are enforceable

In Russell Road Food & Beverage v. Spencer 829 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2016) , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that trademark co-existence agreements are enforceable and assignable unless the contract provides otherwise.  The court noted that it did not consider the appellants argument that the trademark co-existence agreement is an executory contract that cannot be assigned without the consent of both parties, or that the assignee breached the co-existence agreement because it failed to raise those issues below.

Plaintiff unsuccessfully appeals trial court order

In Young v. Remx, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 630, 633, a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit, plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed from the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of her individual claims, dismissing her class claims, bifurcating her representative claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), and staying the PAGA claim pending completion of the arbitration on her individual claims.  The First District held that the death knell doctrine did not apply because the PAGA claim remained.

Judgement Creditor obtains order to sell property

In Tikosky v. Yehuda (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1224 , the judgment creditor obtained an order to sell one of the debtor’s properties.  The senior lienholder paid the amount of the judgment lien, and the debtor moved to compel an acknowledgment of partial satisfaction.  The trial court denied the motion,and the court of appeal affirmed because the payment was not made on the judgment but for the judgment creditor refraining to sell the property.

California Finance Lender (CFL) Can Sell Loans to Non-Institutional Investors

California Finance Lender (CFL) Can Sell Loans to Non-Institutional Investors

In Montgomery v. GCFS, Inc., (June 12, 2015), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division 5, upheld the trial court’s sustaining demurrers from a borrower who tried to evade repayment of a loan because the CFL licensee had sold the loan to a third-party who was not an ‘institutional investor.’  In its decision, the Court of Appeal made clear that Financial Code Section 22340 allows a CFL to sell loans to ‘institutional investors’ but does not prohibit a CFL from selling loans to non-institutional investors.

SEC approves amendments to arbitration codes

May 27, 2015 – SEC Approves Amendments to Arbitration Codes to Revise the Definitions of Non-Public and Public Arbitrator (Regulatory Notice 15-18)

ffective June 26, 2015, the SEC approved amendments to the definitions of non-public arbitrator and public arbitrator in the Customer and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure. The amended definitions provide, among other matters, that persons who worked in the financial industry for any duration during their careers will always be classified as non-public arbitrators, and persons who represent investors or the financial industry as a significant part of their business will also be classified as non-public, but may become public arbitrators after a cooling-off period. The amendments also reorganize the definitions to make them easier for arbitrator applicants and parties, among others, to determine the correct arbitrator classification.