Despite all the invective political banter, surprisingly few know the answer to this question.  Many assume it is because President Trump is unhinged (or being controlled by the Russians).  Others think it is because Governor Brown and the Democratic super majority who control California public policy are out of control.  Surprisingly, though, the current legal battle is just the latest chapter in our Nation’s long struggle to define the boundary between state sovereignty and federal supremacy. 

But what triggered this latest round of a long-standing dispute?

Read More





Our legislature “desires to direct special attention to the needs and problems of elderly persons, recognizing that these persons constitute a significant and identifiable segment of the population and that they are more subject to risks of abuse, neglect, and abandonment.”  (Wel. & Inst. Code § 15600(b).)  Accordingly, an elder or dependent adult may seek a restraining order to prevent another from abusing them pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03.  Subdivision (c) of that provision states:  “An order may be issued under this section, with or without notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of abuse, if a declaration shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse of the petitioning elder or dependent adult.”  (Emphasis added.)  But what proof is required if an elder or dependent adult obtained a restraining order, and wishes to renew the restraining order before it expires?

Read More





In late June of this year, the California legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (AB 375) (“CCPA”) to protect the confidentiality of personal information collected by businesses.  The CCPA is effective on January 1, 2020, giving businesses a little over a year to get ready to comply with the new law.  Given the breadth of the law and the potentially steep statutory damages allowed under the CCPA, companies should begin to prepare now. 

Read More





The California Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation et al. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., et al. which could drastically alter the scope of insurance coverage for claims involving intentional conduct.  The case involved a general liability policy of L&M, a construction company.  L&M was hired by San Bernadino Unified School District on a construction project.  A student at the school sued the company alleging that one of its employees had sexually abused her.  The lawsuit alleged that the company was negligent in hiring and supervising the alleged abuser.

Read More





Read More