calwages.com

Archive for April 26th, 2013|Daily archive page

Attorney Disqualification Opinion Published: Khani v. Ford Motor Company

In Other Cases of Interest on April 26, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, St. Thom...

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, St. Thomas Assembly Plant – Cars Stored at St. Thomas Municipal Airport, 1978 (Photo credit: Elgin County Archives)

The Second District yesterday ordered published Khani v. Ford Motor Company, et al., No. B239611, __ Cal.App.4th __ (2d Dist. Apr. 25, 2013).   Plaintiff’s attorney in a lemon law case previously worked at a law firm that represented defendant, reportedly provided unspecified “input” to defendant and communicated regularly with defendant about lemon law cases.  The trial court disqualified plaintiff’s counsel.  The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that:

The evidence in this case does not establish that any information to which Shahian was exposed during his representation of Ford would be material to his representation of Khani in this case. While Ford presented evidence that Shahian represented it in California Lemon Law cases, it did not establish that any confidential information about the defense in those cases would be at issue in this case.

You can read more here.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Advertisements

A Pair of Employment Decisions Outside the Wage & Hour Context

In Other Cases of Interest on April 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm
English: War poster : Women are Working Day an...

English: War poster : Women are Working Day and Night to Win the War / Witherby & Co. London. Français : Affiche de guerre : Les femmes travaillent jour et nuit pour gagner la guerre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A pair of interesting, non-wage, employment decisions were issued today: one from the Ninth Circuit and the other from the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District.

  • In California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Board (Moya), No. D061653, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (4th Dist. April 26, 2013).  The court considered whether the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov. Code § 3300, et seq., excepts internal workers’ compensation fraud investigations from the one-year limitations period established in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1).  The court concluded that it does and affirmed the judgment.
  • In Petersen v. Boeing Company, No. 11-18075, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2013), a district court dismissed plaintiff’s case on the basis of a Saudi forum selection clause without holding an evidentiary hearing as to whether plaintiff was induced to assent to the forum selection clause through fraud or overreaching.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the forum selection clause was enforceable.

By CHARLES H. JUNG