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 ...

After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed whether provisions of the CAA are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the Court ultimately held that Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98 remains valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, the decision represents a meaningful victory for employers because the Court rejected a rigid application of the ...

A recent decision from California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal has deepened the divide among state courts on a critical issue under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether a plaintiff may pursue representative claims for Labor Code violations they did not personally experience.  In CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court concluded that such “headless” PAGA actions are permissible under the statute.  This holding appears to directly contradict the Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., which required a plaintiff to ...

California is adapting to the prevalence of technology in the modern workplace – especially artificial intelligence – as these digital tools become more embedded in business infrastructure. Among other consequential AI-related bills currently under consideration, Assembly Bill 1221 (AB 1221) stands out.  Now advancing through the legislature, the bill is poised to impose comprehensive restrictions on workplace surveillance technologies.

If enacted, the bill would require businesses to provide clear and timely notice – at least 30 days in advance – before ...

As AI and automation tools become increasingly integrated into hiring and workplace operations, California’s Assembly Bill 1018 (AB 1018) is drawing significant attention for its potential to reshape how employers use these technologies. While the bill is intended to enhance fairness and transparency, it also raises important questions about compliance, liability, and practical challenges for businesses across the state.

AB 1018 follows a similar proposal from 2024, Assembly Bill 2930, which failed to advance out of legislative committee. That earlier bill raised many of ...

            Employers have long been scrutinized for perceived unequal bargaining power when it comes to enforcement of company-drafted arbitration agreements.  Indeed, both the California legislature and the courts have aimed to protect employees from unduly oppressive, one-sided, or otherwise unfair agreements.  In some cases, this scrutiny extends to extrinsic statements and circumstances surrounding an employee’s review and signing of an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.

            In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC, an employer was denied the right to compel arbitration ...

On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari from Cox Communications Inc. and agreed to weigh in on one of the most consequential digital copyright cases in recent memory. The Court’s ruling could redefine the scope of liability for internet service providers (“ISP”) and clarify the standards for contributory infringement and willfulness in the digital age.

How We Got Here

In 2018, a coalition of more than 50 major record labels filed suit against Cox in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Cox had turned a blind eye to massive copyright ...