San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number
Thursday
May282015

Freshii Not Joint Employer; 7-Eleven to Disclose Metadata

Franchise 101 News

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

May 2015

 

Franchise Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

David Gurnick Presents to ABA

David Gurnick, Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law, business litigation attorney and author, was invited by the American Bar Association to co-present a seminar for members attending the 38th Annual Forum on Franchising in New Orleans. The seminar topic is entitled Finders Keepers Losers Weepers: Opportunities, Risks and Considerations in Using Intellectual Property Created by Others. The event takes place in October.

Tal Grinblat published in Business Law News Annual Review

Tal Grinblat co-authored an article highlighting recent case law regarding franchising and legislation passed affecting both franchisors and franchisees in California. The article appeared in the State Bar of California's Business Law News, which publishes an update every spring. Click: Selected Developments in Franchise Law to read the article.

Are You Ready?

Upcoming state and federal laws go into effect soon. Click the links for more information:

 

FRANCHISOR 101: Freshii Not Joint Employer 


Joint Employer Liability

The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") recently published a memo finding that Canadian fast-casual restaurant franchisor Freshii is not a joint employer of its franchisee's employees. The ruling concerns unfair labor claims made by an employee against a Chicago franchisee.

The ruling is important in light of another initiative at the NLRB, claiming McDonald's Corporation is a joint employer of franchisees' employees at many McDonald's locations.

In the Freshii case, a franchise owner fired employees who tried to organize a union. A regional NLRB branch requested advice from NLRB's general counsel whether to treat the franchisor as a joint employer, rendering the franchisor potentially responsible with the franchisee if the firings were found unlawful.

Under Freshii's franchise agreement, system standards do not include personnel policies or procedures. Even if Freshii shared policies with franchisees, each franchisee decided if it wished to use the policies in its own restaurant. The franchisees were solely responsible for setting wages, raises and benefits for employees. Freshii provided its franchisees with a sample employee handbook, but did not require the franchisees to use it. Potential candidates could apply for jobs with franchisees through the franchisor's website, but Freshii did not screen resumes or do anything more than forward them to its franchisees. Franchisees made their own hiring decisions. Freshii only passively monitored sales and costs, and the franchisor and any software it provided were not involved in scheduling workers.

In a key finding, NLRB's General Counsel noted Freshii stayed silent after the franchisee sought advice on how to resolve the union issue. After the union started to organize at the franchisee's restaurant, the franchise owner informed Freshii's development agent, but neither the franchisor nor the development agent advised the franchisee on how to respond.

Under the NLRB's current standard, joint employer status over franchisees' employees may exist if a franchisor "meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction." Freshii was found not to have a meaningful impact over the franchisee's hiring, compensation, scheduling, discipline, or ongoing supervision.

A broader standard proposed in several cases against McDonald's indicates the NLRB may look at "totality of the circumstances," including how the separate entities structure their commercial relationship, to decide if a franchisor influences working conditions of a franchisee's employees to the extent that collective bargaining cannot occur without the franchisor's involvement.

This so-called "industrial realities" test does not distinguish between direct, indirect, or potential control over franchisees' working conditions. Its broader scope would make more companies joint employers. In the Freshii case, the NLRB Memo said that even under the broader standard, there was no "joint employer: "Freshii does not directly or indirectly control or otherwise restrict the employees' core terms and conditions of employment." Therefore "meaningful collective bargaining could occur in Freshii's absence."

The NLRB's Freshii memo is good news for franchisors and provides guidance on steps franchisors can take to reduce the risk of being deemed a "joint employer" whether for matters concerning labor practices, or other vicarious liability matters.

To read the entire NLRB memo, click: Advice Memorandum re Nutritionality, Inc. d/b/a Freshii.

 

FRANCHISEE 101: 7-Eleven Ordered to Disclose Metadata

 

Litigation and Metadata

A federal court has ordered 7-Eleven to disclose its metadata in three franchisees' claims that they were targeted for termination for financial, political and racially discriminatory reasons. Metadata is deep down "data about data" in computer files. It is created when documents are created, collected and processed to be produced in discovery.

The franchisees sought metadata of documents 7-Eleven filed in litigation, including dates of creation, authors, custodians, dates of each modification, author of each modification, and data showing who documents were electronically sent to. The Court found the franchisees showed that many paper documents exchanged in discovery were missing source, date, and other key background. The Court rejected 7-Eleven's claim of hardship or undue expense to produce the metadata.

Read the Opinion and Order: Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (D.N.J. 2015) 2015 WL 1268313.

 

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday
Apr302015

3rd Circuit Affirms Brewer Victory; Forum Selection Clause Trumps MN Franchise Act 

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

April 2015

 

Franchise Times Legal Eagles 2015

Tal Grinblat, Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law and Chair of the Franchise Law Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California, was featured as one of the best attorneys in franchising by the Franchise Times. The full list of honorees was published in the magazine's April edition.

Franchise Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

Barry Kurtz & Bryan H. Clements' Article in Business Law News, a publication of the State Bar of California

"Many states now regulate the relationship between those who brew or import beer and those who receive, warehouse and distribute to retailers by way of special relationship statutes..."

Read: Traditional Franchise and Beer Distribution Relationships: A Legal Comparison

FRANCHISOR 101:
Time for a Tall One? 3rd Circuit Affirms MillerCoors' Victory in Dispute


Brewer Distributor Litigation 

A U.S Court of Appeals ruled in favor of MillerCoors finding the brewer did not violate its distribution agreement with a beer distributor or Pennsylvania's alcohol beverage laws when it (i) assigned distribution rights for its new craft beer brands to the distributor's competitors and (ii) conditioned the award of future brands on the distributor establishing a new entity devoted to MillerCoors products.

The distributor had exclusivity for specified MillerCoors' products in the Pittsburgh area. The Agreement gave MillerCoors the right to add new products to the exclusive distribution list and gave the distributor the right to sell other brewers' beer brands without MillerCoors' consent. The distributor exercised that right by selling Anheuser-Busch products for many years.

In 2012 and 2013, MillerCoors began marketing three new craft and specialty beers, Batch 19, Third Shift, and Redd's Apple Ale, and awarded distribution rights for these new brands to the distributor's competitors, prompting a lawsuit. The distributor claimed it was denied distribution rights to the new brands because it also sold Anheuser-Busch products; and claimed MillerCoors said it would have to create a new entity dedicated exclusively to MillerCoors to be considered for rights to distribute new MillerCoors products. The distributor sought a judgment saying MillerCoors could not make it a condition to getting other MillerCoors products, that the distributor not sell other brewers' products.

The Third Circuit affirmed a trial court decision that rejected the distributor's claim. The Third Circuit ruled that MillerCoors did not violate its contract or state law by having a selection process and exercising its contractual right to choose another distributor for its new brands. Though state beer distribution laws give protection to beer distributors, brewers can retain significant control over their brands through well-drafted contractual provisions.

See: Frank B. Fuhrer Wholesale Co. v. MillerCoors LLC.

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Forum Selection Clause Valid Despite MN Franchise Act

A federal court in New Jersey upheld a franchise agreement's forum selection clause in favor of hotel franchisor Ramada Worldwide Inc. and denied a Minnesota hotel franchisee's motion to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively, transfer the case to Minnesota.

SB Hotel Management Inc. terminated its franchise agreement with Ramada for a hotel in Wisconsin. The franchise agreement had a clause saying any litigation would be in New Jersey. Ramada brought an action against SB in New Jersey federal court for breach of contract.

Ramada complained for outstanding fees and damages due to SB's early termination of the franchise agreement. SB argued that an addendum to the franchise agreement, which said that pursuant to the Minnesota Franchise Act nothing in the agreement could require SB to conduct litigation outside Minnesota, created a valid forum selection clause that required any litigation to be in Minnesota.

The Court rejected SB's interpretation. The Court found the agreement's forum selection provisions prohibited Ramada from requiring SB to waive its right to file suit in its home courts in Minnesota.

However, the court ruled, the Minnesota law and its regulations did not prevent a franchisor, like Ramada, from filing suit outside Minnesota, which is what Ramada did. The court also ruled the franchise agreement's forum selection clause was valid and that SB failed to show its witnesses would be unavailable or that litigation of the case in New Jersey would be so inconvenient as to deny SB its day in court.

The same facts could yield a different result in a different state, applying a different state's franchise laws. The case shows the importance of franchisees understanding forum selection clauses in their franchise agreements before signing or taking actions that might result in litigation.

 

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

Wednesday
Mar252015

Forum Selection & Automatic Termination Clauses

Franchise 101

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

Franchise 101 Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

March 2015

 

Barry Kurtz & Bryan H. Clements' Article in Business Law News, a publication of the State Bar of California

 

"The fact that states generally require brewers to provide distributors with exclusive territories in which no competitors may distribute the brewer's beer demonstrates the degree to which beer distributors enjoy greater territorial protections than do franchisees..."

Click to read: Traditional Franchise and Beer Distribution Relationships: A Legal Comparison

 

Samuel C. Wolf Article in Valley Lawyer, a publication of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association

 

"Franchise lawsuits and most business litigation are usually economic in nature, and application of the economic loss rule will often narrow the scope of the claims and damages available as a remedy..."

Read: Using the Economic Loss Rule to Your Client's Benefit

 

FRANCHISOR 101:
Forum Selection Clause Held Enforceable

 

Sushi Restaurant FranchiseA federal court in Sacramento recently upheld a franchisor's forum selection clause and transferred an action brought by an area representative to the federal district court in the Western District of Texas.

HDYR operated a sushi restaurant in Austin, and sought to franchise the concept under the name How Do You Roll? HDYR entered into an area representative service agreement with the plaintiffs under which the plaintiffs were to solicit franchisees to purchase How Do You Roll? restaurants in Northern California.

The agreement contained a forum selection clause providing for exclusive venue for disputes in the state or federal district courts in Texas.

In the Ninth Circuit, a forum selection clause is generally considered unenforceable only if it was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overwhelming bargaining power; if the selected forum was so inconvenient that forcing the plaintiffs to litigate there would essentially deny them their day in court; or if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy in the forum where the suit was brought.  

The court found that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that would void the forum selection clause. The court was not persuaded by the area representative's argument premised on the California Franchise Relations Act's (CFRA's) strong public policy against enforcing out-of-state forum selection clauses in franchise agreements, because the area representative agreement was not a franchise agreement. The court found that the area representative was retained to recruit franchisees, but was not a franchisee itself and was not the type of party that the CFRA was designed to protect.

The HDYR ruling is encouraging for franchisors since it illustrates the value of including well-conceived and well-drafted forum selection clauses in area representative agreements.

See: Estep v. Yuen Yung.

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Nice Try Mr. Franchisee

In Fantastic Sam's Salons, Corp. v. Moassesfar, a federal court in Los Angeles denied a motion by former franchisees to dismiss Fantastic Sam's claims for breach of contract and trademark infringement based on the contractual limitations period in the parties' franchise agreements.

Hair Salon Franchise

The franchisees were required to pay a weekly franchise fee so long as the franchisee used the franchisor's system or marks, whether authorized or not. The franchise agreement stated the agreements terminated automatically, without notice from the franchisor, if the franchisees' bank failed or refused to honor any authorized bank draft for the payment of any weekly fees for two consecutive weeks.

The franchisees' checks to the franchisor were dishonored, first in January 2011 and again in February 2012. However, the franchisees continued to operate both locations as Fantastic Sam's salons until October 2014, when a stipulation to terminate the franchise agreements was entered into in the franchisor's termination action filed in August 2014.

The Moassesfars argued that the agreement had automatically terminated when two consecutive payments were missed, thus barring the franchisor's claims. The court rejected this theory, noting that the automatic termination clause without notice was contrary to California law and that the requirement of notice and an opportunity to cure prior to termination was intended to protect franchisees against arbitrary terminations.

See: Fantastic Sam's Salon Corp. v. Moassesfar.

 

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

Monday
Feb232015

DBO Automatic Effectiveness Date Extension; and Quasi-Franchise Business Models

Franchise 101

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

February 2015

 

Franchise Times Legal Eagles 2015

Tal Grinblat, Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law and Chair of the Franchise Law Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California, has once again been selected as one of the best attorneys in franchising by the Franchise Times. The full list of honorees will be published in the magazine's April edition.

IFA 2015

Barry Kurtz, David Gurnick and Tal Grinblat attended the International Franchise Association's annual convention, held in Las Vegas. The event provided an opportunity to participate in roundtable discussions and learn about the latest business and operational challenges franchisors and franchisees face in today's ever-evolving market.

E-Filing Gaining Momentum

As of January 1, 2015, the Department of Business Oversight (DBO) is authorized to accept multiple types of electronic filings under several laws it administers. The Commissioner may now prescribe circumstances under which the DBO accepts electronic records or electronic signatures. This progression suggests that California may be inching closer toward a universal electronic filing system.

 

FRANCHISOR 101: California Increases Time for Automatic Effectiveness from 15 to 30 Business Days


Automatic Franchise Effectiveness Date 

A new California law has given the California Department of Business Oversight, the State's regulator of franchises, more time to review franchise registration and renewal applications, with the result that franchisors, their accountants and their attorneys must work harder and faster to update their franchise disclosure documents, prepare their year-end audited financial statements and submit their applications to renew and maintain their franchise registrations.

The law amends the automatic effectiveness statutes in the Corporations Code (Sections 31116 and 31121) to increase, from 15 to 30 business days, the length of time that the Commissioner of Business Oversight has to review franchise applications and franchise renewals under the Franchise Investment Law. The revised statute provides that registration of an offer of franchises automatically becomes effective at 12 o'clock noon, California time, on the 30th business day after the filing of a complete application for registration.

A complete application is defined as one that includes the appropriate filing fee, Uniform Franchise Disclosure Document, and all additional exhibits, including audited financial statements for the franchisor's prior fiscal year, in conformity with regulations of the Commissioner.

Because most franchisors operate under a January to December fiscal year, franchisors and their accountants should keep the timing requirements of the new law in mind since they will have to file their complete applications early in March to take advantage of the automatic effectiveness statute.

 

FRANCHISEE 101: Is It a Franchise?


Accidental and Quasi-Franchises

Franchise 101 Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

For decades, non-franchise businesses have tried using a quasi-franchise business model (i.e., any business format license) to distinguish themselves from franchisors to avoid onerous franchise investment laws. A recent federal decision from California serves as an important reminder that it doesn't pay to skirt franchise registration requirements when a business arrangement meets the threshold requirements of a franchise.

In Chicago Male Medical Clinic v. Ultimate Management, Inc., a federal district court in Los Angeles ruled that a consulting agreement between a Chicago medical clinic and a management company amounted to the sale of a franchise under Illinois law.

The parties stipulated to the following facts: the clinic and the franchisor entered into a consulting agreement, giving the franchisee: 

  1. the right to use the National Male Medical Clinic trademark;

  2. a suggested marketing plan;

  3. access to the franchisor's expertise and knowledge in advertising and marketing certain medical services; and

  4. call center services.

Pursuant to the agreement, the franchisee paid an initial fee of $300,000, over $56,000 in royalties, and call center fees of over $45,000. The franchisee filed suit, alleging fraud for failure to follow disclosure requirements under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act ("IFDA").

Finding that the management company violated the IFDA by failing to register with the Illinois Attorney General's Office and failing to deliver a disclosure document, the court entered judgment in favor of the medical clinic, awarding the return of the initial $300,000 investment, and over $56,000 in royalties paid, plus costs and attorney fees.

Franchise laws are written in broad terms and are designed to protect franchisees. So licensors in business arrangements that fit the criteria of a franchise can wind up paying heavily on the back end if they dodge the franchise registration process.

Click: Chicago Male Medical Clinic, LLC v. Ultimate Management, Inc. et al., DC Cal. for further information.
 
 

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday
Jan222015

Accidental Franchises in Atypical Industries; FDA Labeling

Franchise 101

bkurtz@lewitthackman.com
dgurnick@lewitthackman.com
tgrinblat@lewitthackman.com
gwintner@lewitthackman.com
swolf@lewitthackman.com

January 2015

 

Department of Business Oversight

Tal Grinblat, Chair of the Franchise Law Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California and Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law, organized and met with Department of Business Oversight (DBO) members to discuss new legislation proposed by the Committee. Tal chaired the meeting which was held in the DBO's office in San Francisco.

Southern California Super Lawyers 2015

Barry Kurtz, David Gurnick and Tal Grinblat (all are State Bar Certified Specialists in Franchise & Distribution Law) have been named Southern California Super Lawyers for 2015. The designation is determined by a 12 point peer recognition and professional achievement ratings system, and via independent research. The list is published in Los Angeles Magazine, and can be found online. Click to see our 2015 Southern California Super Lawyers.

Comparing Franchise Relationships and Beer Distribution Relationships

Barry Kurtz and Bryan H. Clements had an article published in Orange County Lawyer, regarding the similar laws governing beer distribution and franchising. Click: Comparing Franchise and Beer Distribution Relationships for more information.

Steering Clear of Franchise Financial Disasters

David Gurnick was quoted by CNBC regarding the necessity of research before investing in a franchise. To read the article, click: How to Steer Clear of Franchise Financial Disasters.

FRANCHISOR 101:
Accidental Franchises in Industries Not Typically Associated With Franchising

Accidental Franchise 

Almost everyone recognizes the nation's most prominent franchises: McDonald's, Domino's, Hilton or 7-Eleven, to name a few. And business people are becoming aware that arrangements that look like franchises, but are characterized by parties as something else, may still be franchises under U.S. laws. Examples include a successful restaurant that brings in investors to own new locations, or a plumbing or lock-and-key service that lets its best employees start their own branches. These deals may be or become accidental franchises.

Franchise 101 Lawyers*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

The Federal Trade Commission's definition of a franchise may be summarized as a business relationship, no matter what it is called, in which: 

  1. One party will grant another the right to operate a business or sell goods or services, identified or associated with originator's trademark;

  2. There will be significant control or assistance from the trademark owner; and

  3. The operator must pay money to the trademark owner.

It is easy to see how these elements could all be present in the relationships described above. When the elements are present, the franchisor must prepare an extensive "Franchise Disclosure Document" and allow a 14-day cooling-off period before entering into any agreement with a franchisee. The franchisor cannot unilaterally change or terminate or not renew franchise agreements. In 13 states, registration is required before an agreement may be entered into. Violations can mean civil and criminal penalties.

Considering the wide scope of the FTC or state law definitions, the elements can be found in relationships in unexpected fields. Who would think the Girl Scouts, an organization chartered by Congress, would be an illegal franchise? But a federal court ruled the elements were present between the Girl Scouts and one of its local councils, based largely on selling Girl Scout cookies and merchandise.

Commercial shopping centers often require tenants to join and pay money to a shopping center association for advertising. These associations promote members using the center's distinctive brand, organize promotional events, regulate when tenants can and cannot conduct special sales, mandate operating hours, and require tenant members to participate in gift-card and loyalty programs. Possibly, the elements of a franchise are present, meaning the shopping center landlord or its tenant association may be a franchisor.

In some industries, such as software development and pharmaceuticals, independent businesses form networks and consortiums to develop products and services. These organizations require members to make payments to fund operations and create, develop or obtain products for members to use, sell, or distribute. Often the organization adopts a distinctive name which members and re-sellers may use, or be required to use. This scenario could contain all the elements of a business franchise, requiring regulatory and other franchise law compliance.

Unexpected franchises occur in other business relationships, too. For example, a snack-foods distributor or route driver who must pay material fees to the manufacturer (e.g., to purchase a vehicle or for advertising, training, manuals or meetings), follow the manufacturer's policies and promote the brand, could be a regulated franchise. In one case, a California court found a foreign winemaker to be a franchisor because the vintner sold ancillary promotional items to its U.S. importer and assisted in customer sales calls.

Franchise laws are written in broad terms. Companies, and organizations, even nonprofits and consortiums, that develop and distribute products and services, whether through their own members or others who are recruited, should assess whether their arrangements may be franchises.

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Complying with the FDA's New Menu Labeling Requirement

On November 25, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released final rules governing menu and vending machine labeling to implement some of the Affordable Care Act's nutrition labeling requirements.

The final rule for menu labeling is entitled the Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments Rule ("Menu Rule"). Its coverage includes restaurant franchise systems.

According to the FDA's website, the Menu Rule "applies to restaurants and similar retail food establishments if they are part of a chain of 20 or more locations, doing business under the same name, offering for sale substantially the same menu items and offering for sale restaurant-type foods." Covered establishments include sit-down restaurants, drive-thrus, take-outs, delis (including grocery store delis), places with self-serve salad/food bars, bakeries, coffee shops, movie theatres, amusement parks, ice cream stores, convenience stores serving ready-to-eat foods and drinks, and certain bars serving alcohol. The FDA claims the Menu Rule will help consumers make informed choices by providing accurate, clear and consistent nutrition information when they eat out. The FDA says that at least two-thirds of adults and one-third of children in the U.S. are overweight or obese and eat one-third of their calories away from home.

The Menu Rule requires posting calorie information for standard menu items on the menu and menu boards, including electronic and online menus, so customers can understand the posted caloric information in context of their total daily diets. The postings must state that detailed, written nutrition information is available to customers on request. A covered establishment must have a reasonable basis for its nutritional declarations, keep records relating to the nutritional data used as a basis for, and methods used to determine, the nutritional information provided to customers, and make the information available to the FDA on request.

Starting December 1, 2015, franchisees, and franchisors operating company-owned locations, need to comply with the Menu Rule. Franchisees should be proactive and communicate with their franchisors and suppliers to obtain accurate nutritional data and determine what new standards their franchisors plan to implement to maintain uniformity and enable franchisees to comply with the Menu Rule's requirements.

Restaurant franchisors are likely starting to test standard menu items and work on new menu and menu board standards to provide to franchisees. But franchisees should not wait to hear from their franchisors since franchisees will be responsible to comply with the Menu Rule in December regardless of any action taken by their franchisors.

 

This communication published by Lewitt Hackman is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation. Copyright Lewitt Hackman 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120