Posts from May 2023.
Posted in Legal Bites
LA County Ban on Single-Use Plastic Goes into Effect

On May 1, 2023, a ban on single-use plastics went into effect for restaurants with permanent locations in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The ban was originally passed in April of 2022 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, with enforcement rolled out based on the type of establishment. 

The ban will be enforced first in restaurants with permanent locations, then be effective on November 1, 2023 at food trucks, and May 1, 2024 at temporary/pop-up food facilities, catering companies, and farmers market. 

Restaurants that demonstrate financial hardship can apply ...

Posted in Legal Bites
Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of “Just Fruit” Lawsuit

On April 28, 2023, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against Kroger alleging that the company misleadingly labeled spreadable fruit products as “Just Fruit.”

Plaintiff Sarah Vitort alleged that Kroger violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act because the “Just Fruit” product included fruit syrup, pectin, calcium citrate, apple juice concentrate, and citric acid. Plaintiff argued that even though those ingredients could be extracted from fruit, they were not actually fruit ...

Uber Drivers Cannot Bring Class Action for Employment Claims

In a matter of first impression, a panel for the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a judgment of the District Court of New Jersey in Singh v. Uber Techs., Inc. (April 26, 2023), compelling arbitration in a putative class action against Uber Technology, Inc. (Uber). The class action was brought against Uber by its drivers who alleged that the rideshare company misclassified them as independent contractors, thereby depriving them of overtime pay and other benefits under wage and hour laws. The panel held that the drivers must bring work-related disputes as ...

Partition Referees and Receivers have quasi-judicial  immunity

A number of articles previously published in Receivership News have pointed out that while it is clear that receivers appointed by federal courts have quasi-judicial immunity ( See, New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1989); Trinh v. Fineman, 9 F. 4th 235 (3rd. Cir. 2021) [collecting cases]) up to  now it has been unclear whether that is true for receivers appointed by state courts in California, although there have been a number of unreported decisions that have held receivers do have such immunity (See, Haider v. Speiser, 2012 WL 41019411 (2012); Gruntz v. Wiley,


Recent Posts




Jump to PageX

ECJ uses cookies to enhance your experience on our website, to better understand how our website is used and to help provide security. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. For more information see our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.