The California Court of Appeal's ruling in Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC reinforces a critical lesson for California employers: courts will meticulously examine the cumulative effect of all related employment agreements when determining if an arbitration agreement is truly mutual. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny IGS’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the company's Arbitration Agreement, when read together with the concurrent Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (the “Confidentiality Agreement”), was permeated with ...

The recent appellate decision in Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. et al. delivers a potent warning to California employers regarding the limits of arbitration agreements and the need for careful drafting, particularly for workforces engaged in interstate commerce. The litigation began when a logistics employee, who handled cargo moving through foreign and interstate commerce, sued Maersk for wage violations, including claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). When Maersk attempted to compel arbitration based on a signed employment agreement, the trial court ...

On the heels of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Wilson v. TAP Worldwide, LLC has provided welcome clarity and significant breathing room for employers by limiting the punitive consequences of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Specifically, the appellate court confirmed that a mere administrative oversight in fee payment will not automatically result in both the forfeiture of the employer’s right to arbitrate and the substantial fee-shifting penalties of the statute.

The ...

It is a fundamental principle of trademark law that the first person to actually use a trademark in commerce has priority over that mark. “Use in commerce” is defined by statute to mean “the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade.” A mark is deemed to be in use in commerce when it is placed “on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.” 

How have courts interpreted this statute in practice?  Can you establish the use of a mark in commerce before you sell any products using that mark? How about years ...

Most business owners think the rules are clear: if there’s a dispute among members in a limited liability company (LLC), the operating agreement and California’s LLC statues control what happens. But a recent case shows that courts can sometimes go off-script.

Consider this scenario: you co-own a small business in an LLC with two partners. They vote you out as manager of the company and bring an action to have the court determine that they acted properly. You counter-sue but do not seek to dissolve the company. You claim your partners breached the operating agreement and their ...

News of several firings based on an employee’s social media post discussing recent events has rekindled the question of whether a private employer can terminate an employee for their social media activity.  While the answer will depend on the specific facts of each situation, private employers in California have more discretion when making termination decisions in this context than employees (or even the employers themselves) might expect.

California is known for leading the nation in establishing legal safeguards for its employees. As a result, it can sometimes come as a ...

Q: I know from prior articles that a receiver for a tenant entity has the right to reject a lease, if to do so is beneficial for the estate. Is the reverse true? If a receiver was appointed for a landlord, can he or she reject a tenant lease, in order to retake possession, if doing so would be beneficial to the estate?

A: No. While a receiver for a tenant can affirm and adopt a lease, or reject it and return the property to the landlord, See, D.H. Roosen Company v. Pacific Radio Publishing Company, 123 Cal. App. 525, 534 (1932), the reverse is not true. While the right to reject a lease flows from the ...

California’s Victims’ Leave law was expanded effective January 1, 2025, under Assembly Bill 2499.  These changes imposed new obligations and broadened existing ones.  Importantly, AB 2499 also imposed a new notice requirement, and on July 1, 2025, the Civil Rights Division published a model notice explaining employee rights under the law.

Employers are required to provide the new notice (available here: Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Rights Leave and Accommodations) in multiple situations:

• At hiring (to new employees);
• Annually to all employees;

Imagine that you are the trustee of your father’s trust and also hold his power of attorney. He is in his mid-80s, physically frail and depressed. He has been diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder and two doctors have stated that he lacks capacity. You have observed that his memory is worsening.

While you are out of town, your sibling secretly arranges for an outside lawyer to meet privately with your father under circumstances suggesting undue influence. The lawyer has your father sign a $100,000 retainer agreement and then claims to represent him. When you return, your father has ...

The California Civil Rights Council has approved new regulations that clarify how existing anti-discrimination laws under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) apply to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems. These regulations become effective on October 1, 2025.

The new rules are not a ban on AI. Instead, they serve to expand and clarify existing safeguards to ensure AI tools do not have a disparate impact on, or a disparate treatment of, employees based on FEHA-protected characteristics.

This development is distinct from AB 1018, a ...