San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in franchise employees (10)

Thursday
Jun292017

Donut Holes in Franchise Relationship; and McDonald's Shakes Damages re OT Policy

Franchise 101 News

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

 

JUNE 2017

 

Franchise Lawyers

Sam Wolf Selected

Congratulations to Samuel C. Wolf, one of two attorneys in Southern California designated a "Rising Star" in Franchise Law, by Super Lawyers Magazine. Sam was nominated by attorney peers and passed the independent research process patented by the magazine.

For details, click: 2017 Up-and-Coming Southern California Attorneys and Rising Stars

Joint Employer Liability – A Recent Wave of Reprieves

"While joint employer liability remains a looming, omnipresent facet of the franchise industry, franchisors have enjoyed a recent wave of reprieves. . ."
- by Matthew J. Soroky

Read: State Bar of California Business Law Section, Franchise Law Committee E-Bulletin

 

FRANCHISOR 101:

Donut Franchise Relationship Dissected by Court

 

The parent of Dunkin' Donuts was named along with Starbucks and about 80 other coffee sellers, distributors and retailers in a 2010 lawsuit alleging violations of California's Proposition 65 and Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Dunkin Brands, Inc. ("DBI") claimed it doesn't itself buy, sell, roast, distribute or even possess coffee in California, and therefore should not have to put warnings on its coffee. But its argument failed on summary judgment, and DBI will go to trial with its co-defendants in August.

Businesses with 10 or more employees are required to place warnings on products containing chemicals that may cause cancer. Plaintiff, the non-profit watchdog group Council for Education and Research on Toxics ("CERT"), wanted defendants to add warnings to coffees that contain the carcinogen acrylamide.

DBI contended it had franchised all coffee operations to subsidiaries, while it just oversaw its corporate organization, and did not control or produce coffee. CERT pointed to the franchisee subsidiaries' reliance on DBI to operate, arguing that DBI "directs its employees to do all of the acts for all of the subsidiary companies." It claimed that DBI's subsidiaries "intentionally have no employees" to avoid the minimum-employee threshold and that actions by employees at DBI's direction expose Californians to acrylamide in Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

The Court agreed with CERT's argument, determined DBI's "franchise" structure to be "smoke and mirrors," found that selling coffee is not required for liability, ruled the law is to be construed broadly to protect public health, and found DBI's control over its subsidiary franchisees necessarily gave DBI control over product warnings. DBI's list of day-to-day aspects of its franchisees that it did not control - which did not include "product labeling" - only raised an inference that control over subsidiaries could be used to prevent them from selling coffee in violation of Prop 65.

Dunkin' Donuts' loss on summary judgment shows how courts and government may subordinate the protections provided by franchise relationships to perceived public health or other public interest concerns.

Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al., BC435759 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Apr. 13, 2010)

FRANCHISEE 101:
McDonald's Shaking Damages for OT Policy

In Los Angeles Superior Court, McDonald's claimed victory when 6,600 workers seeking $41 million in back pay and penalties came away with less than 2% of the amount sought in a claim that the fast-food giant cheated them out of overtime at almost 120 company restaurants. While the workers are sure to appeal the judge's calculation method, the ruling provides franchisors and franchisees a roadmap for minimizing penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Act deputizes workers as private attorneys general to pursue state labor code violations.

Earlier, McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. ("McDonald's") was found liable for shorting overnight workers on overtime pay. McDonald's timekeeping policy assigned all hours in a shift to the day the shift started. Overnight workers whose shift started on Day 1 and who then started another shift sometime on Day 2 often worked over eight hours in a 24-hour period but did not get overtime pay.

Several factors contributed to McDonald's success at the damage phase of trial. The judge was persuaded by McDonald's expert, while finding the workers' expert unreliable for excluding certain time records from his analysis. McDonald's also persuaded the court its violation was not willful; McDonald's believed its policy was a fair and legal way to compute overtime and there had been no complaints prior to the suit. McDonald's successfully avoided draconian fines and PAGA penalties, but it did not escape all liability. The workers were awarded $775,000.

Franchisor and franchisee operators of 24/7 locations in California, of any brand, should use care to comply with wage and hour laws, especially given the uptick in California of PAGA claims against employers. McDonald's has shown that experienced franchise and employment counsel can help treat workers fairly and limit exposure both in and out of the courtroom.

Sanchez et al. v. McDonald's Restaurants of California Inc. et al., BC499888 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 24, 2013)

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 2017. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday
Dec202016

Are Franchisees Your Employees?; and Locked In to One Approved Vendor

Franchise 101 News

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

 

 

December 2016

 

Certified Franchise Executives

Barry Kurtz, Tal Grinblat and David Gurnick completed the experience, education and participation requirements to become Certified Franchise Executives under the auspices of the International Franchise Association (all three are already State Bar of California Certified Specialists). This distinction will be conferred on Barry, Tal and David at a ceremony at the International Franchise Association's annual convention in January, 2017. 

FRANCHISOR 101:
Are Franchisees Your Employees?

Prudent franchisors have been reducing their apparent control over franchisees' employees to reduce the risk of becoming joint employers of those employees. But could a franchisor's control over the franchisees themselves be used to prove that franchisees are the franchisor's employees?

In Matter of Baez, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that franchisees of Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems, a janitorial franchisor, were Jan-Pro's employees. The Board held Jan-Pro liable as an employer to pay unemployment insurance contributions on payments it made to franchisees.

A New York appeals court said the Board may find an employment relationship if "substantial evidence" shows that an alleged employer "exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results," and said that control over the means is the more important factor. The court found there was sufficient evidence that Jan-Pro exercised such control over franchisees.

This was because Jan-Pro:

(i) Assigned geographic territories to franchisees;

(ii) Required franchisees to be trained, which Jan-Pro paid for;

(iii) Required franchisees to operate according to Jan-Pro's procedures and standards, including using only pre-approved equipment and supplies;

(iv) Could claim ownership of concepts or techniques created by franchisees;

(v) Had a contractual non-compete provision against franchisees for 1 year after termination;

(vi) Helped resolve complaints between franchisees and their clients;

(vii) Had the right to discontinue franchisees' services to any of their clients;

(viii) Provided franchisees with a starter set of business cards bearing Jan-Pro's logo, and had to approve any franchisee-designed business cards before use; and

(ix) Had the sole right to bill and collect payments from franchisees' clients.

As a result, the court upheld the Board's ruling against Jan-Pro.

Experienced franchisors will recognize much of the court's assembled "evidence of control" as common features of franchise systems. But franchisors may distinguish themselves from Jan-Pro, and hopefully avoid the same fate, by:

A) avoiding, to the extent possible, inserting themselves between franchisees and their customers as Jan-Pro did in points (vi) through (ix) above; and

B) charging franchisees a distinct "initial training fee," instead of offering training "for free" as Jan-Pro did (point (ii) above).

The latter may be potent counter-evidence against a finding of employment because employees rarely pay their employers for the right to be trained.

See In the Matter of Baez, N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., ¶15,878

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Locked In to One Approved Vendor

Franchisors often require franchisees to purchase supplies, materials, or inventory only from suppliers the franchisor approved. But where franchisors see benefits of consolidating by requiring franchisees to participate in volume purchases and ensuring product quality and consistency, franchisees see potential conflicts of interest.

In Window World of Baton Rouge v. Window World, a vinyl window sales and installation franchise, the franchisees agreed to: "sell and install only and exclusively those products, goods, equipment, and parts from vendors approved by [Window World]." The agreements added that Window World would try to get the lowest possible wholesale pricing for franchisees. Window World did not collect royalties from franchisees. Instead it collected from vendors a percentage of the sales price of items sold to franchisees.

In 2007, Window World announced that Associated Materials (AM) would be the only approved supplier of windows. Franchisees sued under antitrust law, claiming Window World and AM had an illegal conspiracy to "lock them in", forcing them to buy inventory at higher prices than they could get from other suppliers or even than they could get from AM if they weren't franchisees. The alleged price inflation increased AM's profits and Window World's royalty collections.

The North Carolina court concluded the franchisees could pursue their antitrust claim if Window World conspired to manipulate the "market" so that franchisees were forced to pay artificially high prices. But in this case Window World was able to require franchisees to buy windows solely from AM not because of power over the market, but because the license agreements gave the franchisor the right to approve even only one supplier if it wished.

The agreements were clear, so when franchisees signed they had fair warning of the risks of buying a Window World franchise. Franchisees effectively purchased windows in a free market; before signing, they had freedom in the "market" to buy a different franchise in which the franchisor didn't have the right to designate a sole supplier. The court dismissed the claim.

Before buying a franchise, a potential franchisee should be sure to understand the scope of the franchisor's right to designate approved vendors. Ask other franchisees in the system if they get competitive prices from vendors. Check the franchise agreement for terms that may limit this freedom in the future. Make sure to understand how the franchisor gets its revenue. It may be illogical to expect to pay rock bottom prices for supplies if what the vendor charges must be enough to also provide revenue to the franchisor.

But don't automatically reject a franchise just because there is a single source of supply. A franchise brand's concentration and volume purchasing from a chosen supplier may have offsetting benefits that contribute to the success of the system and its franchisees.

See Window World of Baton Rouge v. Window World, N.C. Super. Ct., ¶15,880

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 2016. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday
Aug302016

Franchise 101: Non-Compete Agreements & Projected Earnings

Franchise 101 News

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

 

August 2016

 

Franchise Lawyers

FRANCHISOR 101:
Non-Competes for Franchisees’ Employees

A "non-compete" provision limits the franchisee's ability, after the franchise agreement ends, to continue to work in a similar type of business to the franchise within a certain time period and geographic area. The purpose is to protect the franchise system for a time against a competitor who "knows the system from the inside." Non-compete provisions are often disfavored by courts. What about non-compete agreements for the employees of franchisees?

Until recently, Jimmy John's, a franchisor of sandwich shops, provided its franchisees with sample non-compete agreements for franchisees to use with their own employees, including order takers, sandwich makers, and delivery drivers. The agreements stated that, for two years after leaving employment, a former employee could not work at any business within a 2-mile radius of a Jimmy John's location if that business made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches.

However, last June Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed suit against Jimmy John's to stop this imposition of "unlawful" and "highly restrictive" non-compete agreements on its low-wage workers. Illinois requires that non-compete agreements be "premised on a legitimate business interest and narrowly tailored in terms of time, activity, and place." The complaint alleges the agreements lock these employees into their jobs and prevent them from seeking higher-paying jobs elsewhere, while giving their employers no reason to increase their wages or benefits.

Shortly thereafter, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that his office reached a settlement with Jimmy John's regarding the agreements, stating that "Non-compete agreements for low-wage workers are unconscionable." Under the settlement, the franchisor will stop providing the sample agreements to its New York franchisees and will also inform those franchisees that the Attorney General considers such agreements unlawful and void.

In light of these developments and other negative publicity that non-compete agreements for workers have received, franchisors that provide such agreements for their franchisees' use may want to consider whether or not they are enforceable, and whether such agreements constitute good business practice.

FRANCHISEE 101:
How Far Do Earnings Projections Go?

A franchisor is allowed to make "financial performance representations" in its disclosure documents. These figures may project how much money a franchisee is likely to make and can play a critical part in the franchisor's sales process. But if the numbers are way off, what kind of legal recovery can the franchisee get?

In Legacy Academy, Inc. v. Doles-Smith Enterprises, Inc., a Legacy Academy ("Legacy") franchisee suffered losses during the first 3 years of operating its daycare franchise. The franchisee sued, claiming that Legacy had misrepresented the projected cash flow of its franchises in the Franchise Offering Circular they provided to the franchisee. At trial, the franchise owners showed that they paid $40,000 for the franchise and took out $200,000 in loans to cover start-up expenses before the daycare was operational. They also testified that they lost their life savings in order to keep the daycare operational while it lost money. The jury agreed and awarded the franchisee $390,000 in damages.

However, an appeals court found the franchise owners failed to present evidence of damages necessary to receive an award. The court explained that the owners certainly could not recover the difference between what their business made and what the Offering Circular projected because the figures given were only a projection - not a guarantee.

The owners may have been able to recover their costs to buy and start the business - the $40,000 franchise fee and $200,000 in loans - had they asked to "rescind" the franchise agreement: to be put back into the financial place they were before they signed the agreement. But instead, the owners asked for all of the damages they suffered as "consequences" that flowed as a result of the franchisor's misrepresentation. The court concluded that only the owners' ongoing losses due to operating the franchise qualified as such consequential damages. But testimony the franchise owners gave about those particular damages - the "loss of their life savings" - was so vague that a jury had to speculate what the fair recovery should be. Therefore, the appeals court reversed the jury verdict and found in favor of Legacy.

In light of these developments and other negative publicity that non-compete agreements for workers have received, franchisors that provide such agreements for their franchisees' use may want to consider whether or not they are enforceable, and whether such agreements constitute good business practice.

 

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 2016. All Rights Reserved.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday
Dec162014

Mixed Results in Delivery Driver Cases

Franchise 101

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

December 2014

 

How to Steer 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.

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.

CalCPA Presentation

Tal Grinblat and David Gurnick presented a franchise law seminar to accountants of the California Society of CPAs' Los Angeles chapter. The seminar focused on accountants' roles in helping clients launch or operate franchise systems or operate as franchisees.

We Are Growing

We are pleased to announce the addition of Samuel C. Wolf to our Franchise and Distribution Practice Group. Sam earned his juris doctor at Southwestern Law School, where he was also a Dean's Merit Scholar and the recipient of a CALI "Excellence for the Future" Award (Trial Advocacy).

Mixed Results in Delivery Driver Cases

Recent court decisions in two delivery driver cases yielded mixed results for the plaintiffs and defendants involved, but serve as helpful reminders to franchisors and franchisees of ways to protect themselves in their franchise relationships.


Franchise Employee Liability

FRANCHISOR 101:
Statutes of Limitation Message for Franchisors and Franchisees

 

Franchise 101 Attorneys*Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law, per the State Bar of California Board of Legal SpecializationIn Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Services, Inc., a case pending for 13 years (and not over yet), numerous drivers claimed their package delivery franchisor violated New York's franchise law. From 1996 to 1998 the drivers entered into franchise agreements with U.S. Pack Services (USP), a New York franchisor. Drivers paid a $15,000 "subscription fee," training fees, beeper fees and other charges to receive delivery assignments from USP's central dispatch.

In 2001 the franchisees sued in federal court claiming violations of the New York Franchise Sales Act (NYFSA), for alleged misrepresentations in USP's Franchise Disclosure Document, and state labor laws. The court dismissed the labor claims. At trial a jury found the company liable to the drivers for franchise law violations.

However, an appeals court reversed the jury award. The NYFSA has a statute of limitations requiring any action to be brought "before the expiration of three years after the act or transaction constituting the violation."

The court agreed with the franchisor that the "act or transaction constituting the violation" occurred in 1998 and earlier when the franchises were sold. It ruled the claims were time barred because the lawsuit was not filed until 2001.

The franchisees argued that the statute of limitations started anew since they made payments to the franchisor over time and because their franchisor transferred the business to a new entity and provided them new "Rules and Regulations" that purported to be a new agreement. But the appellate court rejected their arguments that these acts created new franchise relationships.

The court opined that under New York law, "continuous violations do not toll the statute of limitations" and that the new Rules and Regulations expressly provided they did not alter the parties' original agreement. The court noted that the NYFSA requires disclosures and prohibits fraud in making an "offer" and "sale" of franchises, "but does not seek to regulate the ongoing operations of a franchise."

A few drivers bought their franchises after 1998. The appellate court ruled their claims were not barred. The company challenged the damages award to them, claiming the franchisees had profited so they could not have suffered damages. But the appellate court upheld money awards to the franchisees whose claims were timely, ruling that in view of the numerous expenses they incurred over the years, the jury could properly have found that they lost money.

The Appellate Court's decision underscores the importance to franchisees of bringing claims promptly, before statutes of limitations expire - and reminds franchisors of the benefit of these statutes in defending franchise law claims.

Click Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Services, Inc. to read the Court's decision.

 

Franchsise Employer Liability

 

FRANCHISEE 101:
Independent Contractors or Employees?

 

In Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation, another recent delivery driver case that arose in California, Affinity Logistics' drivers claimed they were employees and had been misclassified as independent contractors. The trial court ruled that the drivers were independent contractors since each had its own business name, business license, commercial checking account, federal employer identification number, and could hire its own employees, if it wished.

But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding the drivers were all employees. The appellate court emphasized that Affinity Logistics had the right to control the details of the drivers' work.

Affinity Logistics controlled their rates, schedules and routes; provided the trucks the drivers drove; controlled the mobile phones they used; specified the uniforms the drivers had to wear; and closely monitored the drivers through morning meetings, setting start times, inspecting their appearance and loading of trucks, conducting follow-alongs and customer interviews and requiring drivers to call a company supervisor after every two or three stops.

The appellate court rejected the drivers' indicia of being independent (business names, tax ID numbers, etc.) as determinate factors because Affinity Logistics required the drivers to take these steps. For these reasons, the appellate court ruled the drivers were employees, not independent contractors.

Parties to franchise agreements should be mindful of the level of control the franchisor exercises over its franchisees to avoid jeopardizing the independent contractor relationships.

Click Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation to read the 9th Circuit Court decision.

 

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 2014. All Rights Reserved.

 

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