On Friday, May 29, 2020, the California Department of Public Health approved Los Angeles County’s variance request to move further into Stage Two of the California Resiliency Roadmap, allowing Los Angeles County restaurants to provide in-person dining service and hair salons and barbershops to reopen.
On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of denim company Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. (“Lucky Brand”) in its decades-long trademark dispute with Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. (“Marcel”), holding that Lucky Brand was not precluded from asserting an unlitigated defense from a prior lawsuit with Marcel. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the Supreme Court rejected the Second Circuit’s application of the so-called “defense preclusion” doctrine and confirmed that any preclusion of a litigant’s defenses must comply with traditional res judicata principles.
On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, along with the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State and respective cities, in San Francisco County Superior Court, against the leading ride-share service providers, Uber and Lyft (“Defendants”), for their continued classification of drivers as independent contractors. The case is entitled People v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.
On Saturday, May 23, Orange County obtained approval from the State for its variance request to move further into Stage Two of the California Resiliency Roadmap, allowing Orange County restaurants to reopen for dine-in service and previously closed destination retailers to welcome customers back for in-store shopping, provided the businesses follow County and State guidelines for reopening, as explained below.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- In Cases Involving Financial Transactions, the Money is in the Provable Facts
- California Secretary of State Implements New Filing Access Requirements for Third Party Filings
- Can a Delaware Forum Selection Clause Strip California Shareholders of Their Inspection Rights Where California is the Company’s Principal Place of Business? A California Court Says No.
- A Plaintiff, a Defendant, and a Judge Walk Into an AI Trap
- Watch Out For Insurance Policy Sublimits That Can Result In Less Coverage For Claims
- A Prevailing Plaintiff On A Financial Elder Abuse Claim Is Entitled To An Award Of All Fees Intertwined With The Prosecution Of Such A Claim Which Includes The Successful Defense Of A Competing Claim For Elder Abuse
- A Derivative Plaintiff Who Defeats an Initial Bond Motion Must Still Pay the Ordinary Costs that Go to the Victor if They Lose at Trial
- Density Bonus Agreement Survives Foreclosure: California Court Rules Affordable Housing Covenant Equivalent to Permit Condition
- Can You Contract Away Your Right to a California Jury Trial? The California Supreme Court Clarifies the Limits of Forum Selection Clauses in Contracts Formed in California
- Federal Judges Find Use of Copyrighted Books to Train AI is Fair Use But Differ in How They Get There
Popular Categories
- (33)
- (8)
- (31)
- (7)
- (5)
- (15)
- (1)
- (3)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (2)
- (4)
- (1)
- (5)
- (1)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Gary A. Barrera
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Christopher M. Francis
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Edward C. Ho
- Micah R. Jacobs
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Jeannie Y. Kang
- Michael H. Kang
- Matthew D. Kramer
- Joseph K. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Kenneth L. Perkins, Jr.
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ryan C. Squire
- McKenna Stephens
- Jon Ustundag
- Brian M. Wheeler