Klinedinst PC

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – Klinedinst is saddened to announce the passing of Connie L. Ali, a member of our litigation support team in Los Angeles.

A Michigan native, Connie had called California home for 35 years. After moving to the Golden State, she attended various colleges throughout California while taking courses at night and working full-time during the day. It was that dedication and spirit that came to be a hallmark of Connie’s work ethic in the office.

“She had been a valued member of our team for 18 years and a wonderful presence in our Los Angeles office,” said Robert J. Hatem, Managing Shareholder of Klinedinst’s Los Angeles office. “She will be greatly missed.”

John Klinedinst, Founder and CEO of Klinedinst PC, recalled Connie as “a great person, consummate team player, outstanding legal assistant and leader in the firm.”

Her love of travel was well-known in the office. She and her family had traveled to many locales, including Hawaii, Mexico, Bahamas, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Bali and Tahiti.

Shareholder Greg Garbacz, who first opened the Los Angeles office, recalled Connie and the critical role she played in the Los Angeles team’s success. “She stayed with the firm for almost 20 years,” Garbacz said. “She saw a lot of growth and change. I know from my discussions with Connie that what she valued at the firm was all of the friends she had here… all of whom she considered family.  She also enjoyed working with our younger attorneys and watching them grow and thrive.”

Neil Gunny first met Connie in 1988, when he was assigned to manage an Orange County law office in which she worked. Gunny recalled being astounded by the professionalism and camaraderie of the legal secretaries in that office. He was incredibly impressed with Connie and re-assigned her to work with him directly, forming a team that would work together over the next three decades. 

As Gunny puts it, “Connie was my guardian angel; in 30 years, she never made a mistake. My general anxiety was always offset by Connie’s enduring patience and grace under pressure.”

Their working relationship was put on pause for three years when that law firm dissolved, but the two were reunited in 2002 when Gunny asked Connie to join him in Klinedinst’s new LA office. Fortunately for all of us at the firm, she accepted the offer. 

“Everyone who worked with Connie adored Connie,” Gunny added.  “But Connie meant so much to all of us on a very personal level. When I lost my father in 1992, Connie gave me a sympathy card in which she suggested that I keep his photo on my dresser as a reminder that he is still in my life.  I am looking at this photo right now, and will be adding Connie’s photo as someone who I truly cherish. She lives on through her family and friends who loved her so much.”

Connie is survived by her husband and her wonderful daughters, who she spoke of fondly with her co-workers. “I know Connie loved her family and children very much but also that she considered all of us to be part of her family,” added Garbacz.

The entire Klinedinst team extends its thoughts and prayers to Connie’s family. We are all truly better for having known Connie Ali.

SAN DIEGO – Klinedinst Founder and CEO John D. Klinedinst has been named a finalist for the 2020 CEO of the Year Award by the San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ). The award recognizes top-tier chief executives in San Diego for their outstanding professional achievements and their contributions to the community.

Every year, the San Diego Business Journal conducts an extensive survey of San Diego firms to identify outstanding and highly-revered CEOs. After collecting nominations for the CEO of the Year, the San Diego Business Journal evaluates all submissions and then publishes its list of finalists for the award.

San Diego Business Journal is one of the preeminent sources of business news and information on San Diego County’s companies, industries, and business people. The publication’s regular lists provide comprehensive data and statistics on top-ranked San Diego businesses and their decision-makers. They focus on changes and innovations in companies and individuals across all industries.

Mr. Klinedinst has been recognized by the San Diego Business Journal in previous years for his contributions to the business community, as well as the regional economy. In 2019, he was named winner of the CEO of the Year Award, and he previously was named Most Admired CEO in 2017 and 2011.

“John is a recognized leader in the legal and business communities,” said Art Moreau, Chief Operating Officer of Klinedinst PC. “It is through his extraordinary efforts and support that Klinedinst PC has seen continued success and a continuing impact in the legal profession.”

Mr. Klinedinst founded Klinedinst PC in 1983, focusing his practice on resolving professional liability, business litigation, and intellectual property disputes. Today, the firm he created has nearly 140 employees across five offices, from San Diego, Irvine, and Los Angeles to Sacramento and Seattle.

The recipient of Martindale-Hubbell’s highest AV®-Preeminent™ rating, Mr. Klinedinst was named Best of the Bar (2014) for his litigation and trial work. He has also been featured in Super Lawyers® since the publication began reviewing attorneys in San Diego back in 2007 and is ranked in the Top 50: 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers®.

Winners of the CEO of the Year will be announced on September 30 at a virtual event at 2:00 pm. To RSVP please visit: app.greenrope.com/events/2020_CEO_OF_THE_YEAR

To learn more about Mr. Klinedinst, please visit:
www.johnklinedinst.com

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst has become the go-to firm for clients across California, across the West, and across the globe. Our litigators, trial attorneys, and transactional lawyers guide clients through every problem, finding solutions at every turn. The firm serves clients from offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Seattle. Whether representing businesses in court, helping negotiate transactions, or handling matters in state, federal, or appellate courts, Klinedinst attorneys help to get the job done.

Klinedinst joins the nation in mourning the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg had a long and distinguished career.  As an attorney, her reputation as a fierce advocate for gender equality was well-earned. She participated in hundreds of gender discrimination cases, and argued six of them before the Supreme Court that she would one day serve. She served thirteen years as appellate court justice for the United States District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, before being appointed to the highest court in the United States, where she served for twenty-seven years. 

As an attorney, Justice Ginsberg achieved success challenging an Idaho law that required probate courts to appoint men to administer probate estates, writing the brief that convinced a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court to hold the law was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  (See Reed v. Reed  (1971) 404 U.S. 1971).  The Reed case paved the way for Ginsberg’s winning arguments in future cases that struck down laws based on gender, including laws that created different standards for age of consent, drinking ages, and right to government benefits.  As a Supreme Court Justice, she continued to support gender equality, penning key decisions, including United States v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515, in which the Supreme Court struck down the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute. 

In recognition of her commitment to gender equality, the American Bar Association presented her with the Thurgood Marshall Award in 1999. She was also presented with the ABA’s highest recognition, the American Bar Association Medal in 2010. 

Justice Ginsberg believed in the power of friendship and debate from all sides of the political spectrum, and the importance of collegiality in the legal profession, actively leading by example. Much has been written about Justice Ginsburg’s close friendship with late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. While from an ideological perspective, the two were polar opposites, they respected each other’s viewpoint and valued the debate and discourse. Eugene Scalia, Justice Scalia’s son described his father’s relationship with Justice Ginsberg in a September 19, 2020 Op-Ed in The Washington Post:

“The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.” 

Regardless of political perspective or values, the democracy that we value and cherish as a nation was made better by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We honor her memory, her dedication to gender equality, and her unwavering commitment to protecting justice and the rule of law.

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst is the go-to firm for clients looking for litigation, trial experience, transactional representation, and legal counsel.  The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Irvine, and Seattle service the entire West Coast. What sets Klinedinst apart is the relationship our attorneys foster with each and every client. Klinedinst lawyers are indispensable strategic partners to business leaders, helping to achieve business objectives and create proactive solutions to resolve the many legal challenges that businesses are confronted with every day.  Whether vigorously advocating for business clients in court, or guiding business transactions and negotiations, Klinedinst is the trusted legal advisor to have by your side

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – Shareholder and attorney Robert M. Shaughnessy has announced his candidacy for a seat on the San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA) 2021 Board of Directors, and launched RobertShaughnessy.com to help provide SDCBA members with additional information on his candidacy.

Mr. Shaughnessy’s goals include promoting access to justice and addressing access-to-justice issues that raise barriers for poor and under-served communities. He plans to partner with local courts and the community’s diverse law-related organizations, to help provide free, or affordable legal services to those who would otherwise be denied fair access to the justice system.

Mr. Shaughnessy brings significant leadership experience from the SDCBA, where he currently serves as the Vice-Chair of the Governance Committee and is a member of the Strategic Planning Committee. He is also a past Chair of the SDCBA’s Appellate Practice Section and has held previous positions as the Section’s Vice-Chair, Programming Chair, and Civil Rules Comment Chair. Shaughnessy is also a volunteer appellate attorney for the SDCBA’s Civil Appellate Self-Help Workshop, and he works as a volunteer with the pilot Access to Appellate Justice pro bono program, that connects self-represented litigants to volunteer attorneys willing to provide representation on appeals at no cost.

There are four “at-large” director positions up for election, with each SDCBA director serving a three-year term through 2024.

“I would bring a strong commitment to professional civility to the Board if elected.” noted Mr. Shaughnessy on his SDCBA candidate page. “In a polarized social and political climate, I believe the legal profession is uniquely positioned to model authentic civility. I would bring to the Board a commitment to advance and promote diversity.”

Outside of the SDCBA, Mr. Shaughnessy is active in the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL), is a Barrister level member of the San Diego Appellate Inn of Court, and is a member of both San Diego Defense Lawyers (SDDL), and the California Lawyers Association (CLA). He has developed a wealth of experience in both complex law-and-motion and appellate practice and is a regular speaker on these topics.

Online voting for the Board of Directors positions begins October 14, 2020, and lasts until November 13, 2020. Members can vote online by logging in to the SDCBA Election website, and all SDCBA attorney members are eligible to vote.

To review updates on Mr. Shaughnessy’s candidacy, including FAQs and updated endorsements, please click on:

robertshaughnessy.com

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst is the go-to firm for clients looking for litigation, trial experience, transactional representation, and legal counsel.  The firm’s offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Seattle service the entire West Coast. What sets Klinedinst apart is the relationship our attorneys foster with each and every client. Klinedinst lawyers are indispensable strategic partners to business leaders, helping to achieve business objectives and create proactive solutions to resolve the many legal challenges that businesses are confronted with every day.  Whether vigorously advocating for business clients in court, or guiding business transactions and negotiations, Klinedinst is the trusted legal advisor to have by your side.

IRVINE, CALIFORNIA — Klinedinst PC is pleased to announce Frederick M. Heiser has been named Managing Shareholder of Klinedinst’s Irvine office. Mr. Heiser takes over the role from Kevin Gramling, who will continue as Shareholder in the Irvine office.

Mr. Heiser focuses his practice on business and commercial litigation, commercial general liability, and employment. His clients include local entrepreneurs, small family businesses, and Fortune 500 companies.

Mr. Heiser is regularly called on by general counsel, business owners, and claims representatives to protect their interests and to provide hands-on, strategic, and efficient direction for complex civil cases. He has found success in retail defense, business litigation, employment law, and general liability matters.

“Fred has grown his practice and leadership ability exponentially during his time at Klinedinst, and has been instrumental in the incredible growth in our team,” added Mr. Gramling, who founded the Orange County office and served as its Managing Shareholder for 20 years. “His positive and extremely respectful attitude is appreciated and respected by both clients and team members alike. His dedication, personality, temperament, and leadership skills will serve the Irvine office well for years to come.”

Klinedinst’s presence in Orange County recently expanded into new offices in Irvine’s Park Plaza. Now leading a roster of 12 attorneys, Hesier has taken on the crucial role of continuing Klinedinst’s culture, relationship management, and commitment to individual growth, both personally and professionally, allowing attorneys to best serve clientele.

Heiser often speaks and presents on matters of retail and hospitality litigation, and partners with companies to strategically develop policies and procedures to minimize their liability risks. As a member of the USLAW Network, Defense Research Institute (DRI), and Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM), Heiser advises industry leaders on a broad range of legal topics. 

Heiser earned his JD from Washington and Lee (W&L) School of Law in 2004. He also earned his bachelor’s from W&L, graduating magma cum laude in 2001. He is a former President of Washington and Lee University’s Los Angeles Alumni Chapter and remains an active member of the Chapter in Los Angeles and Orange County. 

Even though he joined the firm three years ago, Mr. Heiser is no stranger to the Klinedinst history and culture. He originally joined the firm back in 2004, becoming one of the newest associates in the Los Angeles office. He left to pursue other opportunities but ended up re-joining the firm ten years later in 2017 as Counsel. He steps into the role of Managing Shareholder as Kevin Gramling, who held the position for 20 years, concentrates on expanding his trial practice which takes him throughout the Western states.

“The Klinedinst leadership team, especially Kevin Gramling, has built this office into something incredibly special.  Kevin has left some very big shoes to fill,” said Heiser. “I couldn’t be more excited about taking on this new role and am grateful for everybody’s confidence in me.  We have such a talented team and I look forward to many great times ahead.”

Klinedinst PC congratulates Mr. Heiser in his new role as Managing Shareholder of the Irvine office. More information on Mr. Heiser can be viewed at: www.frederickheiser.com

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst has become the go-to firm for clients across California, across the West, and across the globe. Our litigators, trial attorneys, and transactional lawyers guide clients through every problem, finding solutions at every turn. The firm serves clients from offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Seattle. Whether representing businesses in court, helping negotiate transactions, or handling matters in state, federal, or appellate courts, Klinedinst attorneys help to get the job done.

SAN DIEGO, CA – Klinedinst attorney Dan Lawton filed an amicus brief today in the California Supreme Court in the matter of Masellis v. Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen, et. al., 50 Cal.App.5th 1077 (2020) on behalf of legal malpractice insurer AXA XL. The team’s brief argues that the Court of Appeal’s recent application of law in this “settle-and-sue” case merits review by the highest court in the State. Specifically, the amicus curiae letter asks the Court to settle questions raised by Masellis that could have a significant impact on all lawyers, their clients, and their insurers across California. 

The Masellis case concerns the rules of proof that apply in California “settle-and-sue” actions. In such cases, the plaintiff challenges a prior settlement as an act of lawyer malpractice and argues the lawyer-defendant could have negotiated a better deal. 

Existing law requires plaintiffs to prove causation and damages to a legal certainty. They must demonstrate that, if not for the lawyer-defendant’s malpractice, the plaintiff would certainly have received more money in a settlement or after a trial. The law also forbade juries from speculating about whether the lawyer-defendant might have gotten her former client a better deal. It required plaintiffs to prove to a legal certainty that a challenged settlement was so unreasonably low (or high) as to fall below the standard of care. 

In the amicus letter, the Klinedinst team argues that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Masellis wrongly rewrites or at least muddles these rules. 

In the Masellis case, Masellis had obtained a divorce settlement which included $1.2 million in cash and $20,000 per month in spousal support.  After securing the settlement, she discharged her lawyer (Jensen) and sued her, alleging the defendant could have secured a better deal.  

When the case was heard, the jury agreed and awarded Masellis damages.  Jensen appealed, arguing that Masellis should have had to prove that she certainly would have done better had she rejected the settlement.  However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in Masellis’ favor.

With its published decision, the Court of Appeal effectively weakened the legal certainty standard that the original trial judge rightfully should have applied. In their filing, Klinedinst lawyers point out that the decision exposes thousands of settlements to speculative second-guessing by juries and paid expert witnesses. The decision harms lawyers’ ability to negotiate and advise their clients about out-of-court settlements. It also threatens increased liability insurance premiums for lawyers and law firms, raising the cost of law practice and threatening clients with higher fees boosted to cover that increased cost. California’s strong policy favoring out-of-court settlements, the letter argues, will suffer unless the Supreme Court intervenes and reverses Masellis.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant or deny review in Masellis by the end of September. If the court should grant review, then the parties and other amici would have the chance to file comprehensive briefs on the matter and ask the court for a decision on the merits of the case.

Read the full amicus letter here.

About Klinedinst

With over 40 years of solid history, Klinedinst is the go-to firm for clients across California and Washington State. Our litigators, trial attorneys, advisor, and transactional lawyers guide clients through their issues, finding solutions at every turn. The firm serves clients from its offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Seattle. Klinedinst attorneys are deeply committed to finding practical solutions and helping get the job done.

SACRAMENTO, CA — Klinedinst’s Ian A. Rambarran published an article in California Mortgage Finance News, a publication of the California Mortgage Bankers Association (CMBA) which discusses two new consequential opinions—both which offer significant implications for borrowers and lenders. Johnson and Rambarran’s article examines all sides of the opinions, including the potential to alter the existing authority on foreclosures and shifts in the duties of loan officers.

Johnson and Rambarran are regular contributors to CMBA’s publications and are go-to authors of matters concerning foreclosures, loss mitigation, loan modifications, and more. Additionally, Rambarran is a recurring speaker on regulatory compliance topics and served as the immediate Chair of the CMBA Legal Issues Conference and delivered the keynote address.

The CMBA, representing hundreds of companies and tens of thousands of California employees, is the leading advocate for the industry in the largest mortgage/real estate market in the nation. The CMBA represents residential and commercial/multi-family mortgage bankers, as well as their essential vendor partners.

The two rulings discussed in the article are Perez v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. and Weimer v. Nationstar Mortgage. In Perez, the ruling helps to harmonize the law on the issue of whether a borrower may challenge a lender’s authority to foreclose before foreclosure has occurred. The holding in Perez sends a strong message to borrowers at the federal level and leaves no room for equivocation across the U.S. District Courts. For now, lenders and servicers have consistently been granted favorable laws in both the federal and state courts about challenges to their rights prior to foreclosure.

Next, in In Weimer v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC the Third District Court of Appeal weighed in on the split in judicial districts as to whether a loan servicer has a duty sounding in negligence for mishandling loan modification applications. The court ruled in favor of the borrowers on this point and held that when a servicer reviews a borrower’s application for a modification, a special relationship is created between the two parties.

Klinedinst congratulates Ian on their notable publication and thanks them for their devotion to their practice and to the CMBA. The summer 2020 edition of California Mortgage Finance News can be viewed here, and Johnson and Rambarran’s article, ‘Recent Appellate Decisions Support Both Lenders and Borrowers in California’ can be viewed here.

About the Authors

Ian A. Rambarran works with the firm’s corporate clients, focusing primarily on business, financial services, employment, intellectual property, real estate, transportation, and construction issues. A graduate of the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Mr. Rambarran currently serves as Chairman of the California MBA Legal Issues Committee. He frequently counsels and represents clients in business and commercial disputes, and represents lenders and financial institutions in disputes throughout California. Mr. Rambarran can be reached at irambarran@klinedinstlaw.com.

Please Note

This article is intended to be for informational purposes only. This information does not constitute legal advice. The law is constantly changing and the information may not be complete or correct depending on the date of the article and your particular legal problem. The use of information from this article does not create any type of attorney-client relationship.

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst is the go-to firm for clients looking for litigation, trial experience, transactional representation, and legal counsel.  The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Irvine, and Seattle service the entire West Coast. What sets Klinedinst apart is the relationship our attorneys foster with each and every client. Klinedinst lawyers are indispensable strategic partners to business leaders, helping to achieve business objectives and create proactive solutions to resolve the many legal challenges that businesses are confronted with every day.  Whether vigorously advocating for business clients in court, or guiding business transactions and negotiations, Klinedinst is the trusted legal advisor to have by your side.

By James D. Snyder, Senior Counsel, Klinedinst PC

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its long-awaited decision in the case Data Protection Commission v. Facebook Ireland, Schrems (Shrems II). The EU high court invalidated the European Commission’s adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. If you are one of more than 5,000 US companies with European users of customers, and you transfer their personal data to the US for company use, the EU’s top court has now thrown a wrench into your authorization and you will need to figure out an alternative mechanism to authorize the transfers immediately.

Enter California’s California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which has been in effect since January 1, 2020. Many have commented that the CCPA is similar to, and in some instances, more stringent than the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). So, could California’s own CCPA lead the way toward California businesses’ transfers of EU data being adequate? This article suggests that California ask the European Parliament this very question; now!

In the aftermath of the death of the US-EU Safe Harbor regime and the implementation of GDPR, the US and the EU agreed on a mechanism called Privacy Shield to authorize the transfer of data from the EU to the US. An alternative for companies transferring data from the EU to the US is to enter into Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC), which are European Commission approved clauses that outline a range of rights that are responsibilities in line with GDPR. In essence, if you are a US company that relied on Privacy Shield until you put a new mechanism in place like SCCs, you cannot serve users or customers in the EU.

The EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks were designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the EU Commission and Swiss Administration to provide companies with a mechanism to comply with data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the EU and Switzerland to the US. In 2016, Privacy Shield was essentially created for ease because, like now, many US companies were without any legal mechanism to make authorized transfers when the Safe Harbor regime was struck down by the EU high court. To use the Privacy Shield register, companies self-certify that they will essentially comply with EU data protection rules. This does not mean that companies who do not already enter into SCC’s to conduct the transfers but suffice to say that many transfers simply relied on this self-certified registration.

The CCPA is a broad law enacted in the State of California that applies to businesses inside and outside of the state, as well as internationally. The CCPA created new data privacy rights for California consumers, requiring businesses to tell them what personal information has been collected and how the business (or any third party) is using the information. Consumers can force businesses to delete their data or prohibit the business from sharing personal information with third parties. (Note that the California data protection process is ongoing with CCPA 2.0 looming on the upcoming ballot, but the updated law would be more restrictive and any updates shouldn’t impact a question of adequacy.)

During the third annual review of the data-transfer agreements at the European Parliament, the question was posed to members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (when discussing its October 23, 2019 report with representatives of the European Commission and European Data Protection Board)–is it possible for California itself to have its own Privacy Shield arrangement, separate from the other 49 states in the US? The response from the commission was, in principle, yes. The commission explained that GDPR provides for the possibility to recognize a territory at a sub-federal level adequate, so in principle, the commission’s answer was yes. Given 5,000-plus US companies (many of which must or have become compliant with CCPA) are now in violation of GDPR, California should immediately press the EU to confirm the adequacy of CCPA compliance in lieu of Privacy Shield.

GDPR Article 45(1) states, “A transfer of personal data may take place where the commission has decided that the third country [or] a territory within that third country ensures an adequate level of protection,” and 45(3) states, “The implementing act shall specify its territorial application.”

Whether the CCPA would be adequate is likely not the only thing that would be assessed. Like the analysis of Privacy Shield’s adequacy, California’s regime would need to have independent oversight and possibly show that data could be retained within California to pass muster. There is also the question of whether California has the constitutional power to ask for such an agreement and an analysis of conflicts of law issues between the GDPR, the CCPA, and various domestic US laws would need to be assessed. None of the above however should prevent the State from seeking these answers on behalf of its businesses, which likely make up the majority of impacted US businesses.

If California were its own nation, it would be the fifth-largest economy in the world. With a GDP of $2.9 trillion, California would slot between Germany and the United Kingdom in the world’s top economies. California has set the tone for data protection overhauls across the US with the likes of Nevada, New Hampshire, Washington state, Illinois, Virginia, and Florida, to name a few, joining California enacting or actively pursuing data protection overhauls. The Consumer Data Privacy and Security Act of 2020 has also been widely discussed, as the US begins contemplating a Federal data protection regime, but the process is nowhere near complete and many have commented that the Federal bill or alternatives are not nearly as stringent as CCPA, raising adequacy concerns in relation to GDPR.

The European Commission must follow a four-step process to adopt an adequacy decision. First, it must make an initial proposal finding that the third country’s domestic laws are adequate. Article 45(2) of the GDPR provides the framework of this proposal and the European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB adequacy referential includes additional context. Further, the European Court of Justice explained that adequate in the context of an adequacy decision means “essentially equivalent” and does not mean exact alignment with EU privacy laws. Second, the EDPB provides an opinion on the draft proposal. Third, the EU parliament comments on the draft, and finally, the European Commission subsequently adopts the proposal.

The US has a single law in California’s CCPA, that is in place now in the world’s 5^th largest economy, that the EU Parliament has already acknowledged could be adequate in and of itself. California must act now to seek a California-EU (and Switzerland) agreement to allow California-compliant businesses to conduct EU-California transfers pursuant to businesses’ compliance with the CCPA. Adequacy decisions by the European Commission are not generally fast and the State of California should make all efforts to begin immediately in the wake of Shrems II.

About the Author

In his practice, Mr. Snyder represents clients in business transactions, M&A, and data privacy issues. He provides legal and compliance counsel to emerging startups and established companies in areas involving licensing, finance and investments, data privacy and security, corporate structuring, contracts, patent, trademark, copyright, and domain portfolios. He has built a reputation as an outside General Counsel, providing legal guidance on a wide range of issues. For questions about policies, documentation, or best practices for remote employees, contact Mr. Snyder at jsnyder@klinedinstlaw.com.

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst is the go-to firm for clients looking for litigation, trial experience, transactional representation, and legal counsel. The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Irvine, and Seattle service the entire West Coast. What sets Klinedinst apart is the relationship our attorneys foster with each and every client. Klinedinst lawyers are indispensable strategic partners to business leaders, helping to achieve business objectives and create proactive solutions to resolve the many legal challenges that businesses are confronted with every day. Whether vigorously advocating for business clients in court, or guiding business transactions and negotiations, Klinedinst is the trusted legal advisor to have by your side.

This article is intended to be for informational purposes only. This information does not constitute legal advice. The law is constantly changing and the information may not be complete or correct depending on the date of the article and your particular legal problem. The use of information from this article does not create any type of attorney-client relationship.

The book review, published in California Litigation, the journal of the Litigation Section of California Lawyers Association, offers an informative view into the implications the Stringfellow Acid Pits had on environmental law, toxic torts, appellate procedure, and insurance coverage into the present day.

Klinedinst’s Dan Lawton just published a new book review on Brian Craig’s “Stringfellow Acid Pits: The Toxic and Legal Legacy” a fascinating look at an environmental disaster that launched an epic legal battle that spanned over three decades. His review, published in California Litigation, the journal of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association is a must-read, that offers the reader a forthright retrospect of this important new book.

The review, which can be read in full here, explores the history of the Stringfellow Acid Pits calamity before analyzing the cause and effects of the legal situation that resulted in a legal saga involved more than 1,000 lawyers, 4,000 plaintiffs, and nearly 200 defendants, and led to the longest civil trial in California history.

Dan Lawton is Senior Counsel at Klinedinst PC and a member of California’s Litigation editorial board. He practices litigation in the firm’s appellate and professional liability groups, including civil trial work and complex commercial and intellectual property litigation on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. He also has a deep background in civil appeals and is certified as a legal specialist in Appellate Law by the State Bar’s California Board of Legal Specialization.

About Klinedinst

Klinedinst has become the go-to firm for clients across California, across the West, and across the globe. Our litigators, trial attorneys, and transactional lawyers guide clients through every problem, finding solutions at every turn. The firm serves clients from offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Seattle. Whether representing businesses in court, helping negotiate transactions, or handling matters in state, federal, or appellate courts, Klinedinst attorneys help to get the job done.