Cal Supreme Court Approves Class Action Fees Based on Settlement Percentage

California Supreme Court Approves Award of Class Action Attorney Fees Based on a Percentage of the Class Action Settlement Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in a case challenging the traditional method of calculating attorney fees to be paid to the plaintiff attorneys in wage and hour class actions. Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., ____ Cal.4th ____, 2016 Daily Journal Daily Appellate Report 8287 (California Supreme Court August 11, 2016)....

Continue reading →

Ezer Williamson Law proudly announces Robert C. Hayden as Senior Counsel

Ezer Williamson Law proudly announces the addition of Robert C. Hayden as Senior Counsel. Mr. Hayden brings with him over 37 years of legal experience and expertise in the areas of labor and employment law, as well as extensive experience in business and commercial litigation, including contract and intellectual property disputes. Prior to joining Ezer Williamson, Mr. Hayden was a partner at RG Lawyers LLP where he practiced for over six years representing both employees and...

Continue reading →

Ezer Williamson Law Announces Affiliation With Leven & Seligman, LLP

Ezer Williamson Law is proud to announce its formal affiliation with Century City’s Leven & Seligman, LLP.  With this association, both firms build on their reputations for superior quality, client service, and results. The association will enable both firms to add depth and breadth to their existing practice areas of Real Estate Law and Litigation, Business and Corporate Transactions, Business and Commercial Law and Litigation, Partnership and Member Disputes, Shareholder Rights, Business Formation, and Estate...

Continue reading →

Tenant Security Deposits and “Deduct-and-Return” Under Civil Code Section 1950.5

Subject to certain limitations, a landlord may withhold tenant security deposits in order to clean, repair, and make ready a rental unit for new tenants.  In fact, California Civil Code Section 1950.5 provides that the landlord may use summary “deduct-and-return” procedures (that is, procedures that do not require formal legal process) as long as certain rules are followed. “Deduct-and-Return” Under Civil Code Section 1950.5 Under California law, after a tenant has vacated the premises a landlord has...

Continue reading →

Riverisland, Parol Evidence, and the Fraud Exception

We recently wrote about contract integration clauses, which will usually state that the contract is “completely integrated,” and the parol evidence rule, which works to keep out prior or contemporaneous statements or writings that would modify the contract.  In this post we discuss Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno–Madera Production Credit Assn., 55 Cal. 4th 1169 (2013).   In short, Riverisland states that the parol evidence rule is not a bar to evidence that goes...

Continue reading →

What is the Parol Evidence Rule?

A key part of understanding why an integration clause is important is understanding what the parol evidence rule is. What is the Parol Evidence Rule? Generally speaking, the parol evidence rule bars (or keeps out) extrinsic evidence of a prior or contemporaneous agreement.  In English, this means that once parties to a contract sign and agree to the terms of the contract, the parol evidence rule will keep the parties to the agreement from trying to submit...

Continue reading →

What is an Integration Clause in a contract?

An integration clause (also known as a merger clause or an entire agreement clause) is found in most contracts and simply provides that the agreement or contract between the parties is the final and complete understanding between the parties, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, or understandings on the subject. The typical integration clause will say something like this: This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties in connection with the subject matter of...

Continue reading →

Doing Business in California: Failing to Obtain a Certificate of Qualification

As we discussed in our blog last week, a foreign corporation or other business entity transacting business within California must comply with the certification requirements of Corporations Code § 2105 and obtain a Certificate of Qualification.  As set forth in the following list, the consequences for failing to comply with the California Corporations Code (the “Code”) can be harsh. A foreign entity is not permitted to maintain an action or proceeding within California regarding...

Continue reading →

Doing Business in California: “Transacting Intrastate Business”

We have previously written about doing business in California, and how the California Corporations Code uses a “transacting intrastate business” test.  Importantly, if a corporation or other entity is deemed to be doing business in California under the “transacting intrastate business” test, that entity must obtain a “Certificate of Qualification” under Corporations Code § 2105.  This post will look at what will and will not constitute “transacting intrastate business.” Transacting Intrastate Business Transacting intrastate business means that...

Continue reading →

California’s Presumption Against Non-Compete Agreements Recognized in Delaware

Previously on the blog we discussed how non-compete agreements in California are presumed void unless they meet one of two very narrow statutory exceptions. A recent decision from the  Delaware Court of Chancery further emphasized the reach and effect of this presumption by upholding a California employee’s right to contract despite a non-compete agreement in an employment contract governed by Delaware law. Specifically, in  Ascension Insurance Holdings, LLC v. Underwood et al., the Delaware Court...

Continue reading →