contra costa lawyer - cccba · 2014-08-28 · periodical postage paid at concord, ca. postmaster:...

Contra Costa

LAWYER Volume 27, Number 5 | September 2014

Employment Law

SEPTEMBER 20142

Neither UBS Financial Services Inc. nor any of its employees provide legal or tax

advice. You should consult with your personal legal or tax advisor regarding

your personal circumstances. ©UBS 2012. All rights reserved. UBS Financial Services Inc. is a subsidiary of UBS AG. Member SIPC.

The headline says one thing.

The story says something else.

You want someone to help you make sense of it all.

That’s where we come in.

the novak group at ubs financial services, inc.bringing confidence to your financial decisions.

Perry A. Novak

Senior Vice President, Wealth Management

UBS Financial Services, Inc.

2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 400

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

(925) 746-0245

[email protected]

Perry is an active member of CCCBA, currently

serving on the board of the Business Law &

Corporate Counsel Section.

The Novak Group has been providing wealth

planning and asset management services to

affluent families, business owners and

professionals since 1983.

Please visit us at:

ubs.com/team/thenovakgroup

Contra Costa CoUntY Bar assoCIatIon CONTRA COSTA LAWYER 3

EDITORIAL BOARDSuzanne Boucher 925.933.1500Matthew Guichard 925.459.8440Elva Harding 925.215.4577Patricia Kelly 925.258.9300David Pearson 925.287.0051Samantha Sepehr 925.287.3540Marlene Weinstein 925.942.5100James Wu 925.658.0300

Contra Costa

LAWYERVolume 27 Number 5 | September 2014

B A R A S S O C I A T I O N

The official publication of the

FEATURES

The Contra Costa Lawyer (ISSN 1063-4444) is published 12 times a year - 6 times online-only - by the Contra Costa County Bar Association (CCCBA), 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 520, Concord, CA 94520. Annual subscription of $25 is included in the membership dues. Periodical postage paid at Concord, CA. POSTMASTER: send address change to the Contra Costa Lawyer, 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 520, Concord, CA 94520. The Lawyer welcomes and encourages articles and letters from readers. Please send them to [email protected] CCCBA reserves the right to edit articles and letters sent in for publication. All editorial material, including editorial comment, appearing herein represents the views of the respective authors and does not neces-sarily carry the endorsement of the CCCBA or the Board of Directors. Likewise, the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.

Philip AndersenDean Barbieri

Amanda BevinsOliver Bray

Denae Hildebrand BuddeMary Carey

CCCBA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Theresa Hurley | 925.370.2548 | [email protected]

CCCBA main office 925.686.6900 | www.cccba.org

2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Michelle FerberPeter HassReneé LivingstonKatherine Wenger James Wu

CO-EDITORSHarvey Sohnen

925.258.9300

Nicole Mills 925.351.3171

BOARD LIAISON Candice Stoddard

925.942.5100

COURT LIAISON Stephen Nash

925.957.5600

PRINTING Steven’s Printing

925.681.1774

PHOTOGRAPHER Moya Fotografx

510.847.8523

CONTRA COSTA LAWYER

Barbara Arsedo LRIS Coordinator

Dawnell BlaylockCommunications

Coordinator

Jennifer Comages Membership Coordinator

Emily Day Systems Administrator and Fee Arbitration Coordinator

Elizabeth Galliett Education and Programs Coordinator

Stephen Steinberg Nicholas Casper

Candice StoddardElva Harding

Jay Chafetz

PresidentPresident-ElectSecretaryTreasurerEx Officio

DEPARTMENTS

4 INSIDE | by James Y. Wu

20 CENTER | All Sections’ Summer Mixer [photos] Lisa Reep’s Retirement Reception Invitation MCLE Spectacular Invitation

27 THE SUGAR WARS OF CROCKETT | by William Mero

29 PRO BONO SPOTLIGHT | by Samantha Sepehr

31 MEET CCCBA’S NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR | Theresa Hurley

32 2014 SUSTAINING LAW FIRMS

33 CALENDAR

38 CLASSIFIEDS

ADMISSIBILITY OF A PLAINTIFF’S IMMIGRATION STATUS IN CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONAL INJURY CASESby Ralph L. Jacobson and Yen P. Chau

OVERTIME COMPENSATION RIGHTS FOR LIVE-IN PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANTSby Patricia M. Kelly

OUT TO SEA WITHOUT AN ANCHOR? ANALYZING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES WITHOUT CORRESPONDING ECONOMIC DAMAGES by Douglas Kelly

6

13

11

ROCKIN’ THE JOINT SESSIONby Margaret J. Grover

16

YOU WON! NOW WHAT? THREE TIPS WHEN APPLYING FOR PREVAILING PARTY FEESby Kevin R. Allen, Esq.

19

EMPLOYMENT LAW AT THE MOVIES: YOU CAN’T GO WRONG WATCHING THESE WORKPLACE DOCUMENTARIESby Marjorie Wallace

24

Cover Photo: Canal construction in Concord, c. 1940. Used with permission from the Contra Costa County Historical Society. www.cocohistory.org

SEPTEMBER 20144

inside

W elcome to the September 2014 edition of the Contra Costa Lawyer! It is truly about people.

First, I’d like to take this opportunity to give a heartfelt THANK YOU to Lisa Reep, who will be retiring this month as Executive Director. Lisa has dedicated years to the Contra Costa County Bar Associa-tion. Her leadership, professionalism, and friendly and vibrant personality have propelled the CCCBA to one of the nation’s leading bar associations.

On a personal note, I have been fortunate to work with Lisa for several years and count her as a wonderful friend and colleague. Please join us on September 19 at the Lafayette Park Hotel to celebrate Lisa and her many contributions to CCCBA.

Thankfully, the CCCBA will be in great hands after Li-sa’s departure. Many of you already know that our very own Theresa Hurley will become the next Executive Director. Theresa has already devoted several years to the CCCBA, and I have no doubt that she will give her all to the new role and help the CCCBA thrive and flour-ish for years to come.

This month’s magazine focuses on Employment Law. The CCCBA is fortunate to have a very vibrant and colle-gial Employment Law Section that puts together MCLE events nearly every month and collaborates frequently. When the opportunity arose to host an edition of this magazine, the Employment Law Section jumped at the opportunity, and we are all the beneficiaries of the fol-lowing excellent articles:

In June 2014, the California Supreme Court decided an important case regarding the impact of immigration

status in California employment law cases. Ralph L. Jacobson and Yen P. Chau provide an excellent re-view of Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. and have not only focused on its impact on employment law, but also the potential ramifications the decision has on personal in-jury cases. All attorneys should read this article even if their practice does not focus on immigration, personal injury or employment law.

Patricia M. Kelly also presents excellent insight into another recent development in employment law. Her article focuses on the new wage and hour requirements regarding live-in personal care attendants. Pat’s article highlights many traps for the unwary employer.

Often, a plaintiff in an employment law claim will have suffered significant and quantifiable economic damages, including back pay, front pay, loss of employ-ee benefits and other measurable damages. Douglas Kelly dives into the situation where “emotional dis-tress” damages overshadow any economic damages. Doug analyzes issues for litigating and defending cases when a plaintiff may have significant emotional dis-tress damages, but little economic damages.

Margaret J. Grover offers us insight into mediating employment law claims. Her article focuses on how at-torneys and litigants can make the mediation joint ses-sion a productive and helpful part of mediation.

Sometimes, employment law matters might actually make it all the way to a judgment. Great, you may have won your case, but now what? Thankfully, Kevin R. Allen supplies us with key practical tips for applying for prevailing party fee awards in employment law cases.

Not only did Marjorie Wallace research and write

James Y. Wu

It’s About People


palmer brown madden925.838.8593 | WWW.ADRSERVICES.COM

Over 25 years’ experience as an ADR neutral

Palmer Madden has conducted more than 1,000 mediations since 1981. One jurisdiction reported that he has over a 90% settlement rate.

His 25 years of experience as a trial attorney gives him an understanding about clients that has proven time and again to be critical in tough cases.

He does not carry the overhead of other mediation firms (no administrative fees) - which means the price is always right!

effectiveness

experience

efficiency

a great article, but she spent hours watching documentaries in order to provide us with a look at employ-ment law in the movies. She fo-cused on two important documen-taries: Robert Reich’s “Inequality for All” and “Anita: Speaking Truth to Power.” So, pause your viewing of comedies making light of work-place issues (like “The Internship” or “Horrible Bosses”), and learn about these two documentaries summa-rized by Marjorie.

Finally, we are fortunate to have an article by William Mero from the Contra Costa County Historical Society regarding a violent labor strike that occurred in Contra Costa County in the late 1930s. While the precise issues may have evolved over the years, the upheaval and conflict regarding the C&H Sugar refinery in Crockett serves as a great reminder that employment law is truly focused on people and the lives of workers and business own-ers alike.

I would like to personally thank the authors of the articles for vol-unteering their time and energy. In addition, I thank Kevin R. Allen for his behind-the-scenes help, and thank the other mem-bers of the Employment Law Sec-tion Board for supplying authors, articles and year-round benefits to our legal community. I also thank the Contra Costa County Historical Society for providing the wonderful cover to this month’s edition. s

For nearly two decades, James Y. Wu has provided employment law advice and counsel, and litigation representation, to employers of all sizes. After 15 years at some of the nation’s leading firms, James founded his own firm in Walnut Creek. James is a member of the CCCBA Board of Directors, Co-Chair of the Law Practice Management Series Task Force, and former Presi-dent of the CCCBA Employment Law Section. Learn more at www.jameswulaw.com and http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesywu/.

SEPTEMBER 20146

Admissibility of a Plaintiff’s Immigration Status in California Employment and

Personal Injury Cases

I n California employment and personal injury liti-gation, the question often arises as to whether a plaintiff’s immigration status constitutes admissi-ble evidence; and whether (or when) illegal immi-

gration status might bar part or all of a claim for damag-es. Case law on this issue has developed, over the years, in both the employment and personal injury arenas: Pronouncements of the law in each field have impacted the other.

The latest significant development is the California Supreme Court’s decision in an employment law case, Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., (2014) Cal. App.4th, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 689.

The background of this issue goes back at least to the 1980s, with Rodriguez v. Kline (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1148, describing the “question regarding a plain-tiff’s citizenship or lawful place of residence as one of law, to be decided exclusively by the trial court outside the presence of the jury.”

Historically, a personal injury plaintiff’s immigration status has been inadmissible, for most purposes. See Hernandez v. Paicius (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 452, disap-proved on other grounds in People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993, 1006, footnote 4.

In Hernandez, a medical malpractice case, the de-fendant physician sought to introduce plaintiff’s alien status as character evidence to show a propensity to lie, and the court allowed the evidence before the jury. On review, the court held that plaintiff’s immigration sta-tus had no probative value regarding plaintiff’s verac-ity, and that it was highly prejudicial. So the appellate court held that the trial court had erred in allowing the evidence.1

But there has long been an exception to the inadmis-sibility of such evidence: If the personal injury plaintiff sought recovery for future wage loss, the holding in Ro-driguez calls for the trial court, in an in limine hearing prior to the jury trial, to determine whether the plaintiff was “subject to deportation.” Or, alternatively, whether the plaintiff had undertaken steps to cure the problem, such that he or she would be able to achieve compliance with the law during the relevant future time period.

Rodriguez held that the illegal status of the plaintiff (if such was found in the hearing by the trial court) would indeed be admissible evidence on the issue of future wage loss:

“If the court’s decision following this hearing is in the plaintiff’s favor, then all evidence relating to his alien-age shall be excluded and his projected earning capac-ity may be computed upon the basis of his past and projected future income in the United States. Should the defendant prevail, then evidence of the plaintiff’s future earnings must be limited to those he could an-ticipate receiving in his country of lawful citizenship. Of course, in such an instance since the plaintiff’s sta-tus ordinarily would not be relevant to a determina-tion of liability, he would be entitled to a limiting in-struction to that effect.”2

A significant development in this area occurred in 2002, in an employment case: The United States Su-preme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). The Court in Hoffman reversed an award of back pay to illegal immigrants who, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, were terminated because of their participation in the or-ganization of a union.3

by Ralph L. Jacobson and Yen P. Chau


Personal InjuryReal Estate Litigation

Trust and Estate DisputesMediation

Law Offices ofCandice E. Stoddard

1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 420 Walnut Creek, CA 94597

925.942.5100 • fax [email protected]

Practicing law in the East Bay for over 25 years

n

Candice E. Stoddard

The precise question there was whether the NLRB had the authority to award back pay to undocumented work-ers, notwithstanding the prohibition on hiring such workers in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Supreme Court answered that question in the negative, relying on the policy goals of the immigra-tion laws.4

The California Legislature responded to Hoffman, en-acting four almost identical remedial statutes, effective in 2003: Civil Code Section 3339(a), Government Code Section 7285(a), Health & Safety Code Section 24000 and Labor Code section 1171.5(a) (hereafter, the “Remedial Statutes”).

These code sections each included this sentence: “All protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this state.”

The next year, the Ninth Circuit, in Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 364 F.3d 1057, 1072-1073, looked at the issue once again in another employment law context: Whether Hoffman’s bar on recovery by undocumented workers applied to their receiving federal Title VII bene-fits as well as state law remedies under the Fair Employ-ment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt. Code, § 12900, et seq.).

Expressing doubts that benefits were so barred in light of the passage of the Remedial Statutes, the court denied the defendant’s request for discovery on plain-

tiffs’ immigration status, at least prior to determination of whether liability and damages would be bifurcated.

Around the same time, a California appellate court commented about the Remedial Statutes: “[T]he Legisla-ture apparently felt strongly enough about the sensitive subject of immigration status to put essentially identical language in three separate statutes enacted shortly after this case was tried.”5

Moreover, in Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 604, 615-618, another employment case, the appellate court permitted undocumented workers to recover damages for an employer’s failure to pay pre-vailing wages, citing the Remedial Statutes, particularly Labor Code Section 1171.5, as a basis for its decision.

Finally, the issue of potential preemption of all, or part, of the Remedial Statutes by the federal Immigra-tion Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.) came to the fore this year, and became the pri-

mary basis for the California Supreme Court’s decision in Salas.

In Salas, a former employee brought an action against his former employer, alleging disability discrim-ination in violation of FEHA, and denial of employment in violation of public policy, after his employer failed to allow him to return to work after he suffered a back injury.

The trial court granted the employ-er’s motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, be-cause the employee had knowingly presented a false social security num-

SEPTEMBER 20148

T (925) 906-1880F (925) 937-5634Toll Free (866) [email protected]

1981 N. Broadway, Suite 245Walnut Creek, CA 94596

www.AcunaRegliKlein.com

Acuña, Regli & Klein, LLPand

The Law Offices of Ronald C. Solow

are pleased to announce the retirement of

Ronald C. Solow

Mr. Solow has selected Acuña, Regli & Klein, LLP,

to serve the continuing needs of his clients.

estate planning· probate & trust administration

inheritance litigation· business & bankruptcy

conservatorship· special needs trusts

ber when hired; according to the appellate court, the after-acquired evidence of his illegal status was a complete defense to the employee’s claims.

But the Supreme Court supersed-ed the Court of Appeal decision, rec-onciling, via preemption analysis, the Remedial Statutes’ provision of all available remedies to undocu-mented workers with the federal prohibition against continuing to employ illegal immigrants.

It concluded that federal preemp-tion prevented the award of back pay to undocumented workers only after the employer discovers the il-legal worker’s status. Federal law did not preempt payment of an em-ployee’s wages in the period prior to discovery of his or her illegal sta-tus: “The remedial relief generally should compensate the employee

for loss of employment from the date of wrongful discharge or refus-al to hire to the date on which the employer acquired information of the employee’s wrongdoing or in-eligibility for employment.”6

So the upshot of Salas is that it maintains the right of employees, whose status is illegal, to bring FEHA actions and recover damages up until the date of the employer’s discovery of the employee’s illegal status; but it motivates an employer, facing a FEHA or wrongful termina-tion claim, to ascertain early on any existing evidence of an employee claimant’s illegal immigration sta-tus, so that the employer can try to decrease the employee’s potential damages award.

The Salas decision therefore “ups the ante” for both sides in FEHA and wrongful termination claims. Un-documented workers may be more incentivized now to seek redress for wrongful employment practices, notwithstanding their immigration

status, since they do have a right to recover damages up until the point their illegal status is ascertained by the employer; and employers will, earlier and more vigorously, at-tempt to ferret out evidence of an employee’s illegal immigration sta-tus, among other potential defenses, to decrease their exposure for dam-ages.

Were the issue of a third party’s potential liability for an injured plaintiff’s future wage loss to arise now in a personal injury context, af-ter Salas, plaintiff’s counsel would still argue that the injured party’s potential recovery for future lost earnings is, quoting the Remedial Statutes, a “remedy available under state law.”

Plaintiff’s counsel would also ar-gue, raising technical arguments of statutory intention like those discussed by the Supreme Court in Salas, that there has been no federal preemption of the Remedial Stat-utes, as applied to future wage loss

Immigration Status

cont. from page 7


of a personal injury plaintiff.

Defense counsel would argue that the Rodriguez rule still applies, and future earnings evidence should be limited to the plaintiff’s country of legal residency.

Supportive of that contention would be that Hernandez cites with approval, in dicta, to Rodriguez’s distinction that immigration status is admissible when future wage loss is at issue.7

But more significantly, Salas will be seized upon by the defense; it will argue that Salas’ logical exten-sion in the personal injury context should be that Rodriguez remains in force and effect, in spite of the pas-sage of the Remedial Statutes: That is, while plaintiff’s past U.S.-based earnings might be subject to full recovery, his or her future earnings should be limited to those obtain-able in his or her country of lawful citizenship—just as an employee’s future earnings, post-discovery of

3445 Golden Gate WayLafayette, CA 94549 (925) 283-6998

[email protected]

30 years experience Probate-Trust Paralegal

illegal status, are now barred by Sa-las.

With Salas, the dust has cleared in the employment law area; only time will tell whether that decision suggests a resolution of this issue in the personal injury context as well. s

1 Hernandez at pp. 455, 460-461.

2 186 Cal.App.3d at 1149.

3 Id. at 140–41.

4 Id. at 148–52.

5 Hernandez, 109 Cal.App.4th at 459. Why the court failed to mention the fourth statute, Health & Safety Code Section 24000, is unclear.

6 Salas, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d at 706.

7 Hernandez, 109 Cal.App.4th at 459.

Ralph L. Jacobson is a founding partner of, and now of counsel to, the law firm of Gillin, Jacobson, El-lis, Larsen & Lucey in Orinda.

Yen P. Chau practices civil litiga-tion with a focus on employment law at Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP in San Ramon. She is a member of the Board of the Em-ployment Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association.

SEPTEMBER 201410


Overtime Compensation Rights for Live-in Personal Care Attendantsby Patricia M. Kelly

W ith the country’s aging baby-boomer population, there has been an increase in the number of in-home personal care at-tendants. Legal protections of the wages,

hours and working conditions have lagged with care workers remaining among the lowest paid in the service industry.

On the other hand, as the costs of such services are usually borne by individuals and families, there are is-sues of affordability. This article addresses the California overtime laws applicable to live-in personal attendants.

A covered employer is some-one “who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other per-son, including through the services of a third-party staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of a domestic work employee.”1 The laws cannot be evaded merely by calling some-one an “independent contractor.”

Prior to January 1, 2014, “personal attendants” were exempt from the overtime laws, although they were still subject to minimum wage re-quirements.2 However, on Janu-ary 1, 2014, the California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights (California Labor Code sections 1450 through 1454) went into effect. This law reg-ulates working hours of “personal attendants” who provide care and support for individuals.

A “personal attendant” is anyone employed by a pri-vate householder or by a third-party employer recog-nized in the health care industry to work in a private household, to supervise, feed or dress a child, or a person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability or mental deficiency needs supervision.”3

Personal attendants are required to be paid overtime

compensation (pay at one and one-half times the hourly rate) for any hours worked over nine hours in a day and 45 hours in a week.

The only exceptions to these overtime requirements are if the wages are paid through the In-Home Support-ive Services program or other specified state or county programs, the person is a babysitter under 18 years of age or a “casual babysitter,” or if the person providing the services is the “parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling, child or legally adopted child of the domestic work em-ployer.”4

To qualify as a “personal attendant,” the person may not perform any “significant amount” of work other than services related to the care and support of the individual. The phrase “no significant amount of work” means work other than the supervision, feeding or dressing cannot exceed 20 per-cent of the total weekly hours worked.5

Household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person, such as meal prepa-ration, bed making, washing clothes and similar services should qualify as exempt work, while general household work must not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked.6 Where this 20 percent limita-

tion is exceeded, more onerous overtime requirements apply.7

“Hours worked” are “the time during which an em-ployee is subject to the control of an employer, and in-cludes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”8

Under federal law, up to eight hours of “sleep time” may be excluded from the calculation of hours worked,

SEPTEMBER 201412

The average survival rate is eight years after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s — some live as few as three years after diagnosis, while others live as long as 20. Most people with Alzheimer’s don’t die from the disease itself, but from pneumonia, a urinary tract infection or complications from a fall.

Until there’s a cure, people with the disease will need caregiving and legal advice. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, approximately one in ten families has a relative with this disease. Of the four million people living in the U.S. with Alzheimer’s disease, the majority live at home — often receiving care from family members.

Elder Law is

Alzheimer’s Planning

If the diagnosis is Alzheimer’s, call elder law attorney Michael J. Young

Estate Planning, Disability, Medi-Cal, Long-term Care & VA Planning

Protect your loved ones, home and independence.

n 925.256.0298

www.YoungElderLaw.com1931 San Miguel Drive, Suite 220 Walnut Creek, California 94596

if: (1) the work shift is 24 hours or more; (2) there are adequate facili-ties such that the employee may usually enjoy an uninterrupted period of sleep; (3) there are at least five uninterrupted hours available during the sleep period; and (4) there is an express or implied agree-ment that sleep time is excluded.

If sleep time is interrupted by a call to duty, the time spent on duty is considered hours of work.9 Also, if the sleep period is interrupted to such an extent that the employee cannot get at least five hours of sleep, then the entire sleep period is considered working time.

The doctrine of an exclusion of sleep time hours from compensable time worked has not been tested under California state law, but there are strong arguments as to why the laws should be the same.

An employer who fails to pay the legally required wages can be held liable not only for the wages due, but also “waiting time” penalties, if the failure to pay is found to be willful. Waiting time penalties are calculated as a continuation of the daily wages from the due date at the same rate until paid or until an ac-tion is commenced, but for no more than 30 days.10

Additional penalties also could be awarded, such as $50 for each un-derpaid employee for each pay pe-riod, or a fine of not less than $100.11

An employer could also be held li-able for interest and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by an employee awarded overtime compensation in a court action.12

Records must be kept of hours worked, including when a shift starts and ends. Itemized records also should be kept and provided to the employee, showing what com-pensation has been paid, includ-

ing any premium pay for overtime hours.

It is advisable that there be a writ-ten contract with a personal atten-dant. It should address sleep time (that the worker is expected to be able to have eight hours of sleep time per night, that eight hours of sleep time will be deducted from the 24-hour shift of work, and that the worker should inform the employ-er when he or she has had to work during those sleep time hours).

The contract should also have a specification of duties; define the relationship as at-will and state that the person will vacate the premises upon termination of employment. s

1 Cal. Lab. Code §1451(C)(1).

2 In the state of California, minimum wage currently is $9 per hour, with an overtime rate at time and a half of $13.50. There are cities where the minimum wage is higher, such as $10.74 in San Francisco.

3 Cal. Lab. Code §1451(d).

4 Cal. Lab. Code §1451(b)(2).



7 IWC Wage Order 15-2001, 3(B).

8 IWC Wage Order 15-2001, 2(H).

9 5 C.F.R. §551.432; 29 C.F.R. §§785.20-785.23.

10 Cal. Lab. Code §203.

11 IWC Wage Order 15-2001 §15; Cal. Lab. Code §1199.

12 Cal. Lab. Code §1194.

Patricia Kelly is a partner at Sohnen & Kelly in Orinda, which has substantial experience address-ing a broad range of employment issues, including wage and hour class action lawsuits, disciplinary actions, discrimination, harass-ment, wrongful termination and severance agreements. They rep-resent primarily small companies and individuals.

Overtime Compensation

cont. from page 11


A ttorneys often value emotional distress in an employment law case using economic dam-ages as an anchor. This makes sense: Econom-ic damages are more easily calculated into

numbers and data is more or less measurable. If there is no anchor of economic damages, attorneys can still evaluate cases that have no or minimal economic dam-ages by appraising noneconomic damages fully.

First, the legal framework. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) “permits individual suits for dam-ages to enforce its provisions, but it does not specify what damages are recoverable.”1 Despite the statutory openness, emotional distress is a distinct form of com-pensatory relief.2

Courts go through an intensive review of evidence to evaluate emotional distress as “there is no fixed or absolute standard by which to compute the monetary value of emotional distress.”3 Every case is remarkably different, and thus an emotional distress case should be appraised and “decided on its own facts and circum-stances.”4

Such a loose standard is an interesting contrast to the biology of stress. When an employee experiences trauma, such as a job termination or sexual harassment, the brain triggers an anthropological “fight-or-flight” response. The reactionary, emotional part of the brain

(amygdala) roars into overdrive and overtakes the un-emotional memory-finder and recorder of the brain (hippocampus).5 As stress hormones flood the body and raise blood pressure, short-term memory is disrupted—the brain focuses its attention on instant danger and not on cool, rational thinking.6 This activity can make the brain record incorrectly or not at all, making gaps in memory.7

By all accounts, emotional distress is legally and phys-ically tangible. When it legally exists, the challenge is evaluating how much an employer should pay for it. While every case is different, it is arguable attorneys within the employment law field default to specific fac-tors. The following provides further guidance for assess-ing emotional distress damages.8

• Strong Testimony. The best way to assess emotion-al distress is, simply, to listen. If an employee genu-inely feels distraught and can honestly express with specificity a significant “quality-of-life impact,” it puts emotional distress damages squarely on the table.9

Note that the “fight-or-flight” response detailed above may arise during an employee’s deposition or detailed interview. This may explain why some employees are not able to describe workplace events in full detail as they are forced to relive trauma that formed memory gaps.

Out to Sea Without An Anchor? Analyzing Emotional Distress Damages Without Corresponding Economic Damages

by Douglas Kelly

SEPTEMBER 201414

Emotional Distress

cont. from page 13

“A unique and effective style - a great mediator”

Candice Stoddard

Willows Office Park p 1355 Willow Way, Suite 110Concord, California 94520

Telephone (925) 798-3413 p Facsimile (925) 798-3118 Email [email protected]

AND MEDIATION CENTER

Ron Mullin

In this way, conducting a deposi-tion like a police interrogation may elevate stress levels in an employee, hindering accurate, factual discov-ery.

The value of testimony is also im-pacted by whether the employee is a likeable person. An employee should evoke sympathy in the jury, a given, but equally important in-voke sympathy from the employer.

An employer may refuse to pay for emotional distress in settlement if there’s a history of animosity that pervades beyond the case. This is a political concern, yet nonetheless, can affect a case.

• Professional Diagnosis of In-jury. If a medical professional can diagnose a specific condi-tion and tie it to the alleged il-legal workplace conduct in the workplace, it provides strong

evidence of emotional distress.10

Unfortunately, such a clear di-agnosis is fairly rare and subject to challenge by an employer’s medical expert if the case is in litigation. Further, a client may not be in a position, emotionally or economically, to see a health professional. Thus, while a pow-erful piece of evidence, it may not be available in every case.

• Nature of the Claim. To many attorneys, harassment claims lend themselves more to emo-tional distress than, say, wrong-ful termination claims.11 Behav-ioral economists disagree. Many studies have shown “job loss causes substantially more [emo-tional] harm than the undisput-ed economic losses it generates” affecting employees, potentially, for years.12 Discrimination in-tensifies the emotional distress caused by this job loss.13

Thus, attorneys on both sides should take the time to better eval-

uate emotional distress in termina-tion cases and not outright dismiss them, especially constructive termi-nation claims as “individuals who blame others for their health condi-tions tend to have worse symptoms and recover more slowly.”14

• Severity. Extreme and outra-geous conduct will likely dictate higher numbers. However, se-verity should only be a factor if emotional distress is viable in a case. The California Court of Ap-peal recently held that proving “elements of the tort of inten-tional infliction of emotional distress is not a prerequisite for the recovery of compensatory damages under the … (FEHA) for mental anguish and humili-ation.”15

• Jury Verdicts. Jury verdicts are helpful in framing similar facts/evidence amounting to emo-tional distress awards in mon-etary terms. As the majority of civil cases settle before trial, jury verdicts should be just one tool of many. Some California ap-pellate decisions are illustrative nonetheless.16

• Other Documentation. Other helpful evidence can come in the form of documentation such as medical notes, layperson testi-mony of an employee’s distress, communications evidencing dis-tress (text messages, emails) and diaries. Attorneys are encour-aged to get creative as different employees experience distress in varying ways. For example, if an employee was once a health guru, but now eats junk food and no longer exercises—pulling an employee’s gym records to show declining visits and collecting receipts of junk food purchases may be a scrappy way to show mental anguish or a precursor to depression.

Using these tools will help attor-neys evaluate emotional distress, regardless of an economic anchor. If done with care and foresight, coun-


lenczowski law - cccba advertisement (12-10-2012).doc

REAL ESTATE BUSINESS PLANNING ESTATE PLANNING

EXIT, SUCCESSION & ESTATE PLANNING FOR BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS

LENCZOWSKI LAW OFFICES

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1615 Bonanza Street, Suite 212

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T (925) 280 7788

www.lenczowskilaw.com

HUBERT LENCZOWSKI, J.D., M.A.*[email protected]

* Adjunct Professor Taxation Golden Gate University Law School, LL M Taxation Program

C. JOSEPH DOHERTY, [email protected]

sel can better articulate an employ-ee’s emotional damages, which in turn will allow employer counsel to better advise their clients about li-ability in relation thereto.

Further, legitimizing emotional distress cases may afford represen-tation to employees in need of legal help. In a fluctuating and unpre-dictable economy, damages (as well as cases) of all types should be prop-erly and fully evaluated. s

1 State Dept. of Health Services v. Supe-rior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1042; see Cal. Gov. Code § 12965.

2 See Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (2d Dist. 1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 418 (up-holding $125,000 award as “evidence of emotional distress, standing alone, is suf-ficient to sustain the entire … verdict.”).

3 Hope v. California Youth Authority (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 577, 595 (citations and quotations omitted).

4 Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961) 56 Cal.2d 498, 508.

5 American Psychological Association, “How Stress Affects Your Health,” found at http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/stress-facts.pdf.

6 Sethanne Howard and Mark W. Cran-dall, MD, “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – What Happens in the Brain?” Washington Academy of Sciences (Fall 2007), page 13.

7 Id. at 14.

8 Special thanks goes to attorney and me-diator David Lowe, Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, attorney and mediator Jamie Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier, LLP, and attorney Beth W. Mora, Mora Employment Law, for their practical knowledge and experience.

9 Scott A. Moss and Peter H. Huang, “How The New Economics Can Improve Em-ployment Discrimination Law, And How Economics Can Survive the Demise of the ’Rational Actor’”, 51 William and Mary L. Rev. 183, 199-200 (2009).

10 Id.

11 See Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 234 (making distinction be-tween emotional distress in harassment claims versus termination claims).

12 Moss and Huang, supra, at 212-215.

13 Id. at 219-220.

14 David DePianto, The Hedonic Impact of “Stand-Alone” Emotional Harms – An Analysis of Survey Data, 36 LAW & PSY-CHOLOGY REVIEW 115, 140 (2012).

15 Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (App. 2 Dist. 2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1247.

16 See Moran v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2012, A128840) 2012 WL 36450720, at *20-27 (collecting and analyzing multiple cas-es that approved awards of noneconomic damages with varying facts).

Douglas Kelly is an associate at Mora Employment Law, APC rep-resenting exclusively individual employees in discrimination and harassment cases. Outside of the office, he enjoys tennis, design and science. He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and Emory Univer-sity.

Bray & Bray Oliver W. Bray*

Over 25 years in practice

• Probate, Trust & Estate litigation and administration

• Elder Abuse Litigation• Conservatorship establishment

and litigation• Fiduciary court accountings• Estate Planning

Free case evaluations for referring attorneys*Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law – State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization*Selected to Northern California Super Lawyers each year since 2006

Since 1949 Rated AV by

Martindale-Hubbell

736 Ferry Street Martinez, CA 94553

925-228-2550 925-370-8558 (fax)

[email protected]

SEPTEMBER 201416

Rockin’ the Joint Sess ionby Margaret J. Grover

A re you missing opportunities to resolve your employment litigation because you decline a joint session during mediation? Many em-ployment attorneys and some mediators use

only private caucuses in mediating an employment case.

The trend against joint session began in employment litigation, to avoid inherent power imbalances and po-tentially emotional confrontations. With thoughtful preparation, however, joint sessions can generate trust in the process, help the parties identify areas of common understanding, and lower barriers to settlement.

“Joint session” broadly refers to any meeting in which the mediator facilitates direct conversations between opposing parties or counsel. One common joint session is the “meet and greet” at the outset of the mediation, including all parties and counsel.

Bringing counsel or the parties together later in the mediation may resolve an impasse or expedite final agreement. The opportunities and risks inherent in joint sessions should be evaluated before deciding whether, or when, a joint session is appropriate.

1. Establishing Procedural Fairness and

Tone

Ground rules should be settled before any joint session. The parties agree to listen respectfully, not interrupt and not engage in direct questioning. Counsel can make any special con-cerns known to the mediator. Fi-nally, the mediator is permitted to conclude any joint session if emotions get too hot, the parties overreact or any-one does not comply with established rules.

The initial joint session can set the tone for the day. By hearing the mediator describe the process, the par-ties confirm that each side is being similarly treated. By his or her demeanor, the mediator can encourage pro-fessional and respectful exchanges. The mediator and counsel can openly acknowledge that each party may have an honest recollection of events, but those recol-lections may differ.

The parties can be encouraged to recognize that a jury could accept either party’s recollection or conclude that neither party was completely accurate. A general dis-cussion of the risks and costs of litigation and benefits of a consensual solution can encourage flexibility, before the parties’ positions are stated.

2. Establishing Competence of Counsel

Mediation may provide a litigant’s first opportunity to observe his or her attorney’s advocacy. Before then, the client’s experience may be limited to initial case evaluation, responding to discovery and depositions.

Watching counsel make an articulate, effec-tive presentation allows the client to feel

confident. This confidence can carry over to private caucuses, when the attorney may need to acknowledge weaknesses or

recommend settling at an amount that is outside the client’s anticipated settle-

ment range.


Recommend top-tier quality for an unbiased, 3rd party trustee, in advanced estate plans or high conflict estates. Protect your aging clients with a proven professional fiduciary. Knowledgeable and experienced.

The Ace Fiduciary Group ■■■ Preserving Your Trust For The Benefit of Your Legacy ■■■

www.acefiduciary.com1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite #108 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 906-1882

A professional, neutral, exceptional alternative.

3. Effectively Presenting the Case

The joint session provides a unique opportunity for counsel to communicate directly with the other side. Most communications during litigation are presented to opposing counsel, who filter the communication and provide their own analysis. Even the most effective me-diators will not convey a party’s position as effectively as the party’s representative.

Effective advocacy in a joint session requires under-standing the audience. The communication techniques are different than courtroom advocacy. The opposing party may shrink from inflated rhetoric and severe pro-nouncements or may interpret stringent statements as a sign that the party is not prepared to negotiate.

A good advocate takes the opportunity to speak per-suasively to the opposing party by presenting his or her client’s case clearly and confidently.

4. Permitting the Parties to Speak

The parties can often be effective advocates. Infor-mation conveyed directly from the parties, rather than through the mediator, can be powerful. The presenta-tions can help both parties and counsel understand the perspectives and genesis of the dispute. If the parties elect early mediation, the joint session may be the first opportunity for counsel to evaluate the key witnesses.

The plaintiff’s presentation can help the defense understand its risks and provide forceful evidence of damages. While discussions of the real-life impact of employment decisions can be difficult, hearing the plaintiff discuss those effects can significantly change the defense evaluation of the case.

However, not every plaintiff can advocate effectively. Emotions, the unfamiliar setting, and the need to discuss personal matters before strangers or the employer can be overwhelming. The possibility of an emotional presen-tation should not cause the plaintiff to decline the op-

portunity automatically. A reasonable demonstration of emotion can enhance the plaintiff’s credibility.

In addition, presenting his or her case to the other side can allow the employee to feel heard and more willing to resolve the claims.

Selecting and preparing the corporate representa-tive can be difficult. No single person may understand all relevant facts. The employer’s spokesperson should have some personal knowledge of the facts.

Typically, the individual actor, whether alleged ha-rasser or decision-maker, is not the best corporate rep-resentative. The actor’s supervisor, a human resources professional, or another senior administrator or execu-tive may have more credibility with the plaintiff. The representative may be responding to statements that differ widely from what he or she has been told.

Counsel should be prepared to intervene if the em-ployer’s representative attempts to address matters out-side personal knowledge or threatens the mediation process.

5. Joint Sessions Later During Mediation

As the mediation progresses through the private cau-cus process, a limited joint session may become useful. This may be a session with the parties themselves, with counsel only or with all hands.

The issues to be addressed in joint session may dictate who is involved. For example, when the mediation is bogged down because the parties lack sufficient under-standing of the case, the mediator may invite counsel to discuss what discovery should be conducted before resuming the mediation.

When agreement is likely, but a letter of reference or an apology will allow them to conclude the resolution, the parties can meet face-to-face. Flexibility and an open mind throughout the process are key to getting the most out of the joint session.

SEPTEMBER 201418

Tax & Estate AttorneysIndividual & Business Tax Issues

Tax Preparation • Tax Planning • Tax Controversy

Sophisticated Estate Planning • Estate Administration Trust & Estate Litigation • Probate

1981 N. Broadway, Suite 300 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-6000youngman.com

Walter C. Youngman, Jr., Attorney-CPA Christina P. Ortega, LL.M in Taxation Dani Altes, Paralegal

YOUNGMAN & ERICSSON

Chastity A. Schults, PartnerMayra Aviles, Paralegal

Joint Session

cont. from page 17

6. Controlling Risks

The risks inherent in joint ses-sions can be reduced by (1) having the parties present their cases to the mediator first in private to allow pent up emotions to be expressed, resulting in a calmer joint presenta-tion; (2) time limits for both counsel and parties requiring them to focus on the important facts and ideas they want to convey; and (3) ground rules established in advance to set the expectations and allow the me-diator to promptly terminate the joint session if it becomes counter-productive.

8. Preparing for Joint Session

Preparation is key to the effec-tive joint session. Counsel should

discuss the pros and cons of joint session openly with the mediator, considering options, ground rules and whether an early joint session, a later joint session or only private caucuses would provide the most effective tools.

Whether the client has never been through litigation or is very fa-miliar with the process, preparation is essential.

Discuss the process and likely evi-dence, practice the client’s presen-tation and ensure the client under-stands the need to control reactions. Extra time in preparation will result in a more productive mediation. s

Margaret Grover is a partner with Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP. For nearly 30 years, Ms. Gro-ver’s practice has focused on Cali-fornia employment law. She has represented both employers and

— WANTED —Will/Estate Contests

ConservatorshipsYou handle the estate, we do the contest. Cases, except conservatorships, often handled on a contingent fee basis, but can be hourly. Referral fee where appropriate.

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP

oldest partnership in Contra Costa County(since 1955)

p 925.283-6816 • f 925.283-36833445 Golden Gate Way, P.O. Box 479

Lafayette, CA 94549-0479AV Martindale-Hubbell

employees in all phases of litiga-tion. Ms. Grover enjoys serving as a mediator and helping others resolve employment-related dis-putes.


You Won! Now What?Three Tips When Applying

for Prevailing Party Fees

C ongratulations, you’ve won your case! Your client is ec-static and, assuming there is no appeal, the only thing

left to do is to make an application for prevailing party fees (and to en-force your judgment, but that is an-other article altogether).

Over 90 percent of cases settle before trial, so you haven’t had to make a fee application in years. This article provides you with three quick tips when making a fee appli-cation.

Tip #1: Show the court clearly that your dispute falls within an exception to the “American Rule” for attorney’s fees.

The general rule in the United States, the so-called “American Rule,” is that each side pays its own attorney’s fees regardless of who wins the underlying dispute. The rule does not apply where a con-tract provision1 or statute specifical-ly provides for prevailing party fees.

There are many fee shifting stat-utes available, particularly in em-ployment cases, but they differ in a few important respects. Some are mandatory and require an award of fees,2 whereas others are discretion-ary and allow a tribunal to reduce or even deny an award under cer-tain circumstances.3

Some fee shifting statutes are one way, meaning that they only allow for a prevailing employee to collect fees, whereas others apply to either

party.4 Some are tied into prevailing on a specific type of claim, whereas others are available to any plaintiff who created a significant benefit for the public.5

For these reasons, your applica-tion should cite each basis for why the court should award your fees and indicate whether the award is mandatory or discretionary.

Tip #2: Show that your client is the “prevailing party.”

In order to collect prevailing par-ty fees, you must first establish that you are the “prevailing party.” In some cases it is simple. Where there is a mandatory fee shifting pursuant to statute, it is usually fairly easy to show that a party is (or is not) the prevailing party as to the claim cov-ered by the statute.

It is not always so simple when dealing with a contractual provi-sion where there can only be one prevailing party.6 For example, if a party only prevailed on one of his or her four claims, you can almost guarantee the opposing party will argue it prevailed on the action as a whole since it successfully defend-ed against the other three.

Under such circumstances, it will be particularly important how you frame the case. If you only prevailed on one cause of action, perhaps the others can be viewed as ancillary or derivative claims. Maybe the winning claim had a higher dollar value or took up more time or more

by Kevin R. Allen, Esq.

law and motion work or discovery than the other claims.

However you do it, you need to convince the court that you won the case. In a close call, the tribu-nal might decide that neither party should be deemed the prevailing party7 or, even worse, that your op-ponent prevailed because he or she won more claims.

Tip #3: Provide sufficient evi-dence to support the reason-ableness of both your requested hourly rate and hours worked.

Once you are deemed the pre-vailing party, the question remains how much you should be awarded. The U.S. Supreme Court has de-scribed the “lodestar” method as the “guiding light” of “fee-shifting juris-prudence,” and has “established a ‘strong presumption’ that the lode-star represents the ‘reasonable’ fee.”8

The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the reasonable rate for comparable legal services in the local community for litigation of the same type by the number of hours spent on the case.9

There are several ways to support the reasonableness of your hourly rate. You should always provide a declaration to support your request-ed hourly rate.10 The declaration can attest that clients typically pay this

SEPTEMBER 201420

MIXERAll Sections’ Summer

Hosted by the Women’s SectionJune 26, 2014


September 19, 20145:30 pm to 10:30 pm

Lafayette Park Hotel$40 per person

For more info, visit our website

or contact Theresa Hurley

at [email protected]

or (925) 370-2548.

Register online

here:

SEPTEMBER 201422

20th Annual

MCLE Spectacular!

Earn up to 8 MCLE Credits!Register by November 7, 2014 to take advantage of special pricing!

Friday, November 21, 2014Walnut Creek Marriott | 2355 N. Main Street

Main Speakers Include:

Sergio GarciaPresenting "Road Towards the American Dream"

Jesse H. ChoperEarl Warren Professor of Public Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Event SponsorJAMS

Premium SponsorsThe La Musga Company

Scott Valley Bank

Thomson Reuters Westlaw

SponsorsADR Services, Inc.

Certified Reporting Services

Findlaw - Thomson Reuters

JFK University College of Law

LivHOME

The Recorder

Zandonella Reporting Services

PROUDLY PRESENTS

SAVE THE DATE!


Prevailing Party Fees

cont. from page 19

amount per hour or that tribunals have approved the requested rate in other cases. Sometimes this is not possible. Many plaintiffs’ attorneys rarely if ever perform hourly work.

Also, the hourly rate that is charged to a client may be less than the reasonable “market” rate for the attorney’s services.11 For this reason, you should buttress your fee appli-cation with support from third par-ties.

The most effective way to do so is to provide declarations from other attorneys, ideally from the same region and practice area as you. The declaration should describe the attorney’s hourly rate and opine on the reasonableness of your pro-posed rate. A declaration from a reli-able attorney’s fee expert can also be particularly strong evidence.

In a pinch, you may also want to cite to the “Laffey Matrix,” a fairly well-established source that federal and state courts sometimes use to determine reasonable rates by expe-rience for particular communities.12

The matrix is not perfect, as it reflects rates for the District of Co-lumbia that must then be adjusted for your locality through the use of federal locality pay differentials.13 (Some courts do not place much reli-ance the matrix, so it should be used in addition to the other sources.)

Lastly, you need to support the reasonableness of your hours. This can be complicated where the com-plaint contains some causes of ac-tion that allow for fee shifting and some that do not, or where you only won some of the claims.

In such cases, you may still be able to seek an award for all of your time but only if the claims are in-tertwined or overlapping in na-ture.14 Be careful not to overreach when making such an argument, and if you think there is a chance the court will disagree, it is prob-

ably advisable to describe the hours spent on potentially non-fee award claims. Otherwise, the tribunal may do it for you or even deny your ap-plication for lack of evidence. s

1 See Civil Code section 1717(a) (“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded … to the prevailing party, then the party who is de-termined to be the party prevailing on the contract … shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.”)

2 Labor Code section 1194(a). (“Notwith-standing any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action … reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”)

3 In discrimination cases brought under FEHA, the “prevailing plaintiff ‘should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.’” Stephens v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1394, 1405, citing Newman v. Piggle Park Enterprises (1968) 390 U.S. 400, 402.

4 See e.g., Labor Code section 218.5.

5 See e.g., Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

6 See e.g. Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 515, 539 (“[U]nder Civil Code section 1717, there may only be one prevailing party entitled to attorney fees on a given con-tract in a given lawsuit.”).

7 See Civil Code section 1717(b)(1). (“The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for pur-poses of this section.”)

8 See City of Burlington v. Dague et al. (1992) 505 US 557, 562.

9 See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131–1132; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1242–1243.

10 Prevailing market rates may be demon-strated by declarations from the moving party’s own counsel. Davis v. City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 903.

11 Margolin v. Regional Planning Comm’n of Los Angeles Cnty. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004 (“market value” is proper analysis to set reasonable hourly rate, not “cost plus” basis, because other-wise “cost plus” would “reward the [losing party] based on the fortuity of the identity of [the prevailing party’s] counsel”).

12 See In Re HPL Technologies, Inc. Se-curities Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2005) 366 F.Supp.2d 912, 921.

13 See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2014/general-schedule/.

14 See Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 129-130 (“Attorney’s fees need not be apportioned when in-curred for representation on an issue com-mon to both a cause of action in which fees are proper and one in which they are not allowed.”

Kevin R. Allen, Esq., is the prin-cipal of the Allen Attorney Group in Walnut Creek. He represents employees and small business cli-ents in trial and arbitration with a strong emphasis on wage and hour and class action issues.

CCCBA MeMBer SinCe 1977 www.davidbpastor.com

1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 212 • Walnut Creek, CA 94595 925-932-3346 • [email protected]

Law Offices of DAviD B. PAStor

David B. Pastor

ConServAtorShiPSProBAteS

CriMinAl DefenSe• Free Consultation •

SEPTEMBER 201424

claim that this income inequality is bad for the rich, too.

Reich and Nick Hanauer, a co-gent billionaire venture capitalist and early Amazon investor, pro-claim the middle class as the real job creators, since their sheer numbers and demand for goods and services drive our consumer economy.

They forcefully argue that as long as the current trend of middle class instability continues, our economy will remain unstable.

Through poignant case studies of parents struggling to keep their families in the middle class, Reich builds his case that college degrees, government investments, unions and home equity in the 30 years post World War II created the dra-matic rise in middle class incomes.

Then the middle class took huge hits as college became increasing-ly expensive, union membership declined and the subprime home mortgage bubble burst. Record numbers of working women and increased borrowing only stalled the inevitable drop.

Reich’s solution? Copy our 1940-1970s selves when the government invested huge sums into higher ed-ucation and infrastructure. The tax rate on the rich was 70-90 percent—dramatically higher than now.

This movie adds new perspective to this year’s discussion on raising

Robert Reich’s “Inequality for All”

In this funny but horrifying re-ality check about the dramatic de-cline and stagnation of middle class income since the 1980s while the top 1 percenters’ incomes skyrock-

eted, former Labor Secretary, now UC Berkeley professor Robert Reich, forces view-ers to face facts, explains why this income inequal-ity threatens our economy

and democracy, and suggests a plan to fix it.

He does this with humor, case studies and an income data chart graphing the last 30 years of a sharp and rising U.S. income gap between the top 1 percent and the middle class, which eerily mimics the Bay Bridge’s curve.

It turns out that all developed nations, even China, have more in-come equality than us. John Stew-art quips, “Take that, Uganda and Rwanda,” because we at least out-rank them—pure horror you can’t help laughing about.

The “suspension bridge” graph also shows that the most dramatic income inequality years, 1928 and

2007, preceded the economic disasters of the Great De-

pression in 1929, and the Great Recession in 2008, supporting Reich’s

Employment Law at the Movies: You Can’t Go Wrong Watching These Workplace Documentaries

by Marjorie Wallace

What’s your pleasure: A humorous yet horrifying reality check or an inspiring drama?


the federal minimum wage (the state minimum is now $9 per hour). It also provides a policy rationale for the recent increased scrutiny of employees misclassified as independent contractors or overtime exempt and the rise in wage and hour class actions in recent decades.

In an era of rising income inequality, one would ex-pect a graph of these facts to look like one side of Mt. Diablo, as middle class workers cling to the little they still get.

“Anita: Speaking Truth to Power” This movie time travels to October 1991, for the dra-

matic Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas; widely seen as the tip-ping point for acknowledging workplace sexual harass-ment.

Intense national debate followed and Anita Hill was transformed from an obscure Oklahoma state contracts law professor to a women’s rights and equality icon.

Unfazed by nine hours of condescending and repeti-tive grilling by a mostly clueless and often openly hos-tile Senate Judiciary Committee of aging white men, Hill is grace and calm under fire.

Again and again she calmly and patiently repeats the sordid details of what she considered were offensive and humiliating sexual comments made by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, when he was her boss at the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division in the 1980s.

She claimed Thomas continually asked her out and met her refusals with offensive and humiliating sexual comments about: (1) his genitals; (2) pubic hair on his can of Coke; and (3) the breasts of women in pornographic movies he watched. She said she felt vulnerable, power-less and humiliated.

Hill alleged hostile work environment sexual harass-ment (CACI 2521A, Gov. Code section 12940 (j)(1) and (4)(C)), possibly quid pro quo sexual harassment (CACI 2520, Gov. Code section 12940 (j)(1) and (4)(C)) and retali-ation (CACI 2505, Gov. Code section 12940(h)).

The evidence that came out included: (1) three cor-roborating contemporaneous witnesses, including two distinguished African-American male lawyers; (2) other women prepared to testify that Thomas sexually ha-rassed them, but were never called by Committee Chair Biden; and (3) an unprecedented, voluntary polygraph test that Hill passed.

SEPTEMBER 201426

Clarence Thomas adamantly denied her claims and brilliantly played the “race card,” calling her testimony “disgusting” and “a high-tech lynching of an uppity black.”

The Senate confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by the narrowest margin ever. Hill stated that 1991 polls indicated seven out of 10 peo-ple thought she lied, but eventually the poll numbers reversed.

After testifying, Hill’s life changed forever. She became a polarizing public icon; her life was threatened, yet she was revered, and her base-ment file cabinets stored 25,000 pro and con letters.

Republican Oklahoma state sena-tors unsuccessfully attempted to get first Hill, then her dean fired, and then shut down the law school. She transformed from a contracts pro-fessor to a scholar on sexual harass-ment and equality.

The film also shows her reach-ing out to young women, many of whom previously had never heard of her.

Her testimony sparked vigorous debate on sexual harassment. The year 1992 was dubbed “the Year of the Woman” after so many women were elected to Congress, and was perhaps a reaction to the all-white male Judiciary Committee.

Today, it is widely accepted that women are subjected to workplace sexual harassment. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing website reports that since 2003, sexual harassment has comprised between 6 and 12 per-cent of annual claims.

The more novel issues today are the military and male sexual ha-rassment claims, including male to male claims. This year, in reaction to a male to male sexual harass-ment case, Gov. Code section 12940 (4)(C) was amended to clarify that a plaintiff need not show the harasser was motivated by sexual desire.

Proposed legislation bars the disturbing trend of conditioning wages on signing inconspicuous or involuntary releases of sexual ha-rassment claims (SB 1407).

While the most current issues may have changed, nevertheless, 23 years later, Anita Hill’s speaking truth to power continues to be in-spiring and relevant. s

Martinez based solo employment lawyer Marjorie Wallace typical-ly represents middle class, private or public sector individual employ-ees and occasionally small busi-nesses on discrimination, harass-ment or wage claims. The CCCBA Employment Law Section Board member has law degrees from UC Hastings and Yale Law School. You can reach her at (925) 827-2936, [email protected], [email protected] or http://worklawmaw.com/.

At the Movies

cont. from page 25

2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 424 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596Phone 925.322.8615 • Fax 925.357.3151

Will & Trust LitigationFinancial Elder Abuse

ConservatorshipsGeneral Civil LitigationProbate & Civil Appeals

Mediation

Morrill Law Firm

Joseph MorrillAndrew R. Verriere

Nicole MorrillParalegal


The Sugar Wars of Crockett by William Mero

T hat famous quote from Dickens could also fair-ly well describe Crockett in the late 1930s. The small, blue collar town of Crockett hugged the hilly shores of the Carquinez Straits, gateway for

ocean-going ships seeking the golden bounty of Califor-nia’s Central Valley.

The Great Depression had caused an upheaval in the world’s economic and social structure. Even tiny Contra Costa County was not immune to the vast changes and conflicts sweeping the United States.

The county’s most famous labor battle took place in 1938 on Crockett’s main street between rival CIO and AFL labor unions over control of the C&H Sugar refin-ery’s labor force. The conflict brought Crockett national attention. All roads into Crockett were sealed off by the California Highway Patrol and the Sheriff’s Department in order to control the growing bloodshed.

The C&H Sugar refinery struggled after the nation’s economic collapse in 1929. Sugar prices fell dramati-cally. Pay cuts, reduced working hours and a shrinking work force hit the workers of C&H hard.

These stern business measures kept the refinery oper-ating, most workers employed and the Crockett popula-tion more prosperous than many communities around the nation.

Nevertheless, bad times and more liberal labor laws

led the C&H employees to organize for improved rights and benefits. The CIO Sugar Workers Union and the ILWU Warehouse Union struck in 1935 and 1937. Then in 1938, an especially bitter strike tore apart the close-knit Crockett community. The violent labor dispute eventually pitted neighbor against neighbor and broth-er against brother.

During the late 1930s, the C&H refinery operated under an AFL closed shop agreement. On March 11, 1938, the CIO Sugar Workers Union set up picket lines when their leaders were suspended under the terms of the closed shop contract. The CIO warehousemen, in the midst of negotiating a new labor contract, now refused to cross the new CIO picket lines. The sugar refinery shut down and all union members’ paychecks stopped. Economic desperation began to infect the small community.

A week later on March 16, over 600 Crockett women met in the Crockett Community Auditorium. They passed a resolution petitioning C&H to honor the Ameri-can Federation of Labor’s request to reopen the refinery.

However, the CIO warehousemen’s union refused to settle their wage dispute with C&H. The picket lines re-mained in place. C&H management decided it was safer to keep the refinery closed until the labor dispute was settled. The stage was set for serious conflict.

Patience exhausted, fighting between the two unions began on the evening of the twenty-seventh day of the strike. Chanting, “Let’s go get ‘em,” AFL union members marched down Winslow Avenue. Blood flowed as 400 members of the AFL charged the CIO picket line and se-

“It was the best of times ... It was the worst of times.”

SEPTEMBER 201428

Sugar Wars

cont. from page 27

verely beat many of the warehouse-men and sugar workers blocking the refinery entrances.

The CIO members retreated to the CIO International Longshore-men’s Union Hall on Loring Av-enue. Badly outnumbered, the CIO warehousemen armed themselves with clubs and fought back. Contra Costa deputy sheriffs and California Highway Patrol officers repeatedly charged the rioters and fired volley after volley of tear gas bombs.

Loring Avenue filled with chok-ing clouds of stinging fumes. Fight-ing raged for over 40 minutes. Using clubs and fists, dozens of men were beaten as the surge of battle flowed up and down the street. Some ware-housemen, trying to escape in a car, crashed into the crowd, running over one AFL member and hitting another. Other men suffered stab wounds from rioters wielding ice picks.

As a result of the day’s fighting, the AFL had driven the CIO strikers from the refinery. Now in control of the streets, the AFL demanded that C&H reopen the plant. Law enforce-ment officers sealed off Crockett in order to prevent both union fac-tions from being reinforced. It was luck alone that no one was killed.

All access to Crockett was blocked. Cars and their occupants were searched for invaders and weapons. Railroad trains were also searched for intruding union toughs. Mer-chants along Loring Avenue barri-caded their shops.

Fortunately, the sudden violence shocked many into reconsidering their actions. Cooler heads began to prevail and a shaky surface calm gradually returned to the little Con-tra Costa community.

With the picket lines now under total AFL control, the refinery soon reopened. Now virtually powerless, the CIO warehousemen voted two weeks later 152 to 115 to accept the contract and return to work.

Lost paychecks, vanished com-pany profits, local business losses and personal hatreds were the bitter fruits of the nasty 41-day strike. Dur-ing the war, outsiders and women replaced most of the old employees.

The CIO and AFL later merged, ending their long-standing rivalry. After World War II, the closed shop, which caused the initial conflict in the C&H refinery, was finally out-lawed nationally.

Even now, after over 76 years, there still remain some who have not forgotten or forgiven the tragic circumstances surrounding the great sugar war of 1938. s

This article was reprinted with per-mission from the Contra Costa County Historical Society. They are committed to protecting the County’s future by preserving the documents and relics of the Coun-ty’s past. For more information, visit their website at www.cocohis-tory.org.


by Samantha Sepehr

pro bono spotlight

Sometimes the best thing you can do for a client who cannot afford to re-tain your services is to offer them resources. If your client’s issue pertains to employment law, a potential resource is the Legal Aid Society-Employ-ment Law Center (LAS-ELC).

The LAS-ELC offers low-income workers throughout California free and con-fidential information regarding their employment rights through its Workers’ Rights Clinic, which is not only offered in the Bay Area, but all over California.

Clinics are held in San Francisco, Berkeley, Fresno and Santa Ana, and are staffed by law students and paralegals who are supervised and trained by attor-neys practicing employment law.

More locally, the East Bay Community Law Center hosts the clinic in Berke-ley at 3130 Shattuck Avenue. Services are offered in many languages, including Spanish, Mandarin and Cantonese.

For those who are unable to attend the various clinics, the Workers’ Rights Clinic also counsels people by telephone. There are income guidelines to qualify for services.

The clinics generally do not represent clients, but they do provide basic, yet important, information on a wide variety of employment issues, ranging from denial of wages, work and safety issues and unemployment benefits, to discrimi-nation, harassment and wrongful termination.

For more information about the clinic, please call: (415) 864-8208 or visit the LAS-ELC website at: https://las-elc.org. s

Samantha Sepehr, Former Director of the Elder Law Center, is a Partner at Steele, George, Schofield, and Ramos LLP located in Walnut Creek.

The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center

DAVIDÊA. ARIETTAL A W O F F I C E S O F

Certified Specialist, Bankruptcy LawState Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

Comprehensive Bankruptcy AssistanceDavid A. Arietta

700 Ygnacio Valley RoadSuite150

Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 472-8000

[email protected]

for Individuals and BusinessesRated AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell

20 years of experience

SEPTEMBER 201430

Will & Trust LitigationSecurities Litigation

Elder Abuse Litigation

B A R R & Y O U N GATTORNEYS

318-C Diablo Road • Danville, CA 94526-3443(925) 314-9999

www.BarrYoungLaw.com


Meet CCCBA’s New

Executive Director:

I know that many of you know me as the former As-sociate Executive Director of the CCCBA, but you probably don’t know much about me outside of that role.

I grew up in Mill Valley, the oldest of six girls all very close in age. In fact, at one point my parents had six teenage daughters. I still marvel that they managed to keep their sanity during that time!

Most of my family still lives in the Bay Area, so I’m able to spend lots of time with my parents, sisters and their families.

After receiving my BA in sociology from UC Santa Barbara, I moved to New Zealand. If you’ve never been to ”The Land of the Long White Cloud,” I highly recom-mend visiting, especially if you love the outdoors and are adventurous (bungee-jumping is a bit of a national obsession).

My first ”real” job in New Zealand was providing sta-tistical analysis for the Accident Compensation Corpora-tion, a government crown agency.

A few years later, I made a big career switch and be-came the manager of a battered women’s shelter where I had been a volunteer. This began my foray into the non-profit world.

Eventually I moved back to the U.S. and continued working in the non-profit sector, where I gained experi-ence in program administration and management.

Prior to coming to the CCCBA in 2011, I worked as a Program Manager for the Volunteer Center of the East Bay, where I assisted non-profits in improving their vol-unteer recruitment and retention efforts.

I am the proud parent of three teenagers—my oldest daughter, Emmy, is currently a freshman at Chico State studying nursing. My younger daughter, Annemarie, is a junior at Clayton Valley Charter High School and my son, Kieran, is a freshman. I have found that parenting teens is a lot more fun than I expected!

In my spare time, I love being outdoors—hiking, camping, running, attending outdoor concerts, theater, etc.

I also volunteer as a Mandated Reporter Trainer with the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa and have been involved with the Avon Walk for Breast Can-cer for the last 14 years.

I am looking forward to my new role as Executive Di-rector, where I get to work with many of our amazing members who donate so much of their time and talent to our community! s

SEPTEMBER 201432

We gratefully acknowledge our

2014 SUSTAINING LAW FIRMS

Firms with 30+ attorneys:

Archer n Norris Miller Starr Regalia

Firms with 20-29 attorneys:Bowles & Verna, LLP

McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher, LLP

Firms with 15-19 attorneys:

Buchman Provine Brothers Smith, LLP Clapp Moroney Bellagamba Vucinich Beeman ScheleyGagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Raines

Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLPLittler Mendelson, PC

Firms with 5-14 attorneys:

Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP

Brown, Church & Gee

Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook

Cooper, White & Cooper, LLP

Craddick, Candland & Conti

Doyle Golde Grossman Family Law Group

Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy

Frankel Goldware Ferber, LLP

Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi

Gillin, Jacobson, Ellis, Larsen & Lucey

Hartog & Baer, PC

Livingston Law Firm, PC

Steele, George, Schofield & Ramos, LLP

Tenax Law Group, PC

Timken Johnson, LLP

Vasquez, Benisek & Lindgren, LLP

Whiting, Fallon, Ross & Abel, LLP

Thank you for your support and commitment! For additional information, contact Membership Coordinator

Jenny Comages at 925.370.2543 or email [email protected].

Arch

er N

orris

| M

iller

Sta

rr R

egal

ia |

Bow

les &

Ver

na, L

LP |

| M

cNam

ara,

Ney

, Bea

t y,

Sla

t er

y, B

orge

s & A

mba

cher

, LLP

Buch

man

Pro

vine

Bro

ther

s Sm

ith, L

LP |

C l a p p M

o r o n e y B e l l a g a m

b a V u c i n i c h B e e m

a n S c h e l e y G

agen

, McC

oy, M

cMah

on, K

oss,

Mar

kow

itz &

Rai

nes |

Gre

enan

, Pef

er,

Salla

nder

& L

ally

, LLP

| L

it le

r Men

dels

on, P

C

Bram

son,

Plu

tzik

, Mah

ler &

Birk

haeu

ser,

LLP

| Br

own,

Chu

rch

& G

ee |

Cas

per,

Mea

dow

s, S

chw

artz

& C

ook

C o o p e r , W

h i t e &

C o o p e r , L L P | C r a d d i c k , C a n d l a n d &

C o n t | D o y l e G

o l d e G

r o s s m

a n F a m

i l y L a w

G

r o u p E d r i n g t o n , S c h i r m

e r &

M

u r p h y | F r a n k e l G

o l d w

a r e F e r b e r , L L P | G

a l l o w

a y , L u c c h e s e , E v e r s o n &

P i c c h i G i l l i n , J a c o b s o n , E l l i s , L a r s e n &

L u c e y | H a r t o g &

B a e r , P C | L i v i n g s t o n L a w

F i r m

, P C | S t e e l e , G e o r g e , S c h o f e l d &

R a m

o s , L L P Te

nax

Law

Gro

up, P

C |

Tim

ken

John

son,

LLP

| V

asqu

ez, B

enis

ek &

Lin

dgre

n, L

LP |

Whi

t ng,

Fal

lon,

Ros

s & A

bel,

LLP


CALENDARUPCOMING EVENTS | OVERVIEW

Sept 9 | Barristers, Criminal Law and Litigation Sections

Trials 101: Civil and Criminal Case Management Essentials,

Part 4: Trial Part 1: What to Prepare for the Trial

and What Happens During the Trial

more details on page 34

Sept 10 | Intellectual Property Section

Dividend Infringement: Fed. Cir. to Go Back to the Drawing Board


Sept 10 | Family Law Section

Family Law Appeals, Writs and Stays.

What You Need to Know as the Trial Lawyer


Sept 11 | Bankruptcy Law Section

Bankruptcy Appeals: What You Really Need to Know,

A Beginner’s Guide


Sept 12 | Business Law & Corporate Counsel Section

The Price is Right...or Maybe Not?


Sept 16 | CCCBA

Lawyer’s Antidote to Self-Destructive Habits:

Avoiding Substance and Other Abuses: Part 5

of the 2014 Law Practice Management Series


Sept 18 | Women’s Section

Women in the Workplace: Developing Legal Issues

for the New Female Professional


Sept 19 | Real Estate Section

Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association (2013)

218 Cal.App.4th 1079: Mortgage Securitization

and Impacts on Deeds of Trusts


Sept 19 | CCCBA

Lisa Reep’s Retirement Reception


Sept 23 | Barristers and Employment Law Sections

Employment Litigation: The Basics of Building & Defending a Case


Sept 25 | Estate Planning & Probate Section

Forensic Document Examination


Sept 27 | CCCBA

Bench/Bar BBQ & Softball Game


Sept 30 | CCCBA

Positioning Yourself for Job Search Success


Oct 7 | CCCBA

Bench/Bar Roundtable


Oct 7 | Barristers, Criminal Law and Litigation Sections

Trials 101: Civil and Criminal Case Management Essentials,

Part 5: Trial Part 2: Testimony, Openings and Closings,

Appeals/Writs


Oct 8-10 | UC Berkeley Law

Fundamentals of Banking Law


Oct 10 | Family Law Section

“Getting Out”: Out of the Case, Out of the Practice, Out of Dodge


Oct 17 | Real Estate Section

Branscomb v. JP Morgan Chase: Equitable Subrogation and

Impacts on Deeds of Trust


Oct 21 | CCCBA

Transition Planning for Law Firms,

Part 6 of the 2014 Law Practice Management Series


Oct 29 | Employment Law Section

Employment Law Basics: What Every

California Business Owner Needs to Know


Nov 21 | CCCBA

20th Annual MCLE Spectacular


SEPTEMBER 201434

September 11 | Bankruptcy Law Section

Bankruptcy Appeals: What You Really

Need to Know, A Beginner’s Guide

Speakers: Michael J. Primus, Esq., Law Office of Michael J. Primus Leo G. Spanos, Staff Attorney, Office of Martha G. Bronitsky

Time: 12 pm – 1:30 pm

Location: CCCBA Office, 5th Floor Conference Room, 2300 Clayton Rd., Concord

MCLE: 1 hour general MCLE credit

Cost: $25 for section members and law stu-dent members, $35 for CCCBA members, $45 for non-members. Lunch is included.

Registration: Online atwww.cccba.org/attorney/calendar

More Info: Contact Elizabeth Galliett at (925) 370-2540

September 12 | Business Law & Corporate Counsel Section

The Price is Right...or Maybe Not?

This program will discuss valuing privately held businesses for family law and estate-planning purposes a well as for sales and acquisitions. Breakfast is included.

Speaker: Josette Ferrer, Managing Director, Clairent Advisors LLC

Time: 7:30 am – 9 am

Location: Scott’s Seafood Restaurant 1333 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek


Cost: $25 for section members, $20 for law student members, $30 for CCCBA Members, $35 for non-members.



September 16 | CCCBA

Lawyer’s Antidote to Self-Destructive

Habits: Avoiding Substance and Other

Abuses: Part 5 of the 2014 Law

Practice Management Series

This MCLE will provide an overview and understanding of the causes and treatment of depression, as well as addiction to alcohol and drugs in a non-threatening way that utilizes lawyers’ own experiences with addictive patterns.

Speakers: Jeena Cho, JC Law Group, PC Mark Perlmutter

Time: 4:30 pm – 6 pm

Location: JFK University 100 Ellinwood Way, Room S312, Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 1.5 hours competence issues MCLE credit

Cost: $10 for law student members, $20 for CCCBA members, $30 for non-members



September 9 | Barristers, Criminal Law and Litigation Sections

Trials 101: Civil & Criminal Case

Management Essentials, Part 4:

Trial Part 1: What to Prepare for the

Trial and What Happens During the Trial

Part 4 will discuss motions in limine, voir dire, page line designations, exhibits and openings, witness list, jury instructions, direct/cross-examination witnesses and Batson/Wheeler.

Speakers: Natasha S. Chee, Esq. Dorian Peters, Esq. Jeffrey T. Thayer, Esq.

Time: 6 pm – 7:30 pm


MCLE: 1 hour general and 0.5 hours elimina-tion of bias MCLE credit

Cost: $20 for section members and law student members, $25 for CCCBA members, $30 for non-members


September 10 | Intellectual Property Section

Dividend Infringement: Fed. Cir. to Go

Back to the Drawing Board

Light breakfast will be provided. Registration is from 7:30 to 8 am, program starts at 8 am.

Speaker: Mark Mathison, Patent Attorney


Location: Kilpatrick Townsend 2175 N. California Blvd., Ste. 600, Walnut Creek


Cost: $5 for section members, free for law student members, $10 for CCCBA members, $20 for non-members



September 10 | Family Law Section

Family Law Appeals, Writs and Stays.

What You Need to Know

as the Trial Lawyer

Speaker: Garrett Dailey, Esq., CFLS, AAML

Time: 12 pm – 1:15 pm

Location: Contra Costa Country Club 801 Golf Club Rd., Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 1 hour family law specialization MCLE credit


Registration: Go to the Family Law website at www.familylawsectioncontracosta.org

More Info: Contact Therese Bruce at (925) 930-6789


September 19 | Real Estate Section

Glaski v. Bank of America, National

Association (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th

1079: Mortgage Securitization and

Impacts on Deeds of Trusts

Speaker: Dean Christopherson




Cost: Free for section members, $5 for law student members, $15 for CCCBA members, $35 for non-members. Breakfast is included.



September 25 | Estate Planning & Probate Section

Forensic Document Examination

Speaker: David S. Moore, Forensic Document Examiner

Time: 12 pm – 1:30 pm



Cost: $30 for section members, $40 for CCCBA Members, $50 for non-members




Positioning Yourself for Job Search

Success

This program will consist of 2 parts:

The first part will be a Job Search panel that will discuss interviewing and resume skills.

During the second part, attendees will be able to meet at practice area tables with experi-enced practitioners from Litigation, Family Law, Criminal and Employment law who will speak about finding jobs, internship opportu-nities and presentation skills specific to those practice areas.





September 18 | Women’s Section

Women in the Workplace:

Developing Legal Issues for

the New Female Professional

The program will give a cursory analysis of the difference between genders in salary/compensation in similar professions and issues affecting pregnancy leave.

Speaker: Beth Mora, Esq.

Time: 11:30 am – 1 pm

Location: Vic Stewart’s 850 South Broadway, Walnut Creek

MCLE: 1 hour elimination of bias MCLE credit

Cost: $50 for section members and law stu-dent members, $55 for CCCBA members, $60 for non-members. Lunch is included.

Registration: Online atwww.cccba.org/attorney/calendar Please register by Sept. 15.


September 23 | Barristers and Employment Law Sections

Employment Litigation: The Basics of

Building and Defending a Case

Speakers: Maggie Grover, Partner, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP Mark Venardi, Partner, Venardi Zurada, LLP, Graduate Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer College

Time: 4:30 pm – 6:30 pm

Location: JFK University 100 Ellinwood Way, Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 2 hours general MCLE credit

Cost: $15 for section members, $5 for student members, $20 for CCCBA members, $30 for non-members




Bench/Bar BBQ & Softball Game

Join us for our 2nd Annual Bench/Bar BBQ and Softball Game!

We’ll provide the hamburgers, veggie burg-ers, hot dogs, condiments and soft drinks. Please RSVP so we make sure we have enough food.

Bring food according to your MCLE Compliance Group:

• Group 1 (A-G): Appetizers for 8 people• Group 2 (H-M): Salad• Group 3 (N-Z): Dessert for 8 people• BYOB (no glass containers)

Please arrive promptly if you want to play (bring your glove)! Teams will be mixed. Supporters and cheerleaders encouraged.

Time: 3 pm – 7 pm

Location: Heather Farms Park 301 N. San Carlos Dr., Field 5, Walnut Creek



SEPTEMBER 201436

October 8-10 | UC Berkeley Law

Fundamentals of Banking Law

The UC Berkeley School of Law and Boston University School of Law are pleased to an-nounce their sponsorship of Fundamentals of Banking Law (formerly Banking Law Ba-sics), an intensive 2½-day program designed to familiarize participants with the basics of banking law, including the critical policies, concepts and regulations that have shaped 150 years of banking law from the passage of the 1863 National Bank Act to the present.

Time: 8:30 am – 5:30 pm

Location: Bancroft Hotel 2680 Bancroft Way, Berkeley

MCLE: 19 hours general MCLE credit

Registration: Online athttp://www.law.berkeley.edu/17072.htm

October 21 | CCCBA

Transition Planning for Law Firms:

Part 6 of the 2014 Law Practice

Management Series

Valuation and Succession Strategies for Lawyers. Join CPA Mike Eggers and Oliver Bray as they discuss strategies for determining the value of and selling law firms; and alternately, how to close shop in an orderly fashion, and what happens if you don’t!

Speakers: Oliver Bray Mike Eggers, CPA

Time: 4:30 pm – 6 pm


MCLE: 1 hour general and 0.5 hours ethics MCLE credit

Cost: $10 for law student members, $20 for CCCBA members, $30 for non-members



October 7 | CCCBA

Bench/Bar Roundtable

Members of the CCCBA are invited to attend a meeting with Fast Track Supervising Judge Craddick and other Fast Track judges to discuss issues of general interest or concern.

The judges would like to know what’s on your mind. Please submit discussion topics to the Bar Association by September 30th to Elizabeth Galliett at [email protected]. Lunch will be provided.

Speakers: Hon. Steve Austin Hon. Laurel Brady Hon. Judith Craddick Hon. George Spanos

Time: 12 pm – 1:15 pm

Location: Wakefield Taylor Courthouse Dept 9, 725 Court St., Room 320, Martinez




October 7 | Barristers, Criminal Law and Litigation Sections

Trials 101: Civil & Criminal Case

Management Essentials, Part 5:

Trial Part 2: Testimony, Openings and

Closings, Appeals/Writs

Each session will cover a different part of the litigation process from both the criminal and civil aspects. Part 5 will discuss testimony, clos-ing, appeals, openings, closings, speaking with jurors, and appeals/writs.

Speakers: Natasha S. Chee, Esq. Dorian Peters, Esq. Jeffrey T. Thayer, Esq.



MCLE: 1.5 hours general MCLE credit

Cost: $20 for section members and law student members, $25 for CCCBA Members, $30 for non-members


October 10 | Family Law Section

“Getting Out”: Out of the Case,

Out of the Practice, Out of Dodge

We will be covering everything from getting rid of the problem client, planning for orderly retirement, contingency planning for unex-pected retirement due to death or incapacity, the ethics of handling client files, trust funds, and electronic case materials, and how to plan ahead so that you (or worse, your estate) doesn’t have a nightmare thrust on them.

Speakers: Jerome Fishkin, Professional Liability Attorney Lee C. Pearce, CFLS Sue Talia, CFLS

Time: 1:15 pm – 4:30 pm

Location: Contra Costa Country Club 801 Golf Club Rd., Pleasant Hill

MCLE: 2 hours ethics and 1 hour family law specialization MCLE credit


Registration: Go to the Family Law website at www.familylawsectioncontracosta.org

October 17 | Real Estate Section

Branscomb v. JP Morgan Chase:

Equitable Subrogation and Impacts on

Deeds of Trust

Speaker: Lee P. Bardellini



MCLE: 1 hour general MCLE credit (pending)

Cost: Free for section members, $5 for law student members, $15 for CCCBA members, $35 for non-members. Lunch is included.




CALENDAR

Northern CaliforniaMediator / Arbitrator

18 years as Mediator27 years as Arbitrator

35 years in Civil Practice

Roger F. Allen

510.832-7770

Ericksen, Arbuthnot155 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050

Oakland, CA 94612

[email protected]

•TrainingincludesMediationCourseat PepperdineUniversity1995

•ServingonKaiserMedicalMalpractice NeutralArbitratorsPanel

•SettlementCommissioner,Alamedaand ContraCostaCounties

•ExperiencedinallareasofTortLitigation, includinginjury,propertydamage,fireloss, malpractice,constructiondefect

October 29 | Employment Law Section

Employment Law Basics:

What Every California Business

Owner Needs to Know

Speakers: Michelle Ferber, Managing Partner, Frankel Goldware Ferber Tonya Hubinger, Partner, Buchman Provine Brothers Smith

Time: 12 pm – 1:30 pm



Cost: $40 for section members, $35 for law student members, $45 for CCCBA members, $50 for non-members.



— WANTED —Conservatorships

think

Matt Tothas in

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP

oldest partnership in Contra Costa County(since 1955)

p 925.283-6816 • f 925.283-36833445 Golden Gate Way, P.O. Box 479

Lafayette, CA 94549-0479

AV Martindale-Hubbell

SEPTEMBER 201438

advertisers’ index

Ace Fiduciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Acuña, Regli & Klein, LLP. . . . . . . . . . . .8

ADR Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Roger F. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

David Arietta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Barr & Young Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Bingham Osborn & Scarborough, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Jessica A. Braverman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Bray & Bray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Diablo Valley Reporting Services . .40

JAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Lenczowski Law Offices . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Palmer Madden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Morrill Law Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Mullin Law Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Perry A. Novak ,UBS Financial Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

David B. Pastor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 37

Scott Valley Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Candice Stoddard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Thomson Reuters Westlaw . . . . . . . . 39

Lisa M. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Michael J. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Youngman & Ericsson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Zandonella Reporting Service . . . . . 28

CLASSIFIEDS

LAW OFFICES AVAILABLE

IN WALNUT CREEK

Three large window offices and one smaller office available in a nine office attorney suite in downtown Walnut Creek. Offices are on the seventh floor in Class A office building. All amenities including receptionist, conference room, secretarial area, and kitchen. Call Elliott at (925) 947-1333 or Larry at (925) 977-3898.

BEAUTIFUL WALNUT CREEK

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE

Beautiful offices w/ 7 solos. Networkingposs. Single story converted house w/

pillars, built in’s, FP, molding, kit., conf rm,lg treed rear deck, etc. Corner w/ skylight& built-ins. Perfect for working hard and

relaxing at end of long day! Very congenial.No smoking. Call Paul at (925) 938-8990.

DISPLAY AD PRINT RATES:

Full page: $ 550Full page Color: $ 6902/3 page: $ 5001/2 page: $ 4151/2 page Color: $ 5201/3 page: $ 3501/6 page: $ 215Business card: $ 1651/12 page: $ 125

CLASSIFIEDS - PRINT:

Member rates are $15 per line for a one-time insertion and $12.50 per line for three or more insertions.

TILE AD ONLINE RATE:

$165/ month Substantial discounts available for three or more insertions.

CLASSIFIEDS - ONLINE:

$50/ month flat fee. In addition to text, you may submit photos or graphics to be posted along with your classified ad at no additional charge.

Interested in

Advertising in the

Contra Costa Lawyer?

WALNUT CREEK OFFICES

Office in upscale suite in Walnut Creek. Includes conference room, receptionist, copier and postage machine with billing

systems. Adjacent to athletic club and across the street from BART. Call

Candice Stoddard at (925) 942-5100.

Call Dawnell Blaylock at (925) 370-2542 or [email protected].


© 2014 Thomson Reuters W-312516/6-14 Thomson Reuters and the Kinesis logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters.

FASTER ALERTS. DEEPER INSIGHTS. FOCUSED ON WHAT MATTERS TO YOU.

WESTLAW NEXT PRACTITIONER INSIGHTS

Life moves fast. It’s important to stay on top of current events and related legal

developments that have an impact on the decisions you make every day.

WestlawNext Practitioner Insights™ gives you the expert insight and analysis you need.

Plus, now you can create and manage all of your alerts from one platform, ensuring

you’re always up to date on emerging legal developments. Stay focused – and stay

in the know – with Practitioner Insights.

Learn more at westlawnext.com/current-awareness

PRACTICE AREAS

• Antitrust

• Bankruptcy

• Capital Markets

• Corporate Counsel

• Corporate Governance

• Energy & Environment

• Employment

• Finance & Banking

• Health Law

• Immigration

• Intellectual Property

• Mergers & Acquisitions

• Products Liability

• Securities Enforcement and Litigation

JURISDICTIONS

• National

• New York

W-312516_szA.indd 1 6/23/14 3:00 PM

SEPTEMBER 201440

DIABLOVALLEY

REPORTINGSERVICESCertified Shorthand Reporters

Serving the entire Bay Area

• Deposition Reporting• Experienced Professional Reporters• Computerized Transcription• Deposition Suites Available• Expeditious Delivery• BART Accessible 2121 N. California Blvd.

Suite 290Walnut Creek, CA 94596

925.930.7388fax [email protected]

contra costa lawyer - cccba · 2014-08-28 · periodical postage paid at concord, ca. postmaster:...

Documents