|
By Karen Johnson (Orange Office)
The demand for instant images and information has irrevocably altered our society as today's fiercely competitive media fights to be the first to report breaking news and transmit live pictures. Therefore, it is more important than ever to protect the dignity and fairness of our legal system while preserving the public's right to know. Against this noisy background of demands for televised judicial proceedings, we must consider how to preserve free speech while defusing the intrusion and sensationalism of the media.
Read More
By Cindy R. Hughes (Orange Office)
Real estate investors frequently use options to secure their rights in a piece of land while they explore the feasibility of development of that property, to avoid committing substantial funds to buy the property until the unknowns can be explored. Common law previously imposed fairly strict requirements regarding the "consideration" necessary to make such agreements enforceable. A new California Supreme Court case has relaxed that requirement.
Read More
By Andrew Nelson (San Francisco Office) and Karol Ingber (Los Angeles Office)
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to by its original name of Proposition 65, was intended to protect the state's citizens and drinking water sources from exposure to toxic chemicals. However, many believe its goals have had unintended consequences caused by the private action enforcement provisions, which have resulted in companies doing business in California incurring unexpected additional costs.
Read More
By Joshua R. Dale (Orange Office)
Three recent California appellate court decisions handed mixed results to California construction contractors. In most instances, subcontractors found their rights diminished and obligations increased as to general contractors.
Read More
By Anne C. Gritzer (Orange Office)
An effective tool in defending asbestos personal injury claims brought in state court venues has been to remove those cases with significant jury verdict value to federal court. While plaintiffs will move for remand, these cases generally remain in federal court and are routinely designated as "tag-along" actions to the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation ("MDL-875") venued in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Once transferred to the MDL-875, the cases typically languish for years without a resolution on the merits. In fact, the Eastern District has been such a dark hole that a courtesy call to plaintiffs' counsel, informing him of the intent to remove, frequently results in a dismissal of the potentially removing party. One judge is now working to clear the clogged asbestos docket, which has caused some reevaluation of this strategy.
Read More
By Colin H. Jewell (San Francisco Office)
Should accident victims recover the full amount of their bills for hospital and medical treatment from those who injure them, or only the amount of the bills actually paid by the victims and their private health care insurers? What if those bills are paid entirely by Medicare or Medi-Cal at a substantially discounted rate? By unanimously voting to grant review of a San Diego appeals court decision, Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions (4th Dist.) (2009), the California Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on these issues and the high stakes battle between personal injury plaintiffs and insurers for those who injure them.
Read More
By Tina Van Dam (Orange Office)
In our last issue, we reported on new stringent Medicare reporting guidelines to be imposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accordance with the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA). These time-consuming and potentially costly requirements are a source of confusion for many. Therefore, it is welcome news that the CMS has delayed the start date for the mandatory report requirements associated with Section 111 of the MMSEA.
Read More
|
