SAN DIEGO, CA — Klinedinst’s Steven K. Berenson published an article in Law360, a nationally-recognized source for legal news, which clarifies an important issue on the standard of proof a plaintiff must satisfy in “settle and sue” legal malpractice cases, an area of longstanding confusion. The Court’s ruling in Masellis v. Law Office of Leslie F. Jenson could represent a shift in the playing field of legal malpractice plaintiffs’ cases.
In his published piece, Berenson explores the ruling’s implications for defense counsel moving forward, and analyzes the playing field for plaintiffs’ attorneys, as proof of settle and sue still remains a formidable challenge, even after the decision made by the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit. This ruling increases the likelihood of plaintiffs’ prevailing in settle and sue legal malpractice cases, and has the potential to alter the existing balance between attorneys and their former clients in malpractice litigation.
Steven K. Berenson
Steven K. Berenson is an experienced Professional Liability attorney and has represented individuals and government entities in state and federal courts in a wide range of matters such as legal ethics, civil litigation, and family law. Mr. Berenson spent two decades as a full-time law professor, where he focused on family law, legal ethics, and veterans’ legal issues.
Law360 is one of the most widely-read news sources for lawyers, business leaders, and judges across the U.S. Over 1 million subscribers receive Law360 updates, published on a daily basis. The publication also has more than 40 practice areas, industry, and state sections that cover legislation, regulation, litigation, corporate transactions, and legal industry news.
Read the full article (subscription required) on Law360 here. You can also download the full article PDF without a subscription from here.
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.
For many in the retail and hospitality industry, business is paused by the spread of the novel coronavirus, awaiting word that it is safe to resume. Other essential businesses that avoided complete shutdown still face significant pandemic-related disruptions. Now more stores are gradually beginning to reopen with the prospect of returning to some semblance of “business as usual.” But, as they do, measures should be taken to address another anticipated crisis: a wave of COVID-19 exposure claims in the courts.
In part, this potential litigation is the logical result of an increase in human contact as restrictions lift and people return to stores and restaurants. When this occurs, people diagnosed with COVID-19 (or their families) will seek to hold liable the businesses where they claim they contracted the virus. Thus, many of the principles that help companies thrive in the best of times will become even more critical as the pandemic continues to play out.
Ways COVID-19 Claims Could Play Out
As of this writing, court dockets reflect only a few COVID-19 case filings. It is, therefore, too soon to tell how these types of cases will fare in the courts. But exposure claims are nothing new. Reviewing past infectious disease cases is instructive, providing a glimpse into how current and future COVID-19 claims may ultimately unfold. For example, cases involving exposure to tuberculosis or valley fever (a fungal infection) include allegations centered around a defendant’s failure to warn of the possibility of contracting an illness, failure to employ adequate controls to prevent transmission, and failure to prevent employees that displayed symptoms of an ailment from infecting others.
Many COVID-19 claims will likely be similar. It will not be surprising to see, for instance, cases about a restaurant’s failure to mitigate transmission among its employees, customers, or the general public; a retailer’s failure to warn customers of risks that it either knew or should have known about; or vicarious liability stemming from an employee’s careless decision to work despite displaying COVID-19 symptoms.
To help forestall widespread litigation, some states have already passed laws enacting certain COVID-19 business immunities. Legislation in California and in other states is still evolving. Federal immunities may even be in the works in Congress. Nevertheless, no one should expect absolute immunity. Immunity is unlikely to protect companies from liability for gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional harm. Thus, COVID-19 plaintiffs may simply “plead around” negligence and accuse defendants of reckless or intentional wrongdoing instead. For example, a plaintiff may assert that a company was reckless because it failed to enact adequate procedures to prevent COVID-19 transmission, despite well-publicized standards.
Naturally, causation will be a primary line of defense and one on which many in the industry already seem to be relying. Yet defenses centered around causation will be costly and are not guaranteed. First, they will require efforts like contact tracing, social media analysis, and other investigation into where else a plaintiff was and who else a plaintiff was near. Second, many defenses will require the retention of experts that are likely to include epidemiologists, infectious disease specialists, and industrial hygienists. Third, to prevail, it is unlikely that a COVID-19 plaintiff will be required to rule out every other possible means for contracting the virus. Rather, plaintiff experts will probably rely on a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” standard. Defendants could then essentially be tasked with establishing other viable ways a plaintiff may have contracted the virus, and how potential exposure at a defendant’s premises was limited or non-existent. As litigation in this area continues to evolve, so too will strategies for anticipating and handling these claims.
Initial Tips For Venues Opening-up
As with other liability issues, initial steps for addressing anticipated COVID-19 claims must include implementing proper policies and procedures. Adopting protocols that protect employees and customers from exposure and transmission is key. Practices to consider include:
Follow (or exceed) industry and CDC standards for hygiene, sanitation, and safety.
Follow (or exceed) local, state, and federal prevention guidelines and recommendations.
Display signs that warn about COVID-19 risks and encourage practices that limit person-to-person contact and promote social distancing (e.g. employees wearing masks, mobile orders available, curbside pickup made easy).
Develop and implement investigation procedures for all potential COVID-19 related claims, including workers’ compensation and liability.
Retain documents that confirm enforcement of the daily precautions, policies, and procedures in place.
A few words on COVID-19 waivers. Their enforceability is still up in the air and will likely depend on each jurisdiction’s determination about whether they violate public policy. Nevertheless, venues that routinely use liability waivers should consider creating ones for COVID-19 to provide an additional layer of protection for the business and an increased level of awareness for its customers. To avoid uncertainty, this waiver should be on a form that is separate from any existing release so that it remains conspicuous. Additionally, it should: (1) be specifically tailored to the business; (2) include a choice of law provision with a connection to the venue’s location; (3) cover the release of negligence claims but not reckless or intentional misconduct; (4) incorporate a discussion about the inherent risks of COVID-19 to the particular industry; and (5) identify what preventative measures the company is taking to help protect against transmission.
Of course, not everything related to COVID-19 claims can be anticipated. The retail and hospitality industry will need to adjust to changes. Still, knowledgeable counsel remains a resource for businesses trying to figure out what’s next. Trusted counsel can help navigate through issues that are predictable, like the need to create policies and procedures designed to protect businesses, their employees, and customers. And as litigation in this area continues to develop in the months and years ahead, counsel will remain a steady “go-to” for up-to-date trends and determining what impact those trends have on handling these cases moving forward. As with COVID-19 itself, the old adage applies: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Fred M. Heiser
Fred M. Heiseris Shareholder in Klinedinst PC’s Los Angeles and Orange County offices. 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. In addition to litigation, Mr. Heiser partners with companies to strategically develop policies and procedures to minimize their liability risks. He can be reached at fheiser@klinedinstlaw.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.
By Sylvia V. Panosian
As some California businesses prepare to re-open, they should be aware of the Government’s requirements and guidelines regarding risk assessment, protection plans, employee trainings and additional steps for their safe re-opening. On May 4, 2020, the Governor’s Executive Order announced that as California moves to allow reopening of lower-risk businesses and spaces (“Stage Two”), and later the reopening of higher-risk businesses and spaces (“Stage Three”), they may do so under new modifications and guidance provided by the State Public Health Officer’s May 7, 2020 Public Health Order.
The Public Health Order announced that all local health jurisdictions in the state may begin gradual movement into Stage Two. However, each jurisdiction will have some discretion regarding the transition. On the one hand, a given jurisdiction may implement or continue more restrictive public health measures if they believe it is warranted. On the other hand, the California Department of Health has also set forth criteria to help local health officers assess their jurisdiction’s ability to move through Stage Two more quickly than the State as a whole, and reopen additional low-risk businesses before the rest of the state if they choose to do so. Importantly, for businesses wondering if they are one of those that can reopen, the Public Health Order notes that “a list of the sectors, businesses, establishments, or activities, and any necessary modifications, that such a qualifying jurisdiction may choose to reopen will be available” here. For now, the jurisdictions that have met the criteria to move through Stage Two of the resilience roadmap, and have been approved for accelerated reopening, can be found here.
The Government’s Statewide Industry Guidance page provides that, if permitted to re-open, each business facility must do the following:
Perform a detailed risk assessment and implement a site-specific protection plan
Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19, including how to screen themselves for symptoms and stay home if they have them
Implement individual control measures and screenings
Implement disinfecting protocols
Implement physical distancing guidelines
Additionally, if an employee needs to self-isolate because of COVID-19, that employee should be encouraged to stay at home, with supporting sick leave policies in place.
The Government has instructed businesses to review the guidance that is relevant to their workplace or business sector, prepare a plan based on the guidance for their industry, and then put it into action. The steps outlined above are addressed in detail for each specific industry within that industry’s guideline page. For now, industries with posted guidelines and checklists can be found here, and include agriculture and livestock, auto dealerships, child care, communications infrastructure, construction, delivery services, energy and utilities, food packing, hotels and lodging, life sciences, limited services, logistics and warehouse facilities, manufacturing, mining and logging, outdoor museums, office workspaces, places of worship, ports, public transit and intercity passenger rail, real estate transaction, retail, and shopping centers. For regions approved to move more quickly through Stage Two, hair salons, barber shops, and dine-in restaurants may also reopen with modifications. Their guidelines and checklists can be found here: https://covid19.ca.gov/safer-economy/
A careful reading of these guidelines is important, as they provide direction on a number of modifications for the safe re-opening of the business in question, including the requirement that some businesses post checklists to show customers and employees that they have reduced risks and are open for business. Moreover, the guidelines cross-reference additional applicable guidelines and safe practices provided by other government agencies such as Cal/OSHA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the CDC, which should also be carefully reviewed and implemented.
As Governor Newson indicated during his update over the Memorial Day weekend, in addition to the statewide guidance and modifications, the regional variances allow for adjustments and announcements related to guidelines on a regional basis as well. However, they are making modifications in real-time and not waiting for news conferences to announce them. Therefore, employers in all California counties should continue to monitor changes in the law and consult with legal counsel regarding updates to the employer’s obligations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and safe business re-openings. Please contact Sylvia V. Panosian or Klinedinst’s employment team if you have any questions.
About the Author
Sylvia V. Panosian
Sylvia V. Panosian is an attorney in the firm’s Los Angeles office where she represents clients in general liability, employment, and business litigation in both state and federal courts. Ms. Panosian has practiced civil litigation in a range of issues, including gender violence, sexual harassment, assault/battery, whistleblower, disability, age, race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination, as well as wage and hour violations for individual wage cases and PAGA actions.
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.
Susan S. Nahama, Klinedinst’s Director of Operations and Managing Shareholder will be a featured panelist on an upcoming webinar on Managing and Engaging Remote Workforces. The presentation is being hosted at HR Café, which provides continuing education and networking opportunities to the HR community in San Diego. Nahama’s in-depth knowledge of building company infrastructure and maintaining an exceptional workplace culture will be featured at this virtual event on June 3, 2020.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – While shelter-in-place orders are slowly lifting, the need for employees to continue working remotely remains critical. Many employers are trying to stay ahead of local and state directives, while managing and engaging remote workers..
To help companies ensure compliance, HR Café is hosting a panel on June 3, 2020 featuring Klinedinst’s Susan S. Nahama. Nahama, who is Director of Operations and Managing Shareholder for Klinedinst San Diego, will help attendees learn best practices for helping their employees thrive, connect, and engage in today’s hybrid environment.
Event topics of discussion will include effective management of remote employees, reintegrating into the physical office, best practices, learning moments, and more. Susan will be joined by CEO of Coastal Payroll Johnathan Gallagher. The event will also be moderated Scott Carr, Klinedinst’s Director of Marketing and Community Relations. Each of these panelists brings a wealth of experience as to the best practices for remote workplaces, as well as the pitfalls to avoid.
Susan has been a Klinedinst shareholder since 2000, and has extensive experience in a broad range of civil litigation, with a focus on all aspects of professional liability. As Managing Shareholder of the firm’s San Diego office, she is responsible for day-to-day management, including human resources, operations, financial performance, and team-building. In her role as Director of Strategic Operations, Susan works in tandem with all of the firm’s offices and departments to build company culture, improve efficiency, and enhance operations.
The webinar will take place Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 8:00am. It is part of HR Café’s “First Wednesdays” webinar series, and is open to HR professionals, managers, executives, and business owners.
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.
As companies continue to navigate how to do business during the coronavirus, the threats to data and privacy continue to grow. Many hackers are using the pandemic to launch new phishing scams, putting data increasingly at risk. Klinedinst corporate attorney James D. Snyder provides guidance and tangible steps companies can take to lock down data during COVID-19 to protect you and your customers.
With the majority of the world working remotely due to COVID-19, we are all trying to adjust and continue to be productive in these very uncertain times. When we are in the office, we take for granted the data security and privacy protections that are readily available. At home, there are certain risks involving data privacy that we should be aware of. This brief article will identify some of the data privacy issues to consider while working remotely for the foreseeable future to ensure that when we transition back to office-life, our data (and our customers, clients, patients, etc.) will be safe and protected.
When working from home, you connect to your home Wi-Fi network and the risk of a data breach is generally higher at home given less protection. The securitybuilt into the office’s network is not as robust at home generally making home an easier target for things like malware and malicious attacks. If you are using an unsecured Wi-Fi connection, always refrain from using your login informationbecause your data can be intercepted by third parties. All of your data can be accessed in these circumstances while on the unsecured network. If the company has a virtual private network (VPN) option, it is a great idea to use the VPN access because the VPN establishes a secure and encrypted connection. This will provide greater privacy and security protection than a secured Wi-Fi! It is a good idea to, therefore, follow company guidelines and if possible, secure your home network (or use a VPN) and use commercially available antivirus software or firewalls.
While it may be easier and quicker to send that quick email on your personal device when you are working at the house, keep in mind that your personal laptop (as an example) likely has less security and backup software access and therefore it is riskier than your company-issued devices. Your personal device is much more likely to be infected with malware (without you even being aware) and accessing company data through your personal device can, therefore, infect the company’s data. Using a personal laptop at home could also potentially open up access to your personal data stored on your computer to your employer. Neither your employer nor you want that…
One simple way to safeguard data is to lock your computer when leaving your home work station. This is a good practice even while in the office and should be followed regularly. Much of what we do nowadays can be done on your smartphone as well so protecting your phone (and computer) with an appropriate password is highly recommended. It is likely that your company already requires you to change your passwords every 30, 60, or 90 days. Following this and using challenging passwords is really necessary as hackers are becoming more and more capable (get in the practice of updating your phone’s password with your computer at the same time).
In addition to locking your devices down, another simple measure is to not leave your devices unattended. Leaving your laptop or smartphone can create an opportunity for someone to access the device without your knowledge. If your device were to be taken or accessed the device’s data can be downloaded or deleted (even if there is not a breach, losing data can be disastrous). Of course, if the devices are locked you may be in the clear, but keeping the devices in a secure location is a good idea as well.
Regardless of whether you have a secure network, backing up your data is critical these days. No one wants to have to recreate massive amounts of data due to a data loss. Loss of data may also be considered a data breach and under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), your company may require access to the data to produce data due to consumer requests. Given working from home increases your vulnerability to security attacks, and given computers can simply be damaged or fail, backing up data can really be a lifesaver if something were to go wrong. There are ample cloud-based backup options and your company may already provide you with access. Consult your company’s IT group (if applicable) and discuss your back up options—you’ll be happy you did if you, unfortunately, have a data loss.
Finally, if you deal with personal health information (PHI) then the Health Insurance Portability and Accountably Act (HIPAA) applies and needs to be considered. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regularly levies hefty penalties for the failure to properly manage remote worker’s access and protection of PHI. There are many examples of penalties levied by the HHS, but one that comes to recent memory include a $750,000 settlement between Cancer Care Group and HHS due to a remote employee losing a laptop when the employee’s car was broken into (link: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/examples/cancer-care-group/index.html). Another example is a settlement between Lincare and HHS for $240,000, where a remote employee failed to safeguard PMI by exposing and abandoning the records (link: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/agreements/lincare/index.html). All of the above suggestions will certainly help protect PMI but employers should note which employees are remote workers and record the level of information to which these employees have access to (with respect to PMI). If your company deals with PMI it is good to have robust data privacy and security policy and train all staff that has access to the PMI.
Given the majority of the world’s workforce is working remotely now, it is a great time to revisit our data privacy and security practices and procedures. Taking these steps will ensure the company is compliant with applicable data privacy laws (CCPA, GDPR, HIPAA, etc) and help you (the employee) keep data safe and secure.
Should you or your company need help to secure your own or your employees homework environment, Klinedinst PC can help! Our team of data privacy professionals can help customize a data privacy solution and training for you. We will work with you to understand your business’ needs and prepare a holistic solution to include data privacy and security policies and procedures, disaster recovery policies, confidentiality agreements, and data privacy agreements as well as policies for human resources such as a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy.
About the Author
James D. Snyder
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 following is an analysis of new emergency rules enacted by the California Judicial Council impacting both appeals and writ petitions. The analysis is written by Robert M. Shaughnessy, Shareholder and Certified Specialist in Appellate Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued California’s stay-home order amidst the rising COVID-19 pandemic. Within days, the state’s trial courts were effectively closed to most civil litigants. Skeleton crews remained at shuttered courthouses to process criminal cases due to constitutional concerns. But to protect the health and safety of judicial officers, court staff, parties, and attorneys, only limited civil matters presenting emergency circumstances could access these scarce judicial resources.
Now in late April, it appears that anything resembling a return to normal operations for civil litigation matters at the trial court is months away. The current understanding is that the stay-home order will remain in place until California sees 14 consecutive days of decreasing new cases. Accordingly, the trial courts anticipate extending their current closures well into May.
Even assuming the stay-home order flattens the curve, and the courts reopen in four weeks, criminal cases will continue to receive priority over all civil matters for at least the next few months. Social distancing will also likely remain in place, resulting in reduced court staff and a further decreased capacity to hear civil trials and law and motion matters. In addition, the backlog of canceled civil law and motion hearings that must be rescheduled will number well into the thousands in the larger courthouses by the end of May. In other words, delayed and restricted access to justice will likely continue to hamper civil litigants well into the Fall, even under the best of circumstances. In San Diego alone, the number of civil matters which will need to be re-set by May 22 is estimated to approximate 15,000. Under a best-case scenario, in-person civil hearings would not resume until August.
California’s Judicial Council adopted a set of Emergency Rules on April 6, 2020, to address the court closures. These rules included “Emergency Rule 8: Emergency orders: temporary restraining or protective orders.” The rule applies “to any emergency protective order, temporary restraining order, or criminal protective order that was requested, issued, or set to expire during the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Em. Rule 8(a).) And it includes language providing that courts must provide a means for the filing of ex parte requests for temporary restraining orders. (Em. Rule 8(c).) But Rule 8’s application seems limited to matters of domestic violence, harassment including workplace harassment, threatened gun violence, and juvenile protective proceedings. (Em. Rule 8(a).) Even if the rule applied to requests to restrain conduct causing severe economic harm in a business-litigation context, it is not clear that trial courts currently have the judicial resources to timely consider restraining order applications in civil and business litigation matters where their judicial resources are halved, stretched to the breaking point, and focused on criminal matters.
Klinedinst’s appellate attorneys can explore possible remedies in the Court of Appeal, either through an appeal, or a petition seeking a writ directing the trial court to grant relief. Access to the remedies of the appellate court may be available whether or not an appealable judgment or order exists. And unlike the trial courts, under the shut-down order California’s appellate courts continue to accept filings electronically, and continue to move forward with the processing of motions, appeals, and writ proceedings in civil and criminal matters. Oral arguments are also going forward by remote access. Klinedinst’s appellate attorneys are ready and able now to explore potential appellate court remedies, where access to the trial court is hindered by the severe conditions which prevail in this unprecedented time.
About the Author
A seasoned litigator, Robert M. Shaughnessy brings nearly twenty years of complex law-and-motion and appellate experience to the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. Mr. Shaughnessy frequently authors articles on various legal topics including the unauthorized practice of law, malicious prosecution, the Unfair Competition Law, and California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. He is a leader in the legal community, and currently serves as Chair of the San Diego County Bar Association’s (SDCBA) Appellate Practice Section, where he has held past positions as Program Chair and Civil Rules Comment Chair. Mr. Shaughnessy can be reached at rshaughnessy@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.
Klinedinst’s newest web-based tool helps connect clients with lawyers using the latest virtual teleconference services. It provides how-to guides, best practices, and links to useful resources as businesses and individuals increasingly connect with one another remotely.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – With shelter-in-place orders remaining in place, many clients and legal professionals are trying to figure out best practices for connecting online. The use of teleconferencing services, such as Zoom, Webex, GoToMeeting, and others, is now helping connect clients with the legal resources they need in real-time.
To help navigate through the evolving world of web-based conferencing, Klinedinst has launched the new Lawyer Meeting Center, a new feature designed to offer useful tips and guides for individuals connecting with one another. The Lawyer Meeting Center covers a wide range of subjects, including:
Teleconferencing Services
Virtual Deposition Services
Mediation Companies Offering Remote Services
Klinedinst’s Lawyer Meeting Center includes how-to guides and setup instructions, along with best practices for using these virtual tools. It also provides pros and cons for many of the different services, an online listing of the major providers. as well as useful links and articles.
“The Lawyer Meeting Center is designed to specifically help facilitate teleconferences, which are fulfilling an important role while we shelter in place,” said Scott Carr, who oversees marketing and communications for Klinedinst PC. “Many clients are new to teleconferencing, as are opposing counsel and mediators. This is a virtual resource guide that we hope will be helpful for connecting with lawyers, long after the COVID-19 pandemic has come and gone.”
The Lawyer Meeting Center is now available online.
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.
The following is an analysis of new emergency rules enacted by the California Judicial Council, courtesy of Ian Rambarran, Shareholder with Klinedinst PC. Rambarran currently serves as California MBA Legal Issues Committee Chair.
On April 6, 2020 the California Judicial Council enacted emergency rules amid the COVID-19 crisis. Among other things, the new rules apply to all unlawful detainer actions and judicial foreclosures. These rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declares the COVID-19 state of emergency is lifted or the rules are repealed by the Judicial Council. A complete copy of the new emergency rules are available here:
Unlawful Detainer Evictions
The emergency rules now prevent the filing of new unlawful detainer actions, limit the ability to take a default, and postpone new and pending trial dates. Effective immediately:
Courts may not issue a summons on a complaint for any unlawful detainer action unless the court finds the action is necessary to protect public health and safety.
Courts may not enter default or a default judgment unless both 1) the action is necessary to protect the public health, and 2) the defendant has not appeared in the action within the time provided by law, including response deadline extensions issued within any applicable executive order.
Unlawful detainer trials pending as of April 6, 2020 must be continued a minimum of 60 days. All matters not set for trial may not be set for trial less than 60 days after a request for trial unless the court finds an earlier trial date is necessary to protect public health and safety.
Like Governor Newson’s Executive Orders and President Trump’s CARES Act, these rules aim to prevent the displacement of tenants and occupants during the state of emergency. However, this amendment is more expansive than Governor Newsom’s orders and President Trump’s CARES Act because it applies to all evictions – residential and commercial alike.
Judicial Foreclosures
The new rules also suspend all judicial foreclosures and prohibit courts from proceeding to judgment unless the court finds that the action is required to further public health and safety. Further, the rules toll the statutes of limitation for filing a judicial foreclosure action and extend the equitable rights of redemption.
Conclusion
In reality, the new rules fill in a gap on multiple levels. They now afford protection to residential and commercial tenants or occupants and protect commercial and residential borrowers too (although residential borrowers normally do not face judicial foreclosure). However, it is important to note that nothing contained in the new rules means that rent or monthly payments are forgiven. Those moneys are still owed; however, no one can attempt to recover possession until 90 days after Governor Newsom declares the state of emergency is lifted or until the Judicial Council repeals the rules.
About the Authors
Ian A. Rambarran
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.
The following is an analysis of the CARES Act, courtesy of Ian Rambarran, Shareholder with Klinedinst PC. Rambarran currently serves as California MBA Legal Issues Committee Chair.
President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Stimulus (CARES) Act a little over a week ago. Today, lenders and servicers are quickly instituting processes to assist borrowers and tenants with COVID-19 related relief. The CARES Act aims to streamline relief for all those affected by COVID-19, if the loans are federally backed. This means that the CARES Act applies to all FHA, HUD, VA, Department of Agriculture Loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans.
Unlike the typical loss mitigation scenario, the Act creates an automatic 180-day forbearance if:
A borrower is suffering financial hardship due directly or indirectly to COVID-19 and,
A borrower affirms he or she is experiencing the hardship during the COVID-19 emergency (National Emergency declared by the President).
The forbearance option applies without regard to prior delinquency and the forbearance period may be extended an additional 180 days. During the forbearance period, no fees, penalties, or interest beyond the amounts scheduled may be charged. Effectively, lenders and servicers should calculate them as if the borrower had made all of his or her payments on time and in full. Additionally, following a request for forbearance, a servicer may not initiate foreclosure or execute a foreclosure-related eviction for at least 60 days.
The CARES Act states the only documentation required from the borrower is an attestation that their financial hardship is caused by COVID-19. It is not yet clear how attenuated the hardship may be to COVID-19, but the COVID-19 pandemic will affect all aspects of commerce because close to 90% of the country has been ordered to shelter in place. Nearly any hardship could therefore be connected to COVID-19 based on circuitous logic.
Forbearance For Multifamily Properties
The CARES Act also applies to covered Multifamily Properties. A multifamily borrower (borrower of a property of five or more dwellings) experiencing financial hardship either directly or indirectly because of COVID-19 may request forbearance either orally or by written request. For this type of investment-based property, a servicer must document the hardship, provide forbearance for up to 30 days, and extend the forbearance for up to two additional 30 day periods, so long as a borrower makes the request at least 15 days prior to the end of a provided forbearance period.
The CARES Act also expects the benefits afforded to multifamily property owners be passed down to the tenants. For example, a borrower/landlord cannot evict a tenant nor can the borrower/landlord charge late fees or penalties against the tenant during the forbearance period. Indeed, the borrower cannot serve notices to vacate until after the expiration of the forbearance period and must provide at least 30 days to vacate.
Eviction Moratorium
The CARES Act implements a 120 days moratorium on all covered properties. This means that the borrower may not: initiate an action (file a complaint) to recover the property based on nonpayment of rent or charge a tenant penalty for nonpayment of rent. Furthermore, a tenant must also receive at least 30 days’ notice to vacate and the notice may not be served until after the expiration of the 120-day period. Following a foreclosure, the property owner steps into the shoes of the prior borrower/lessor. Therefore, this enactment will limit the ability of lenders to proceed with actions such as unlawful detainers.
Foreclosure Moratorium
Finally, the CARES Act makes clears that a servicer “may not initiate any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, move for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or execute a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale for not less than the 60-day period beginning on March 18, 2020.” The only exception to the foregoing is the property is vacant or abandoned.
Conclusion
The servicing landscape is quickly changing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act provides extensive new protections for borrowers and occupants of covered properties. In order to ensure compliance with the CARES Act, lenders and servicers should exercise an abundance of caution before moving to foreclosure or eviction. In fact, it would be prudent to communicate with the borrowers to ensure retention options are offered (not just received). Similar efforts should be provided to tenants as well. By following a cautious approach, the lending and servicing industry will be ahead of any new regulatory concerns and support the policy goals of the CARES Act, which amongst other things, stabilizes the economy and secure public health.
About the Authors
Ian A. Rambarran
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.
On April 2, 2020, the County of San Diego issued an addendum to the existing Health Officer Order regarding the COVID-19 crisis, that requires that masks be worn by all employees who may have contact with the public in any grocery store, pharmacy/drug store, convenience store, gas station, restaurant and other business establishments that serves food. The order takes effect 12:00 a.m. Saturday, April 4, 2020. Paragraph Q of the Addendum provides:
Effective 12:00a.m. Saturday, April 4, 2020, all employees who may have contact with the public in any grocery store, pharmacy/drug store, convenience store, gas station, restaurant and other business establishment that serves food shall wear a cloth face covering as described in the California Department of Public Health Face Covering Guidance referenced in section 10, above.
Not all essential businesses are required to have their employees wear masks under this Addendum. The trend may go that way, but right now it is limited to the categories listed in the Addendum for San Diego County. It would be a reasonable and permissible step to take, to require all employees that interact with the public to wear masks, given the guidance from the State of California Health and Human Services Agency, dated April 1, under which all California residents are encouraged, but not required, to wear masks when out in public.
Also, under the Addendum, all businesses that remain open to the public must prepare and post the Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol, as provided by the County. The Addendum provides in relevant part as follows:
All businesses that remain in operation in accordance with the Order and that allow members of the public to enter a facility must prepare and post by no later than 12:00 a.m. on April 7, 2020 a “Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol” on the form attached to this Order as for each of their facilities open to the public in the county.
The Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol must be posted at or near the entrance of the relevant facility, and shall be easily viewable by the public and employees.
A copy of the Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol must also be provided to each employee performing work at the facility.
All businesses shall implement the Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol and provide evidence of its implementation to any authority enforcing this Order upon demand.
The Social Distancing and Sanitation Protocol must ensure all required measures are implemented and must identify and require measures necessary to implement social distancing are implemented at each facility that will ensure social distancing and sanitation at that particular facility.
If the measures identified and implemented are not effective in maintaining proper social distancing and sanitation, additional measures shall be identified and implemented or the facility shall be closed.
While these restrictions are unique to San Diego County, employers in all California counties should continue to monitor changes in the law and consult with legal counsel regarding updates to employer’s obligations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please contact Thomas E. Daugherty or Klinedinst’s employment team if you have any questions.
About the Author
Thomas E. Daugherty
Thomas E. Daugherty litigates and counsels clients in employment law, professional liability, and commercial litigation. He brings integrity, vigorous advocacy, and a tenacious work ethic to provide unique solutions to each and every client. His demeanor and approachability keep clients coming back for more, when legal needs arise. To contact Mr. Daugherty, please reach him via email or call (619) 239-8131.
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.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.