Andrew Jenkins

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀 Under California appellate rules, briefs must state each point under a separate heading or subheading.  Appellants and respondents alike should heed this requirement, as both persuasion and preservation may depend on it.  Some practice tips to consider: ✅ Many appellate courts will deem an argument forfeited if buried under an unrelated heading, or made only in a footnote. ✅ Headings should be substantive, but not so lengthy that they cease to serve as "headlines" and start to resemble text. ✅ Organizing headings for each distinct contention brings discipline to the drafting process, making the brief more coherent and digestible.  Generating a new Table of Contents for each draft is an excellent editing tool, helping you see whether points flow logically and persuasively. ✅ If the Table of Contents has "gaps" that would confuse a stranger, revise.  Justices often read the TOC to gain a substantive overview of the brief before diving in.   ► 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲:  Ensure that your brief headings are crisp and clear, and that they smoothly outline all your core contentions on appeal. #appeals Laurie Hepler

9

CDF Partner Mark S. Spring recently authored an article for Law360 that delves into the recent California Supreme Court decision that upholds Prop 22, allowing app-based drivers to remain as independent contractors. This ruling holds significant implications for companies such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and others operating in California and hiring app-based drivers. See the attached article to read more about the potential implications of this decision. #prop22 #caemplaws #gigeconomy

6

1 Comment

GT attorneys Alan Greenfield, Alice Kessler, Adil Khan, Riley Lagesen, and Magaly Zagal have written the #GTAlert titled, "SB 478 May Require Significant Shifts in Pricing Practices for California Restaurants." The piece covers: 💡 DOJ interpretation of SB 478 may impact long-established and common restaurant business practices 💡 Consequences of noncompliance are potentially significant 💡 The law goes into effect July 1, 2024 Read the full alert here: https://buff.ly/4aDKf9d. #CaliforniaRestaurants #RestaurantIndustry #GTRestaurantIndustry #CaliforniaGovernment

9

I have reviewed hundreds if not thousands of job postings for legal counsel in my almost 25 years of practice, and so many of those postings continue to expect the applicant to be both extremely detail oriented, and to manage a large volume of agreements within very short deadlines. There simply is no such beast - at least I have never met one. I highly recommend the job posters use "Smart enough to identify the risks involved, and experienced enough to know whether those risks are real." That nets realistic candidates with the right skills, in my opinion.

9

While this may seem like just another case against the SEC, Bitnomial, with its clean track record, seems to be in a unique position to advocate for a court ruling here that could have significant impacts to the industry. A favorable outcome would not only be another court bolstering Judge Torres' ruling regarding secondary sales, but potentially could extend far beyond that. Should the court rule in favor of Bitnomial, this could establish a precedent that clarifies regulatory jurisdiction within the digital asset derivative space. Such a ruling would confirm that the SEC lacks authority over crypto-based derivatives and, more crucially, affirm that the underlying assets are not classified as securities. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

15

Macrae's latest 2024 H1 Law Firm Partner Report reveals a nuanced picture of the Bay Area's legal hiring landscape. Despite a 27% annual decrease in lateral partner hirings at Bay Area Am Law 50 firms, signs point to a potential rebound in the near future. Julieta Stubrin, a managing director in our Bay Area offices, provides a deep dive into these trends, stating, "Overall, the trend is that firms are more invested in hiring." The data reveals: 🖊 An expected resurgence in IP law hiring in the latter half of 2024 🖊 A significant 22% increase in corporate law lateral partner hires 🖊 Notable upticks in areas like private equity, litigation, and antitrust Read the full article by Samson Amore in The Recorder, published earlier this week, for a comprehensive overview of the current state and future expectations in the Bay Area legal market*: https://lnkd.in/gmiecZM2 *Note this does sit behind a pay wall and a subscription may be needed to read the full article.

12

1 Comment

The California Attorney General has reached a significant settlement with the developer and publisher of a mobile game over children's privacy violations. Perkins Coie LLP partner Janis Kestenbaum discusses how the case underscores the importance of complying with COPPA and CCPA, and what businesses can do to enhance their privacy practices. #PrivacyLaw #ChildrensPrivacy #CCPA #COPPA

2

In this edition of the KF&C California Law Blog, we discuss the recent California Supreme Court decision in Quach v. California Commerce Club, No. S275121, 2024 WL 3530266 (Cal. July 25, 2024), in which the court eliminated the longstanding requirement under the California Arbitration Act that a party opposing arbitration show that it had suffered prejudice as a result of the moving party’s delay in attempting to compel arbitration. The elimination of the prejudice requirement will likely result in more frequent claims of waiver in opposition to a party’s attempt to enforce an arbitration agreement. Practitioners responding to a complaint should promptly investigate whether the dispute may be subject to an arbitration agreement before engaging in any litigation conduct including serving even initial discovery. Parties seeking to avoid arbitration clauses will likely test the boundaries of waiver and argue that even very limited litigation conduct should result in waiver. Parties seeking to avoid that result should diligently investigate issues of arbitrability and if appropriate, move to compel arbitration at the earliest opportunity. Read the full blog here: https://lnkd.in/eBMyMncq For further questions or comments on the content of this post, please contact Michael Kibler or Michael Carnevale.

24

State Bar of California recently emailed all active attorneys with the news that the legislature has authorized a few changes to our licensing fees – including fee amount and deadline. Importantly, there are some pieces that impact legal aid attorneys: 1) Attorneys who work at IOLTA-funded nonprofits are still eligible for licensing fees scaling. Employers are able to pay their attorneys' fees through the Agency Billing portal. 2) BIG NEWS! MCLE reporting period has changed!  Are you in MCLE Compliance Group 1? If your last name begins with A-G, your three-year compliance deadline is now March 30, 2025. After this year, compliance groups will have a three-year compliance window beginning February 1 and ending March 30. Read more: https://lnkd.in/geGac6ua

1

🚨 #TORTUPDATE Zantac Litigation Update: The latest trial ends with a hung jury, yet GSK has discreetly settled significant cases in California. With new lawsuits continuing to emerge, this legal battle is far from over. What implications will these developments bring? Watch the video and stay tuned for more details. Have a mass tort case we can help you with? Demandlane has scalable solutions you need to win big and ensure your clients get the attention they deserve. Let’s take your firm to the next level! Write to us [email protected] #DemandLane #ZantacVerdict #MassTort #Litigation #LegalUpdate #LegalMarketing #LawFirmMarketing

2

In a victory for California companies seeking to enforce settlements of Private Attorneys General Act claims the California Supreme Court’s August 2 decision in 𝘛𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘢 𝘷. 𝘓𝘺𝘧𝘵, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. confirmed that individuals have no right to intervene in PAGA settlement approvals solely on the basis of having filed a similar PAGA notice. Intervenors in PAGA settlements had become common, a practice that created inefficiency in resolving claims and uncertainty among the parties about whether agreed-upon settlement terms would ultimately get court approval. As a result of the decision, companies seeking court approval of PAGA settlements will no longer face the prospect of other individuals intervening and seeking to undo the parties’ settlement. PAGA is a unique California law that permits allegedly “aggrieved employees” to sue their employers for penalties “on behalf of” the state. Seventy-five percent of penalties recovered in a PAGA action are distributed to the state. The drivers in this case had all sent the required, separate notices to the appropriate California agency stating their intent to pursue PAGA claims against Lyft and filed separate actions in court seeking civil penalties for Lyft’s alleged failure to comply with California’s wage-and-hour requirements. Ultimately, Lyft mediated with one of the drivers and was able to settle her claims via a mediator’s proposal. Upon learning of the settlement, the California agency did not take any action, but other drivers sought to intervene “on behalf of the state” as interested parties. The trial court denied their motions, and the court of appeals affirmed. The California Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that PAGA only permits a plaintiff to step into the state’s shoes for purposes of commencing an action and not for broader purposes. In doing so, the court reaffirmed several important characteristics of PAGA actions: it is ultimately supposed to be a dispute between the employer and the state to recover penalties for the purposes of addressing present and future violations. It is not intended as a mechanism for employees to redress their own particular past grievances. Note that the Supreme Court granted a limited appeal in this case, choosing to answer only one of many proposed issues and that the briefing and oral argument preceded the extensive PAGA amendments that went into effect last month. We anticipate that PAGA issues will remain hotly litigated in California. If you have any questions about PAGA, contact Scopelitis Attorneys James Hanson, Andy Butcher, Charles Andrewscavage, and Alaina Hawley. . . . . . #transportation #trucking #compliance #supplychain #logistics #trucks #truckingindustry #BIPA #California

22

1 Comment

🚨 #GTAlert: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 1524 into law, creating vital exemptions to the "junk fee" law for food service businesses! This new legislation eases compliance burdens but leaves some questions unanswered. Stay informed and ensure your business is compliant to avoid risks! 📜💡 ▶️ Read more in this piece by Riley Lagesen, Adil Khan, Alice Kessler, and Magaly Zagal: https://buff.ly/3RT71Ds. #CaliforniaLaw #SB1524 #RestaurantIndustry #GTRestaurantIndustry #FoodIndustry #LegalUpdate

8

New Ruling on Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees in California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Case As Thompson Hine has previously reported, the recent surge of privacy claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) related to using website cookies, pixels, and web beacons continues to impact a several sectors. It has been especially harmful to small businesses. On July 15, Judge Rolf Treu ruled on a preliminary motion in a CIPA lawsuit and concluded that the plaintiff could potentially recover punitive damages and attorney fees. Although this case does not address the merits of whether website tracking technologies are considered pen registers or trap and trace devices under CIPA, plaintiffs may rely on it to demand larger awards and settlements in their CIPA actions. Businesses that deploy these types of online tracking technologies should immediately reassess the legal terms governing the use of their websites and whether they contain favorable dispute resolution provisions, such as remedies available for claims arising from a consumer’s use of the website. View full update here ➡ https://bit.ly/3WjOO3x Steven Stransky I Jennifer Adler #DataPrivacy #PrivacyLaw #ThompsonHine #California

1

In 2023, the California Supreme Court issued several pivotal decisions impacting the state’s legal landscape. From examining legislative changes affecting gang-related murder charges to scrutinizing employee rights in the gig economy, the court’s rulings have far-reaching implications. In our latest blog, we’ll cover the key California Supreme Court decisions every lawyer should know. Read it here 👉 https://lnkd.in/eFQTxE9e

5

Thank you Claire Solot of the Legal Services Funders Network for bringing her ⭐️ #starpower to our Nixon Peabody LLP San Francisco #ProBono Celebration Lunch. Did you know? According to the State Bar of California •55 percent of Californians at all income levels experienced at least one civil legal problem in their household within the past year. · Californians sought legal help for fewer than one in three legal problems. · Californians received no or inadequate legal help for 85 percent of their problems. · The most common categories of civil legal problems affecting Californians at all income levels are health, finance, and employment. Claire’s organization is trying to bridge this #JusticeGap by bringing together funders from law firms, private foundations, individual donors, legal organizations, corporations, and others to fund solutions! https://lnkd.in/gcS9sTPs Matthew Richards Sharmaine Heng Emery Lewis #legalservices #lawfirm

19

1 Comment