Jan Adler - Judicate West

Introduction

Judge Jan Adler draws upon more than 40 years of legal experience to help resolve complex disputes. He served as a Federal Magistrate Judge for over 15 years and as Presiding Magistrate Judge the last two years. During that time, he presided over approximately 2,000 civil matters as a settlement judge, handling all types of civil litigation matters. Prior to his bench appointment, Judge Adler spent 25 years as a trial lawyer litigating complex civil matters, including securities class action, derivative, antitrust, and consumer fraud cases.

By tapping into his extensive litigation and judicial background, Jan Adler brings the requisite knowledge and experience to tackle any legal dispute, deploying a unique repertoire of resolution strategies and tactics to help all parties achieve satisfaction. Since his retirement in 2018, Judge Adler has developed a reputation as a private Mediator who is patient, hard-working, intelligent, and compassionate.

Practice Areas

Hobbies & Interests

In his spare time, Judge Adler enjoys traveling and hiking, listening to music, following NCAA and professional sports, reading, and community service, including serving as a Director of Jewish Family Services of San Diego.

Testimonials

"We really appreciated the collaborative approach."
- Attorney on an Antitrust: Commercial matter

"Judge Adler is thoughtful and thorough – he takes the time to fully study and understand complex and new areas of law and he is well qualified to mediate a wide range of civil cases. He is kind and compassionate and ensures that every litigant has a voice at the table, but never hesitates to deliver difficult messages about the risks and weaknesses in a party’s case. Judge Adler is a superb mediator."
- Attorney who settled multiple cases before Judge Adler

"I really believed there was no realistic chance to resolve our case, but Judge Adler pulled it off. He very diligently studied the briefs and exhibits, demonstrated a keen instinct in identifying the pros and cons of the parties' respective positions, and very delicately handled an emotional client. His approach was perfect for this matter, and had we not chosen to use him personally, this matter would be proceeding to trial."
- Attorney on a Business/Contractual case

"I believe Judge Adler was direct and forthright and was able to obtain a more favorable settlement than I anticipated."
- Attorney on an Employment Wage & Hour case

"Judge Adler was great and handled both sides very well."
- Attorney on an Employment Sexual Harassment case

"Judge Adler is a very effective mediator and has settled both of the cases that I have mediated with him."
- Seasoned San Diego Trial Attorney

"Judge Adler is an outstanding mediator who not only understands the human frailties and often heightened emotions of litigation, but uses his calm and assuring demeanor to facilitate meaningful and productive dialogue in assisting the parties to get to a deal. He is smart, kind, and decisive in his approach."
- San Diego Litigation Attorney

"Judge Adler is a great neutral. He is very patient with the litigants and has a great temperament. He is also whip-smart and understands issues immediately. "
- Attorney on a Business Fraud and Misrepresentation case

Links and Articles

At the Zenith Again

Experience Summary

Legal Career

Neutral, Judicate West (Current)
United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of California (2003-2018); Presiding Magistrate Judge (2017-2018)
Attorney, handling complex civil litigation with an emphasis on securities class action, derivative litigation, antitrust, and consumer fraud cases, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (1982-2003); Partner (1987-2003) Associate (1982-1986)
Attorney, handling civil litigation including personal injury, business, insurance law, and workers’ compensation, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon (1978-1982)

Education & Professional Affiliations

J.D., Duke University School of Law (1978)
A.B., Cornell University (1975)
Federal Magistrate Judges Association, Ninth Circuit Director (2014-2018)
Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges Executive Board, Member (2010-2016); Vice-Chair (2014-2016)
Ninth Circuit Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Member (2008-2014)
Ninth Circuit Pacific Islands Committee, Member (2011-2018)
Ninth Circuit Committee on Magistrate Judge Education, Member (2008-2011)
Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) of San Diego, Member (2000-2007); Secretary (2004-2005); Vice President (2006); President (2007)
William B. Enright Inn of Court, San Diego, CA, Master (2003-Present)
San Diego County Superior Court, Judge Pro Tempore (2000-2003)
San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Member, Board of Directors (1995-2006)

Achievements & Awards

Speaker, “A History of Mediation, Its Development in the United States, Its Use in the Federal Courts, Practical Tips and Tools for Effective Mediation, and the Benefits of Mediation,” presented at the Sorbonne Winter School Conference on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Negotiation Management, Paris, France (November 2018)
Panelist, “The Written and Unwritten Rules of Civility,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Nuts & Bolts Program, San Diego, California (November 2018)
Instructor, Pacific Judicial Council 2018 Advanced Mediation Seminar, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (March 2018)
Panelist, “The Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the Southern District of California,” Thirteenth Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, CA (Sep. 2017)
Moderator, “Effective Settlement Tools and Practices,” Twelfth Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, CA (September 2016)
Panelist, “Significant Issues in Settlement,” Ninth Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, CA (September 2013)
Speaker, First International Seminar on Mediation and Arbitration, Centro Universitario de Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil (May 2013)
Moderator, “Class Action Case Management,” Ninth Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, California (September 2013)
Presenter, American Arbitration Association Mediation Training Program for San Diego Superior Court Mediators, San Diego, California (January 2011)
Panelist, "From the Bench: Effective (and Ineffective) Advocacy in Class Action Litigation,” Consumer Attorneys of San Diego Third Annual Class Action Symposium, San Diego, California (October 2010)
Moderator, “Settlement Panel–Rules of the Road in ENEs,” Fifth Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, California (September 2009)
Panelist, “Judges Panel–What Works and What Doesn’t” and “Settlement Pitfalls and Objectors,” Consumer Attorneys of San Diego Second Annual Class Action Symposium, San Diego, California (October 2009)
Moderator, “Succeeding In Mediation: Tips From The Bench,” Third Annual Judith N. Keep Federal Civil Practice Seminar, San Diego, California (September 2007)
Panelist, “When Things Go Wrong: You Could Have Settled But You Didn’t,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Annual Seminar, Grand Wailea Resort, Maui, Hawaii (October 2006)
Co-Chair of program on “Confidentiality and Settlement Secrecy Issues,” Ninth Circuit Chief District Judges Conference, Sacramento, California (February 2003)
Recipient, Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services (1997, 2000)
Co-Author with United States Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, “The Federalization of Class Action Cases,” published in Report of the ABTL of San Diego (May 2005)
Co-Author with Melvyn I. Weiss and William S. Lerach, “Obtaining Adequate Monetary Relief for Shareholders of Bankrupt Public Companies: The Nearly Impossible Dream,” presented at Practicing Law Institute seminar entitled “Complex Litigation in the Context of the Bankruptcy Laws” (Spring 1984)

Legal Experience

Business/Contractual
Class Actions
Corporate Governance
Employment
Intellectual Property
Personal Injury including Products Liability
Securities

Representative Case Information

Recent Representative Cases

Business/Commercial

Antitrust

Antitrust class action involving alleged price-fixing conspiracy among three major U.S. brands selling packaged seafood. Mediation involved claims of the direct purchaser class against a defendant that was granted conditional leniency by the Department of Justice.
Plaintiff Class, investors in Government Sponsored Entity (“GSE") bonds, alleged defendants engaged in an overarching conspiracy to inflate the prices of GSE bonds in the secondary market once the bonds were “free-to-trade” (“FTT) following the conclusion of the primary distribution phase. The Defendant had earlier self-reported apparent price-fixing discussions among GSE bond dealers relating to the initial secondary market FTT pricing of certain GSE bonds. Defendant was eligible for the civil litigation benefits under the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enforcement and Reform Act, and contended the alleged conspiracy was limited to a discrete number of bonds and the initial FTT price offered for those bonds immediately after the primary distribution phase.

Complex Commercial

RICO case in which Plaintiffs alleged Defendants induced them to enter into a purchase agreement for a solar system, promising to install a fully operational solar system that they would own and offering a no-interest loan to finance the purchase. After Plaintiffs entered into the multi-million purchase agreement, Defendants converted the transaction from a loan to a lease, giving ownership of the system to the Defendant bank while imposing all risks associated with the system upon Plaintiffs, charging Plaintiffs an inflated purchase price for the system while fabricating documents to keep Plaintiffs in the dark, and charging hidden exorbitant interest as a monthly "service charge."
Plaintiff City entered into a lease-to-own transaction for a building in which it planned to house its workforce due to aging infrastructure in the buildings where the workforce was then situated. After entering into the transaction, the City hired contractors to make repairs deemed necessary so the building would be suitable for its workforce. During their work in the building, the contractors dislodged asbestos and ultimately, the City was not able to utilize the building and had to withdraw its employees who had temporarily occupied the building. The City later sued the landlord and lender on the transaction and stopped making payments on the lease, and also sued the contractors who had dislodged the asbestos. The landlord and lender contended the City has created its own problems by failing to conduct proper due diligence before it had its contractors do the work and before it began housing its workforce in the building. The lender and the landlord also relied upon the “as is” clauses in the lease, contending the City had agreed to accept the building in the condition that existed as of the date of the transaction. After the lawsuit was filed, the City discovered that a broker who had offered to assist the City with the lease-to-own transactions for this building and another building in which the City housed a portion of its workforce had been paid millions of dollars by the landlord in both transactions. The City then amended its complaint to state a claim under Government Code section 1090, et seq., contending that the broker had a conflict of interest and had not revealed that they had received millions of dollars to assist in the consummation of the two transactions. The broker contended they had made known to numerous City officials that they expected to receive payment for their services from another party to the transactions and that the City had signed on this.

Consumer Class Action

Plaintiff alleged Defendants violated California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and The Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Plaintiff alleged Defendants, among other things, failed to provide clear and conspicuous disclosure of the automatic renewal offer terms pertaining to magazine subscriptions and other merchandise. Defendants contended they complied with all requirements of the ARL, that they qualified for the "good faith" defense under the ARL, and that there was therefore no viable claim under the CLRA or the UCL.
Virtual mediation involving a Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of California purchasers and lessees of Defendant's vehicles at issue, sued Defendant under the Song-Beverly Act for breach of the warranty covering paint repairs due to non-impact discoloration, fading, cracking, chipping, or flaking. Defendant contended the named Plaintiff's vehicle was involved in a collision and that he accordingly did not qualify under the warranty for paint repairs.
Class action filed on behalf of hundreds of individuals enrolled in two programs that provide people living with HIV and AIDS with access to adequate healthcare. Plaintiff alleged failure to facilitate enrollment in the programs, to adequately secure the private, personal medical information of Plaintiff and the class members.
Class action asserting claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plainitff alleged Defendant real estate company was vicariously liable for autodialed calls made to Plaintff and class members by agents working with one of Defendant's "teams." Defendant contended the agents were independent contractors and that it could not be held vicariously liable for their alleged violations of the TCPA. Defendant also contended Plaintff would be unsuccessful in getting the proposed class certified.
Nationwide consumer class action in which the plaintiffs alleged the defendant violated several states' consumer protection statutes by falsely and misleadingly representing their product. Defendants contended Plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted by federal legislation, including the Dolphin Protection Consumer Protection Act ("DPCIA"), that there is no private cause of action under the DPCIA, that they were in full compliance with the DPCIA, and that the plaintiffs would be unable to obtain a ruling certifying the class due to, inter alia, individual issues overwhelming any common issues.
Consumer class action in which plaintiff alleged that the defendant company and its CEO violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by purchasing more than two million consumer leads that included telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, did not scrub the leads against the National Do Not Call Registry, and called the telephone numbers without consent or a prior business relationship.
Consumer class action in which Plaintiffs alleged Defendants defrauded consumers by falsely representing that all of its packaged tuna products were "100% dolphin-safe." Defendants contended they labeled the tuna they sold as "dolphin-safe" in accordance with the Dolphin Consumer Information Act (the "DPCIA"), that the DCPIA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (the "MMPA") preempted all of Plaintiffs' state law claims, that Plaintiffs could not meet the requirements of FRCP 23 to certify the case as a class action, and that there was no evidence supporting Plaintiffs' claims.
Consumer class action in which Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to give the "clear and conspicuous" disclosures to class members required by the Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"). Plaintiff alleged claims under (1) the False Advertising Law based on violations of the ARL; (2) false advertising based on violations of the Telemarketing Solicitation Law; (3) violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and (4) Unjust Enrichment.
A class of single-family residential customers alleged the defendant water district overcharged them for the cost of water in violation of California Proposition 218 and Article XIII D of the California Constitution, which requires water districts not to set rates that exceed the actual cost of delivering water to the customer. Defendant contended it calculated water rates in accordance with Proposition 218 and the California Constitution since the evidence indicated there was a reasonable relationship between the costs and the rates.
Plaintiff brought consumer class action, alleging Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Defendants contended they were not liable under the safe harbor of the TCPA, as any such calls were made in error and because it had written procedures in place to comply with the TCPA and had trained its personnel to assure compliance. Defendants also contended Plaintiff would be unsuccessful in seeking to certify the proposed class.
Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and California's Fair Packaging and Labeling Act by selling products with significant amounts of non-functional "slack-fill." Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of the proposed class under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Consumer class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), in which Plaintiff alleged Defendant company sent a fax to thousands of customers that violated the TCPA because it was an unsolicited advertisement with a commercial pretext and a nexus to Defendant's business. Plaintiff alleged the fax, although presented as a chance to enter a contest to win a gift card, was designed to elicit and compile medical practices' lab managers' contact information for its marketing efforts.
Plaintiff brought a class action in which he alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by Defendant, which sent unsolicited text messages to former gym members whose telephone numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in an attempt to win them back as customers. Defendant contended the class could not be certified due to individual issues regarding, inter alia, whether members of the class gave their consent to be contacted.
Consumer class action alleging Defendant violated consumer protection statutes by deceptively labeling and marketing its products as titanium drill bits when, in reality, the drill bits were constructed of steel with a thin coating of a titanium alloy. Defendant contended the labeling of the product was not deceptive or misleading, that a reasonable consumer would not read the labeling and believe the drill bits were made of pure titanium and that, in fact, coating the product with titanium nitride improved the functioning and durability of the drill bits.
Class action on behalf of consumers who were enrolled by Defendant in an automatically renewing membership program. Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to provide the required clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding the terms of the program and by failing to obtain the required affirmative consent of Plaintiff and the class members. Plaintiff claimed Defendant thereby violated the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law.
A class action was brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, which sells home loans and refinancing plans to consumers, placed unsolicited telemarketing calls to phone numbers registered on the national DNC list. Defendant contended there was irrefutable evidence Plaintiff had given his written consent to receive phone calls and that it had reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent calls to persons who registered their phone numbers on the DNC list.
Plaintiff alleged Defendants' vaping products used cartridges that contained 20% less distillate by net weight than represented by Defendants online and in the packaging of the products. Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of purchasers of the vaping products, alleged claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, and unfair competition. Defendants contended their products contained the net weight of distillate represented online.

Contractual

Dispute between shareholders of Subchapter S corporation in which Plaintiff sued Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties. Plaintiff sought dissolution of the corporation, sale of its sole asset, and damages. Negotiation centered around, among other issues, how the proceeds from the sale of the building should be split between the shareholders.
Plaintiff was engaged by Defendant to revamp its Enterprise Resource Planning (“ERP”) software systems. Plaintiff claimed Defendant failed to make all payments due under the parties’ time and materials contract. Defendant contended Plaintiff failed to complete the design and development phases of the project on time and within approved budgets, and that after paying Plaintiff substantial sums, Defendant was not close to having the customized and functional ERP system Plaintiff had promised it could deliver.
Plaintiff performed work on behalf of Defendant to design and build a concept for a new home internet countertop device. There was no formal contract between the parties, but Plaintiff contended the parties worked together throughout the project with the understanding that Plaintiff would be paid for its work designing prototypes of the device and that Defendant would ultimately award Plaintiff with a long-term electronic manufacturing services (“EMS”) contract to manufacture the device. After Plaintiff completed its work on four prototypes of the device, Defendant did not award Plaintiff the EMS contract. Plaintiff asserted claims for quantum meruit and conversion, claiming Defendant failed to compensate it fully for the work it performed on the prototypes and wrongfully retained Plaintiff’s intellectual property developed while working on the project. Defendant contended it paid all invoices submitted by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff waived any claim for additional amounts due, and that the conversion claim was meritless.
Plaintiff alleged Defendant breached agreement to supply proprietary components used to develop a medical device. Defendants contended no such agreement ever came into existence and that Plaintiff was not entitled to its alleged lost profits.
Partnership dispute in which Plaintiff limited partner contended Defendant general partner charged costs associated with an adjacent property disproportionately to property owned by the partnership; that Defendant general partner secretly obtained loans to purchase the interest of another partner in violation of the partnership agreement and increased its partnership interest without increasing Plaintiff's interest; that the general partner made improper tax-free distributions to itself; and that the general partner failed to account for parking rental revenue due to the partnership. Defendant general partner contended Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations; that Plaintiff's claims were, with one exception, derivative claims as to which Plaintiff made no demand upon the general partner to take remedial action and that Plaintiff did not plead demand futility with adequate particularity; and that the business judgment rule barred the claim for misallocation of costs from the adjacent property.
Plaintiff, the wife of a deceased partner in a business, who held a 50% interest in a Subchapter S corporation along with Defendant, contended corporation had failed to make required purchase of her husband's interest upon his death. The parties disputed the valuation of the deceased dentist's interest in the corporation.
Lawsuit arising from Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's access to an electronic health records ("EHR") system maintained by Defendant through a direct data "bridge" that permitted caregivers to view real-time patient data. Plaintiff alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and promissory estoppel and sought injunctive relief to restore its access to the EHR via the data bridge. Defendant contended Plaintiff breached the contract by providing its proprietary information to Defendant's biggest competitor with whom Plaintiff had entered into a strategic partnership to use the competitor's EHR platform.
Partnership dissolution case in which parties had been equal partners in a restaurant business. Defendant contended he did not receive any proceeds from operation of business and was entitled to reimbursement for monies he invested in business. Plaintiff contended she was entitled to offsets for amounts expended for rent and other items to keep business afloat and to prevent foreclosure after Defendant caused restaurant to close. Case settled with Plaintiff agreeing to pay agreed upon amount to Defendant in exchange for Defendant relinquishing his partnership interest.
Partnership accounting/dissolution case arising out of contract with Pacific Gas & Electric for drone services project to inspect power lines. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants sued Defendant/Cross-Complainant to stop his alleged interference with and disruption of the project. Defendant/Cross-Complainant contended Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and conspired to deny him his rightful share of the proceeds from the contract.
Pre-litigation mediation involving parties to a distribution agreement. Distributor contended other party to the agreement failed to pay it amounts due for testing and evaluating one of the products encompassed by the agreement. Distributor also claimed it was entitled to a refund of the portion of the deposit it had made that was not used to purchase product under the agreement.
Virtual mediation involving investors who claimed respondent company defaulted on secured loan agreements and believed they were entitled to immediate transfer of personal property assets covered by UCC-1. Respondent contended investors were aware of risks in investing in the company and that the pandemic destroyed its business.
Virtual mediation involving a dispute between parties to Tradename License Agreements concerning obligations owed by Licensor to Licensee. Licensee contended Licensor was in breach of the provision concerning a "Licensee Cooperative" to maximize buying power in procuring products and services used and sold in the businesses of the Licensees utilizing the Tradename, and that Licensor breached provision granting Licensee exclusive right to use the tradename within a designated "Protective Area." Licensor contended that the Licensee was seeking to impose obligations on Licensor, not encompassed within the relevant provisions of the Tradename License Agreements.
Lawsuit involving claims asserted by owners of several partnerships (consisting of real estate and other businesses) against one another. Case resolved, with the transfer of ownership interests and dissolution of partnerships.
Buyer of a business alleged seller made material misrepresentations concerning financial condition of the business in violation of seller's representations and warranties in asset purchase agreement and seller disclosure documents. Buyer alleged the seller inflated Seller Discretionary Earnings ("SDE"), thereby causing the buyer to pay more for the business than it was worth. Seller denied that it had breached any of the representations and warranties in the pertinent documents and that the buyer conducted due diligence and thereafter confirmed its satisfaction with its inspection of the company's books and records. Seller also contended that buyer was seeking to mitigate business losses incurred after the sale that were its own fault.
Parties entered into two written contracts pursuant to which one party was to provide event planning, management, and production services for two large in-person conferences during 2020. When the COVID-19 pandemic happened and state and local shutdown orders were promulgated, the hosting party canceled both conferences, relying on the force majeure clause in the contracts, and sought a pro-rata refund of any unearned management fees. The event planning company contended the force majeure clause was inapplicable, as the conferences could have been held virtually and it had submitted a proposal to manage virtual conferences; in addition, the conferences were, in fact, held virtually. The hosting party contended it had contracted with the event planner for in-person conferences which were made impossible by the pandemic, and noted that it had handled the production and management of the virtual conferences in-house.
Contractual dispute arising out of lease agreement for repair, rebuilding, and operation of freight service over a railroad line. Lessor contended lessee breached the lease by failing to make the required lease payment. Lessee contended any alleged default was excused by, among other things, the force majeure provision in the lease agreement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pre-litigation dispute concerning termination of a dentist from his contracts with a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center ("FQHC") that primarily serves beneficiaries of the Medicaid program. The dentist contended he was wrongfully terminated for cause and that he was owed payments for work he performed prior to the termination as well as net profits he would have made during the notice period for a termination without cause. The FQHC contended the dentist was properly terminated for cause due to, inter alia, excessive patient visits and services provided, lack of documentation and improper recordkeeping, and lack of medical necessity in services provided.
Plaintiff alleged Defendants negligently performed their financial advisory and consulting responsibilities by failing to discover that Plaintiff's CFO had implemented a number of fraudulent schemes to defraud the company and embezzle its funds. Defendants contended they were not hired to provide audit services and had no duty to uncover the wrongdoing committed by the CFO. Defendants also contended it was not reasonably foreseeable that the CFO--who was their main source of financial information about the company--was engaging in wrongful conduct.
Commercial dispute involving several years of cash discounts taken by Defendant, distributor of Plaintiff's products, pursuant to contract between the parties. Plaintiff contended the discounts were improperly taken because Defendant did not, as required by the contract, pay for the product it ordered within 15 days of receipt of invoices or the product, whichever was later. Defendant contended it complied with the contract by making payment within the specified 15 day period.
Plaintiff (LLC) alleged that the Defendants (members of the company) breached their fiduciary duties by wiithdrawing money from company accounts for personal use. Defendants filed a cross-complaint in which they alleged that the majority members of the company had failed to pay them distributions of net profits, failed to repay a loan made by the Defendants to the company, and intended to start a competing company in violation of their fiduciary duties.
This case involved a dispute arising out of Plaintiff's sale to Defendants of an online college. Plaintiff contended that under the pertinent provisions of the Securities Purchase Agreement, the Defendant purchasers were obligated to cooperate with the Plaintiff to obtain any refunds of taxes for pre-closing periods for the benefit of Plaintiff and were not to waive any carryback of any net operating loss that would give rise to such a refund. Plaintiff alleged Defendants breached this obligation.
Plaintiff, which operates family entertainment centers throughout the country, alleged that Defendant's point of sale (POS) technology did not function properly and that as a result, over a dozen of its franchisees did not receive payment for entertainment, food, and other services provided to guests at those franchisees' locations. Plaintiff alleged the errors caused by Defendant's POS system malfunctioning breached the Masters Services Agreement (MSA) between the parties.
Plaintiff purchased a horse from Defendant. Plaintiff alleged Defendant concealed the fact that shortly after Defendant had purchased the horse, it bucked off her professional rider and that Defendant had complained to the original seller of the horse about its behavior. After Plaintiff purchased the horse, it bucked off Plaintiff's professional rider and trainer, causing serious injury to her. Plaintiff alleged claims for fraud, concealment, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The defendants acquired the traditional advertising business of the plaintiff pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA"). In addition to the purchase price, the APA specified that the plaintiff was entitled to receive an Earnout Payment tied to the gross profit generated by the traditional business. The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached the APA by failing to pay the Earnout Payment. Defendants contended that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to disclose that the largest customer of the business intended to terminate its relationship after the closing of the transaction.
The plaintiffs' grandfather sold stock in the family business and gifted the proceeds to the plaintiffs, which were deposited into investment accounts. Plaintiffs alleged their parents (named as Defendants in the action) falsely represented the guidelines of the accounts, and alleged that they embezzled, stole, and converted funds from both accounts for their own benefit and asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

Corporate Governance

Plaintiffs invested in the nominal defendant company in promissory notes, which were to be paid back upon the company attaining business targets. Plaintiffs brought a derivative action, alleging that the prime defendant, wife of one of the founders of the company who has since passed away, aided and abetted her husband's breaches of fiduciary duty through the defalcation and embezzlement of the company's assets. The prime defendant contended Plaintiffs failed to establish elements for aiding and abetting liability, that she did not have actual knowledge of her husband's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and that her conduct was not a factor.

Fraud/Misrepresentation

Plaintiff sued his former attorney for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud emanating from attorney's failure to promptly pay client funds entrusted to him and misrepresentations about status of the funds in violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(B)(1)-(4).
Plaintiffs, parents of three children who attended the Defendant school, asserted claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, as well as for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts about the school, and that they would not have enrolled their children in the school if they had known of these misrepresentations and omissions. Plaintiffs sought the return of monies they had paid for tuition and related fees, incidental damages and attorneys' fees. Defendant denied making any misrepresentations and omissions and contended most of Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and, in any event, that Plaintiffs had not suffered any damages.
Parties entered into contract pursuant to which Plaintiff sold bottled water to Defendant. Under the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act ("the Act"), a "distributor" (defined in the Act as any person who engages in the sale or transfer of beverages in beverage containers to a dealer, including any manufacturer who engages in these sales or transfers) is required to pay the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ("CalRecycle") the applicable California Redemption Value ("CRV") fees for every beverage container sold, less 1.5% for the distributor’s administrative costs. Plaintiff brought suit to require Defendant to pay the CRV fees, contending Defendant was a distributor under the Act. Defendant contended it was not a distributor, but rather a dealer since it offered the bottled water for sale to consumers, and that Plaintiff was required to pay the CRV fees to CalRecycle as the distributor under the Act.
Plaintiffs, a company and its CEO, alleged Defendants defrauded them into believing Defendants would invest a substantial amount into Plaintiff company. Plaintiff CEO further alleged that he was defrauded by Defendants in connection with a diamond transaction, pursuant to which Plaintiff CEO made a substantial deposit.
Plaintiff, co-founder of Defendant company, alleged company and its CEO and Senior Vice-President engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the true nature of a stock repurchase agreement Plaintiff signed, his role at the company, and the corporate reporting structure, with the intention of undermining his authority and ultimately ousting him from the company. Plaintiff also alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and securities fraud.

Securities

Securities fraud/elder abuse case in which elderly Plaintiff alleged she was advised to invest in two note offerings. The money she invested was, in turn, invested in what turned out to be a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.

Employment

Breach of Contract

Virtual mediation of Plaintiff's employment agreement provided for an annual salary plus an incentive compensation bonus under a Stock Appreciation Rights ("SAR") plan. The bonus was to be calculated based on the company's equity value as of the date of exercise of Plaintiff's vested SARs. The defendant company's Board of Directors determined Plaintiff's vested SARs were valueless under the formula specified in the SAR plan, as the company was underwater as of the exercise date. Plaintiff contended the Defendant's major asset had a fair market value far in excess of the amount calculated by the Board and that its valuation improperly treated capital contributions by the company's parent entities as liabilities. Defendants contended they acted in good faith in determining the value of the SARs in view of a contemporaneous offer to purchase the company's major asset and the financial condition of the company.
Former Chief Operating Officer of Defendant real estate management and investment company sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff contended he was not terminated for cause and was therefore entitled to a severance payment and special compensation provided for in his employment agreement.

Disability

Plaintiff, who was employed by Defendant healthcare company, brought claims against the company and two individual defendants for, inter alia, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant contended Plaintiff had multiple performance issues, that it properly engaged in the interactive process and provided reasonable accomodations in light of Plaintiff's disablity, that it did not engage in any retaliatory conduct against her, and that it terminated her employment for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.

Disability Discrimination

Plaintiff alleged employer (Defendant) terminated her employment and retaliated against her because of her disability, failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process, and failed to accommodate Plaintiff's disability. P also alleged D violated various provisions of the Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide itemized and accurate wage statements, and that D was liable for waiting time penalties. D contended it properly engaged in the interactive process, did not discriminate or retaliate against P based on her disability, complied with all applicable wage and hour laws, and that P resigned voluntarily.

Discrimination

Plaintiff alleged claims for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate a disability, wrongful termination, retaliation, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant contended it accommodated Plaintiff's disability and terminated his employment for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, i.e., job abandonment.
Pro se plaintiff alleged claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation. Defendant contended the university provided reasonable accommodations, that Plaintiff rebuffed efforts to engage in the interactive process, and that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.
Plaintiff alleged claims for disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA"); discrimination for taking leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act; age discrimination in violation of FEHA; and retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff, a current employee of Defendant on a medical leave of absence, alleged several claims, including failure to accommodate by not reassigning him to an alternate position and failure to engage in the interactive process. Defendant contended its HR personnel interacted regularly with Plaintiff throughout his leave.
Virtual mediation where a plaintiff alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment and that he was demoted and ultimately forced into retirement based on a pattern of discrimination against him based on his age. Defendant contended they did not terminate Plaintiff's employment and that he had voluntarily resigned, he was not performing his job satisfactorily at the time he was allegedly subjected to any adverse employment action, and that Plaintiff could not prove any discriminatory animus based on his age.
Former bank employee claimed he was subjected to harassment, retaliation and discrimination after reporting illegal business practices and that he was demoted to an inferior job position immediately after returning from a leave of absence, resulting in his wrongful termination when he refused to accept the inferior job position. Defendants contended Plaintiff never brought any illegal business practices to their attention, that he had multilple performance issues his supervisor worked with him to rectify, that the bank wanted him to stay on as an employee when he returned from his leave of absence, and that he abandoned his job despite being offered the same salary and potential bonuses in the new position.
Plaintiff employee sued defendant municipality for race and age discrimination, contending she was passed over for two promotions in favor of younger non-African American employees and that she did not receive pay raises other non-African American employes received. Plaintiff also claimed she was retaliated against after complaining about the discriminatory actions to which she was subjected. Defendant municipality contended it had legitiamte non-discriminatory reasons for its actions vis-a-vis Plainitff and that certain of her claims were time-barred.

ERISA

ERISA claim brought by Plaintiff Trust Fund for collection of fringe benefit contributions from Defendant employer which was signatory to collective bargaining agreement. Trust Fund contended employer was liable for subcontractor's delinquent fringe benefit payments based on agency principles. Defendant contended language of collective bargaining agreement barred collection of delinquent contributions from employer because union failed to provide written notice to employer that subcontractor had failed to make fringe benefit contributions.

Labor Code

Pre-litigation dispute settled in which Plaintiffs claimed they had been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees as required by governing California case law. Plaintiffs claimed violations of numerous Labor Code provisions and Wage Orders, including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse, unlawful wage deductions and failure to pay wages when due. Plaintiffs also claimed breach of Consulting Agreements they entered into with Defendant company.

PAGA

Plaintiff contended she was misclassified under the Dynamex ABC test and was entitled to all of her rights as an employee under the Labor Code. She alleged she was entitled to waiting time penalties, as well as penalties for inaccurate wage statements and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff also contended she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Defendant contended that the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were properly classified as independent contractors and that Plaintiff’s job was terminated because the short-term work she was hired to do was completed.
Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to pay overtime wages at the correct regular hourly rate due to failure to include sign-on bonuses. Plaintiff also alleged derivative claims under the Labor Code for inaccurate wage statements and failure to pay all overtime wages due upon separation from employment.
Plaintiffs were allowed access to Defendant’s premises to collect discarded betting tickets. Plaintiffs also sifted through trash bags to separate out recyclable materials, and contended they were recognized by Defendant as the “Recycle Crew” and were issued shirts and badges indicating they were employees of Defendant. Plaintiffs maintained they were accordingly entitled under the Dynamex ABC test to be classified as employees and to receive the benefits of employment. Defendant contended there was no contract between it and Plaintiffs and that it did not control and direct Plaintiffs in their work, that Plaintiffs were engaged in an independent business, and that they were working for their own interests. Plaintiffs also alleged they were wrongfully discharged and retaliated against for filing the lawsuit. Plaintiffs asserted individual claims as well as a PAGA claim on behalf of the other members of the “Recycle Crew.”
PAGA case in which Plaintiff asserted claims for, inter alia, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay minimum, regular, overtime, and double time wages, failure to properly pay or accrue paid time off ("PTO"), failure to make payments within the required time, failure to maintain accurate wage records, failure to properly provide weekend differentials, and requiring employees to agree, in writing, to authorize Defendant to obtain a Consumer Report.
Plaintiff employee sued defendant company alleging individual claims for Labor Code violations and PAGA claims on behalf of aggrieved employees. Plaintiff claimed wage statements issued by Defendant were deficient in failing to properly list company name and address; that the company failed to provide necessary tools for employees and failed to reimburse them for the cost of providing their own tools; and that company failed to pay employees double minimum wage. Defendant contended that the alleged wage statement violations were hyper-technical and therefore not likely to lead to significant penalties under PAGA.
Plaintiffs, commissioned employees of Defendant auto dealerships, alleged Defendants’ commission pay plan was unlawful under Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, 9 Cal.App.5th 98 (2017), because it failed to separately compensate sales associates for rest periods. Plaintiffs also alleged Defendants failed to compensate them for “non-productive” time.
Global settlement of two PAGA cases achieved in which claims were asserted for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages when due.
Virtual mediation regarding alleged PAGA and class action claims on behalf of 72 non-exempt piece-rate truck drivers. Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to: pay all wages owed, provide all lawful meal and rest periods, timely pay all wages owed upon separation, issue accurate and itemized wage statements, reimburse for all necessary business expenses incurred, and comply with California's Unfair Competition Laws. Defendant contended Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims were preempted pursuant to an order of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, that it provided all required meal and rest breaks in any event, that it paid for nonproductive time, and that virtually all of Plaintiffs' claims for reimbursement of business expenses was barred by the statute of limitations.
Virtual mediation involving Plaintiffs, who are delivery drivers for Defendant, alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors and asserted individual and PAGA claims for violation of the California Labor Code for failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay for all hours worked, unlawful deductions, inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay required overtime, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay wages due upon termination. Defendant contended Plaintiffs were properly classified as independent contractors and that it was accordingly not liable for any of the asserted Labor Code violations.
PAGA action in which Plaintiff alleged, on behalf of aggrieved employees of Defendant's restaurants, failure to provide compliant rest and meal breaks; failure to pay all wages due, including time working through breaks; wage statement penalties; waiting time penalties; and failure to reimburse work-related expenses. Defendants contended that all required meal and rest breaks were provided, all wages due were paid, that employees were reimbursed for business-related expenses when they returned their work uniforms, and that no wage statement or waiting time penalties were applicable.
A case involving individual claims for violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code which were subject to arbitration and PAGA claim. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks, pay wages due to off-the-clock work, reimburse employees for all business-related expenses, issue accurate itemized wage statements, and pay all wages due at separation.
The plaintiff, a truck driver sued the defendant and alleged that he was misclassified as an independent contractor. The plaintiff brought individual and PAGA claims for unreimbursed business expenses, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to pay all wages due upon separation.
PAGA action in which Plaintiff alleged Defendant nursing home operator failed to pay minimum wage and overtime, committed meal break and rest period violations, failed to pay for all time worked, failed to timely pay wages, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to reimburse for necessary business expenses.
PAGA case in which Plaintiffs alleged Defendant employer caused aggrieved employees to go through security checks prior to clocking in for their shifts and after clocking out for their shifts. As a result, Plaintiffs alleged the employees were not paid all minimum and overtime wages owed and were not permitted or authorized to take duty-free meal and rest periods, as they could not leave the facility without going through the security screenings. Plaintiffs also alleged derivative claims for waiting time penalties and wage statement violations.
Plaintiff, a former employee of a car dealership, asserted individual and PAGA claims for violations of the Labor Code, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide required and uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; and waiting time penalties.
Plaintiff alleged PAGA claims for failure to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees duty-free rest breaks due to its policy of not allowing the employees to leave the premises during rest breaks; underpayment of overtime wages due to calculating overtime compensation on employees' base rate instead of regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary bonuses); underpayment of wages due to unlawful rounding; failure to provide compliant meal periods; and claims for inaccurate wage statements and waiting time penalties.
A former employee of accounting firm asserted individual and PAGA claims for Labor Code violations, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages when due, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses incurred by Plaintiff, and failure to pay wages due at termination. Plaintiff also asserted a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Retaliation

Plaintiff alleged he was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated by the defendant company after he complained about being treated in a racially discriminatory manner by a superior at the company. Defendant contended that the plaintiff was terminated for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, i.e., his failure to comply with the company's safety policy, that there was no evidence of any racially motivated conduct directed against the plaintiff, and that there was no retaliation.

Sexual Harassment

Plaintiff alleged sexual harassment by individual defendant, who represented himself to be corporate defendant's General Manager at a company holiday party and at his home thereafter. Defendants denied sexual harassment took place and contended company was not liabile since any alleged harassment that took place at individual defendant's home did not occur in a work-related context.
Plaintiff alleged claims for sexual harassment, assault, hostile work environment, and retaliatory termination. Defendant contended no sexual harassment or assault ever took place and that Plaintiff was terminated from employment after the probationary period based on legitimate business reasons.
Virtual mediation involving a Plaintiff who alleged her supervisor at the defendant company engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment, that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, unlawful retaliation, was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, and that the company failed to prevent the sexual harassment from taking place. Defendant contended the relationship between Plaintiff and her supervisor was mutual and consensual and that Plaintiff could not establish the elements of any of her claims.
Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment when Defendant company's CEO (her supervisor) texting her a revealing photo. She contended this altered her working conditions, causing her to be constructively terminated. Plaintiff alleged damages for wage loss and emotional distress. Defendants contended this was an isolated, unintentional incident, the CEO immediately took responsibility for it, it did not rise to the level of sexual harassment under FEHA, and that the company had immediately taken steps to address the incident.
Plaintiff alleged she was sexually harassed by a co-worker at the defendant company, and asserted claims for sexual and gender discrimination; sexual harassment/hostile work environment; retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendants contended Plaintiff never complained of any sexual harassment while she was working at the company and that even if she could establish liability, she had minimal damages.
A pre-litigation dispute in which former company employee alleged company CEO sexually harassed her, both verbally and physically, and that the CEO terminated her employment within days after she told him she would not tolerate this conduct. Defendant contended the evidence did not support a claim of sexual harassment or retaliation and that the former employee was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons due to multiple performance issues.

Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

Plaintiff, an Assistant Store Manager, alleged she was sexually harassed by her District Manager and that after she complained about the harassment to the store's General Manager, the General Manager retaliated against her by giving her negative performance reviews, and Defendant ultimately pretextually terminated her employment for an alleged violation of Company policies. Defendant contended there was no evidence of any sexual harassment, that Plaintiff's performance fell below its standards, that Plaintiff had many conflicts with other employees, and that nondiscriminatory business reasons resulted in ultimate termination.
Plaintiff, an Assistant Store Manager, alleged she was sexually harassed by her District Manager and that after she complained about the harassment to the store's General Manager, the General Manager retaliated against her by giving her negative performance reviews, and Defendant ultimately pretextually terminated her employment for an alleged violation of Company policies. Defendant contended there was no evidence of any sexual harassment, that Plaintiff's performance fell below its standards, that Plaintiff was divisive and had many conflicts with other employees, and that all of its actions were motivated by nondiscriminatory business reasons, as was her ultimate termination.
Plaintiff alleged her supervisor subjected her to repeated sexual harassment by mispronouncing and "sexualizing" her name by comparing her to a porn star with the mispronounced name. Plaintiff alleged she was wrongfully terminated from employment and retaliated against when she finally stood her ground and told the supervisor to stop sexualizing her name. Defendants denied that any sexual harassment took place and contended Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons due to an unprofessional and profane tirade she directed against the supervisor in front of customers.
Plaintiff, a female employee of the defendant company, sued the company and two supervisors for sexual harassment; retaliation after she reported sexual harassment and requested an increase in pay; sex discrimination; violation of the Equal Pay Act; failure to prevent harassment, retaliation and discrimination; and negligent supervision and retention. Defendants contended there was no credible evidence of sexual harassment; that there was no retaliation since Plaintiff was not singled out and the entire workforce was laid off during the pandemic; that the objective pay data for the company's employees demonstrated Plaintiff was not paid less than male employees who performed comparable work.

Wage and Hour

Plaintiff sued company and its president for wrongful termination and various wage and hour claims. Plaintiff also sued former clients to whom she provided home health care services on theory they were joint employers. Former clients asserted cross-claims for indemnity and contribution against defendant company.
Employment wage and hour case in which Plaintiff alleged misclassification as an independent contractor, failure to pay for waiting time when loading and unloading products, failure to provide work-free meal periods, failure to provide accurate pay stubs, failure to indemnify for business expenditures, and waiting time penalties.
Plaintiff alleged claims for unpaid overtime, failure to provide required rest breaks, failure to reimburse for use of personal tools on the job, waiting time penalties, and wrongful termination/retaliation/discrimination for taking sick leave. Defendant contended Plaintiff voluntarily left his job. Defendant also contended it provided all required rest breaks, that Plaintiff chose to use his own tools on the job despite Defedant providing all necessary tools, and that Plaintiff chose to come in earlier than the specified starting time despite being told not to do so.
Plaintiff sued Defendants for illegal discrimination in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of public policy, pregnancy discrimination in violation of the California Constitution, unsafe working conditions, and wage and hour violations, including meal and rest period violations, failure to pay overtime, unlawful failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay minimum wage. Defendants contended they complied with all applicable wage and hour requirements and terminated Plaintiff's employment for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
Plaintiff, who performed sales and marketing services for the defendants, alleged she was misclassified as an independent contractor and that defendants breached an oral contract regarding the payment of commissions on projects she referred to them, and which were awarded to them.
Plaintiff alleged Defendants failed to pay him overtime and failed to provide him with the required meal and rest breaks. Defendants contended Plaintiff's job duties met the requirements under California law of an exempt position and that he was therefore not owed anything for his alleged overtime and meal and rest break claims. Defendants also contended that even if Plaintiff was not exempt from the requirements of the Labor Code, they paid him for the overtime hours he worked and provided meal and rest breaks.

Wage and Hour Class Action

Plaintiff asserted claims for misclassification of employees as independent contractors, unlawful deductions and unreimbursed expenses, unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and violations of the Business and Professions Code and PAGA. Plaintiff also sought his attorneys' fees under relevant Labor Code provisions.
Plaintiffs, who worked at Defendants' stores selling cell phones, accessories and mobile phone plans, alleged violations on behalf of a class of all employees of the stores of numerous provisions of the Labor Code, includng failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, failure to pay mimimum wages (split shift premiums and reporting time violations), failure to pay double time, unlawful deductions, waiting time penalties and failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements. Defendants contended they provided meal periods and rest breaks and did not commit any of the other alleged violations of the Labor Code, and cross-complained that the Plaintiffs engaged in fraudulent conduct that damaged Defendants' businesses, thereby disabling them from serving as class representatives.
Virtual mediation of an employment wage and hour class/PAGA action in which Plaintiff alleged Defendant, a temporary healthcare staffing company, improperly failed to include per diem reimbursement allowances in the regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Defendant contended the FLSA expressly permits the exclusion from the regular rate of pay for reimbursements that reasonably approximate the expenses incurred on the employer's behalf, that meal periods and rest breaks were provided, and that there was no derivative liability for inaccurate wage statements.
Class and collective action brought on behalf of travel nurses employed by Defendant healthcare staffing company. The nurses asserted claims for unpaid overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as derivative claims for unlawful business practices and waiting time penalties. The nurses claimed Defendant improperly failed to include per diem stipends in the "regular rate" for purposes of calculating overtime. Defendant contended it properly excluded the per diem stipends from the regular rate of pay under governing case law. Defendant also contended the vast majority of the class members signed arbitration agreements with a waiver of the right to institute class and collective actions, and that it was entiteld to a credit or offset for overpayments of overtime and doubletime beyond the statutory requirement.
Plaintiff drivers filed a class action against Defendant intermodal carrier for reimbursement of business expenses, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wage, waiting time penalties, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Defendant contended each of Plaintiffs' claims failed because Plaintiffs were independent contractors, the claims failed on the merits, and individual questions predominated over any common questions, thereby making it impossible to certify the proposed class and subclass.
Plaintiff sued a healthcare staffing company on behalf of a class of travel nurses employed by the company, alleging the company improperly excluded the value of per diem payments from the employees' overtime rates, and failed to include the per diem payments in the traveling nurses' regular rate for purposes of calculating meal and rest break premiums.
Plaintiff alleged he was improperly classified as an independent contractor and denied wages due, including overtime and double-time, and meal and rest breaks. He alleged that the defendant company retaliated against him for complaining that he had not received all wages due and that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.

Whistleblower Wrongful Term

A former employee of a commercial real estate services firm was hired as a property manager of a building leased by a city and brought to light concerns about asbestos contamination in the building. The former employee contended he was wrongfully terminated and illegally retaliated against for being a whistleblower. The commercial real estate services firm contended the decision to end the former employee's access to the building and employment on the project was made by the city and that it had taken no adverse employment action against him.
The plaintiffs, employees of three affiliated healthcare entities, contended that the defendants retaliated against them after they engaged in protected activity by reporting suspicious monetary transactions among the entities. The plaintiffs alleged that they were forced to resign from their positions and that the defendants failed to pay them severance and bonuses that were due. The defendants contended they had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for insisting upon the resignations of Plaintiffs due to their mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty
Plaintiff alleged Defendant biotechnology company violated Labor Code section 970 by persuading him to move to accept work by means of knowingly false statements about the kind, character, or existence of the work and the length of time for such work. Plaintiff also alleged Defendant violated Labor Code section 1102.5 by retaliating against him after he called to the attention of company executives the failure to meet FDA regulations and guidelines in its trials for COVID-19 vaccines.

Wrongful Term & Discrimination

Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to pay all commissions due in accordance with the formula specified in its Incentive Compensation Plan and changed method of calculating commissions after Plaintiff had closed several deals without promulgating a new compensation plan in violation of Labor Code section 2751. Defendant contended the contract for the key deal at issue was never consummated, that it did not retaliate against Plaintiff for raising the issue of alleged withheld wages, and that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff's employment.
Plaintiff sued defendant for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") retaliation based on use of medical leave under the California Family Rights Act, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation under FEHA, retaliation under the Labor Code, negligent supervision, and wrongful termination.
Plaintiff, an Assistant General Manager at one of Defendant's restaurants, was terminated for job abandonment. Plaintiff sued Defendant for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliation and wrongful termination.
Plaintiff asserted claims for gender and age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and wrongful termination. Defendant contended Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age or gender discrimination, that the conduct complained of was not severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment, that there was no causal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action to support the retaliation claim, and that Plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and there was no constructive discharge to support the wrongful termination claim.
Plaintiff, former Director of Admissions for Defendant, claimed Defendant’s President discriminated against him due to his ethnic and religious background and retaliated against him when he raised concerns about Defendant’s admission practices, ultimately wrongfully terminating him from his employment. Defendant contended Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
Plaintiff alleged claims for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate a disability, wrongful termination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant contended Plaintff could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation, that his requested accommodation of a permanent six-hour workday was not reasonable, that there was no failure to engage in the interactive process since Plainitff was unable to show a reasonable accommodation was possible, that there was no evidence of retaliation against Plainitff, that he was not wrongfully terminated, and that he did not meet the strict standard for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Wrongful Termination

Pre-litigation dispute involving claims of hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent, and wrongful termination. Defendant contended it was not liable for alleged harassment by non-supervisory employee where it took prompt action to investigate the claims upon learning of the alleged harassment and implemented effective remedial action. Defendant also contended there was no retaliation for Plaintiff complaining of sexual harassment and that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate her employment.
Case involving alleged wrongful termination of two long-time independent distributorships by Defendant company. Company claimed terminations were proper under distributor agreements with each plaintiff due to acts of dishonesty by plaintiffs toward customers and denied alleged scheme by management to re-acquire distribution routes in order to resell them at significant profit.
Plaintiff claimed he was subjected to retaliation by Defendant's managers and colleagues after reporting another employee's sexual harassment to Defendant's HR Department. Plaintiff claimed he was subjected to national origin discrimination and written up falsely for alleged tardiness. Defendant contended Plaintiff violated its attendance policy by being late for work on numerous occasions and that this tardiness constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination.
Plaintiff employee alleged retaliation by Defendant and its management/employees for reporting another employee's sexual harassment. Plaintiff alleged the retaliation and hostlie work environment caused him severe emotional distress resulting in necessity of being placed on disability leave and that Defendant failed to accommodate his request for an accommodation and failed to engage in the interactive process. Defendant contended Plaintiff was underperforming and began experiencing alleged emotional distress from Defendant's reasonable attempts to assist him in improving his performance. Defendant also contended it accommodated Plaintiff's request for disabiltiy leave and engaged in the interactive process.
Plaintiff brought claims against their employer and its successor entity for age discrimination, age harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate, race-based associational discrimination, failure to pay wages (including commissions allegedly earned before termination and vacation wages owed), failure to pay wages due upon discharge, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Defendants contended they had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate Plaintiff's employment and that it paid all wages due to Plaintiff. Defendants also contended that Plaintiff's claim for commissions owed was actually a claim for a bonus and was defeated by the language of their Incentive Compensation Plan, under which Plaintiff had to have been employed as of the date the bonus was scheduled to be paid out.
Plaintiff, a former supply chain associate at Defendant company, asserted claims for wrongful termination; discrmination, harassment and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act; and discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on sex under the Fair Empolyment and Housing Act. Defendant contended that it had legitmate and non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff's employment and that it did not discriminate or retaliate against Plaintiff based on her status as a working mother. Defendant also filed a cross-complaint for unauthorized use and disclosure of its confidential and proprietary information.
Plaintiff was subjected to a drug test along with all other members of the division in which he worked for Defendant. Although Plaintiff's test came back negative, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on the ground that the test reflected a dilute specimen. Plaintiff contended Defendant violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and that he was wrongfully terminated after being subjected to a random drug test without any individualized reasonable suspicion he was using drugs. Defendant contended it had given Plaintiff and all others in the division sufficient notice in advance of the drug testing and that it had compelling reasons to conduct the testing of the entire division to maintain a safe environment in the company.
Plaintiff employee alleged claims for retaliation, age/race/national origin discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and failure to prevent discrimination. Defendant contended it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate Plaintiff due to performance issues, including Plaintiff's failure to achieve the goals of a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"), and that it did not retaliate against Defendant for filing an EEOC charge or discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of race, national origin or age.
A former employee of the defendant company alleged he was subjected to a hostile and abusive work environment and brought claims for racial harassment; discrimination based on a disability; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff, a former loan agent for Defendant, contended Defendant breached her employment contract by underpaying her on commissions due on loan transactions for which she was responsible. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant violated various provisions of the Labor Code, including misclassifying her as an independent contractor, failing to pay her for overtime hours she worked, failing to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failing to provide her with accurate and itemized wage statements, and failing to provide employment and payroll records upon her request to inspect them.

Intellectual Property

General IP

Licensor in a Software Licence Agreement ("SLA") sued Licensee for failure to pay all required upfront royalties and additional charges for customization of a software package. Licensee counterclaimed against Licensor, seeking the return of amounts it paid under the SLA, contending there was no valid contract due to lack of agreement on a Statement of Work, which Licensee contended was a material term of the parties' agreement. Licensee also contended that even if there was a valid contract, Licensor failed to perform its obligations to provide customization of its software as required by the SLA.

IP Patent

A dispute between members of an LLC over the right to intellectual property, including patent, trademark, and domain name. Each of the parties claimed the other breached his fiduciary duties to the LLC by, inter alia, transferring funds from the LLC's accounts to their own personal accounts. One of the members contended the LLC should be dissolved, while the other member sought to have his fellow member expelled from the LLC.

IP Trade Secrets

Plaintiff asserted claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act of what it contended was confidential and secret customer data. Defendants contended Plaintiff had failed to establish it sustained any damages under the CUTSA and that Plaintiff should be precluded for introducing any damages testimony under Sargon v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012).
Plaintiff company alleged corporate and individual defendants engaged in trade secret misappropriation arising out of a joint venture between the parties in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiff also alleged a claim under RICO against all defendants and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants.
Plaintiff limited liability company (LLC) sued a minority member for breach of fiduciary duty by reason of operating a competing business, the expulsion of the minority member, and misappropriation of trade secrets in connection with the operation of the competing business. Plaintiff also sued the minority member's partner in the competing business for engaging in unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets. The minority member filed a cross-complaint against the majority members of the LLC.

IP Trademark

Trademark infringement case in which Plaintiff alleged Defendant adopted a name for its business that infringed upon Plaintiff's registered trademark. Defendant contended there was no infringement and that Plaintiff's claim was barred by laches.

Professional Malpractice

Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice case in which Plaintiff alleged defendant doctor and defendant hospital negligently failed to diagnose an aortic occlusion that ultimately resulted in gangrene of her left lower extremity and a left above knee amputation. Plaintiff also alleged the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"). Defendants contended they satisfied the standard of care in their examination and treatment of Plaintiff and did not violate EMTALA, as she received appropriate screening examinations to identify an emergency medical condition while in the ER and was not subjected to disparate treatment.
Medical mapractice case in which Plaintiff alleged defendant doctor and defendant hospital negligently failed to diagnose an aortic occlusion that ultimately resulted in gangrene of her left lower extremity and a left above knew amputation. Plaintiff also alleged the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA"). Defendants contended they satisfied the standard of care in their examinaton and treatment of Plaintiff and did not violate EMTALA, as she received appropriate screening examinations to identify an emergency medical condition while in the ER and was not subjected to disparate treatment.
Federal Tort Claims Act claim in which Plaintiffs alleged medical personnel at Naval Hospital committed medical malpractice in the delivery of minor Plaintiff, resulting in severe and permanent brain injury. The government denied the medical personnel violated the standard of care and disputed the amount of damages claimed by Plaintiffs for the minor Plaintiff's life care plan.

Prof Malpractice Accounting

Plaintiffs alleged Defendant CPA provided tax advice that was negligent and incorrect. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendant failed to provide them with proper representation at a tax audit that resulted in a Notice of Deficiency being issued by the IRS and that he attempted to provide legal advice and representation before the United States Tax Court for which he was not licensed to practice. As a result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiffs incurred a substantial amount of attorney fees for representation by qualified counsel in the Tax Court.

Real Estate

Breach Of Contract

Plaintiffs entered into a lease with Defendant for a luxury home to be rented by their clients on a short-term basis. Defendant allegedly breached the lease by terminating it without the required notice, thereby forcing Defendant to find alternative lodging for their clients, and by failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for the relocation costs in accordance with the terms of the lease
A tenant in a shopping mall planned to open a sit-down restaurant, but claimed it was unable to do so due to the pandemic and vacated the premises. Plaintiff sued the landlord, seeking to rescind the lease and recover the amounts it had paid for a security deposit and for a couple of months of rent. Defendant contended Plaintiff had waived its right to rely on impossibility doctrines and frustration of purpose in the lease, which contained a force majeure clause providing that the obligations to pay rent could not be excused or delayed by virtue of acts of God, governmental restrictions, or other unforeseen events.
Plaintiff, the owner of a neighborhood shopping center, sued a tenant for breach of contract due to the tenant's termination of the lease and refusal to make rental payments on basis of doctrines of legal impossibility and commercial frustration of purpose due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Defendant contended a provision of the lease provided that rental payments were not excused by reason of acts of God, government, or events beyond reasonable control. Defendant cross-complained for breach of the lease by overcharging Defendant for rent and Defendant's share of common area maintenance.

Property Damage

Plaintiffs alleged claims arising out of water intrusion emanating from Defendant's hair salon business located directly above Plaintiffs' fashion retail and consulting business. Plaintiffs alleged claims for negligence, trespass and private nuisance, seeking damages for lost profits, damaged merchandise, lost bookings, and monies expended to remediate and restore the premises, as well as for emotional distress and physical injury caused to the Plaintiff owner of the fashion retail and consulting business.

Real Property

Plaintiffs had a tentative map for the development of 55 homes. The final map was not recorded before the tentative map expired. Plaintiffs alleged this was due to the negligence of the lead civil engineer, which in turn alleged claims for indemnity and contribution against another engineering firm that was a sub-contractor on the project. The lead engineer on the project contended that Plaintiffs and the sub-contractor were responsible for the conditions identified by the County on the tentative map as not having been satisfied.

Transaction

Plaintiffs sued a home inspection company and its president for negligence in failing to report numerous defects in the home prior to the plaintiffs' purchase of the property. Defendants contended they complied in all respects with the residential inspection agreement signed by the parties and the standards of practice promulgated by the California Real Estate Inspection Association, and that they were not negligent in conducting the inspection or in submitting the inspection report to Plaintiffs.

Tort

Civil Rights

Claims brought by father on behalf of himself and his son with Down's Syndrome who was allegedly discriminated against by defendant airline at the airport prior to their departure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant contended Plaintiffs' rendition of events was unsupported and implausible, and also asserted defenses under the Montreal Convention.

Personal Injury

Plaintiff, a guest at the home of her siblings, was bitten by their dog, causing injury to her lip and the left side of her face. Plaintiff suffered permanent nerve damage and sensory loss as a result. Defendants contended Plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet spot at one of Defendant's stores while shopping. Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to comply with its safety policies and procedures. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff dislocated the patella in her right knee and had arthroscopic surgery. The parties' experts agreed a second surgery to stabilize the ligaments would be necessary, but disputed whether a third surgery to repair cartilage damage would be necessary or related to the incident in question. The parties also disputed the extent of non-economic damages that were likely to be awarded by a jury.
Plaintiff was riding in the defendant's medical transport van when the driver made a sudden stop, slamming on the brakes in heavy traffic and allegedly ejecting the plaintiff forward out of his wheelchair. Plaintiff's left leg was allegedly painfully contorted with a great amount of force, causing extreme pain. Defendant contended that the plaintiff suffered at most a left ankle sprain and left knee sprain that immediately resolved, and that the plaintiff had significant pre-existing medical issues unrelated to the subject accident.

PI Auto

Personal injury case arising from automobile accident. Car driven by Plainitff was struck by car driven by Decedent, who was driving for food delivery service and crossed over the double yellow line, and colllided with Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff sued the company and decedent's estate for physical and emotional damages. The company contended it could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of decedent, since he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Defendants also disputed the severity of Plaintiff's alleged physical and emotional damages.
Plaintiff booked a car owned by one of the defendants through a peer-to-peer ridesharing software platform administered by the other defendant. Plaintiff sued both companies after she was in a rollover accident while driving the car, alleging that the car's defective steering caused the accident. The defendant company that owned the car contended it had been inspected prior to the accident and was found to be in good condition. The other defendant maintained that it had no knowledge of a defect. The two defendants also filed cross-complaints against each other for indemnification and contribution.

PI Sexual Assault

This case involved claims of sexual molestation by a sporting coach of two girls under the age of 10. The mother of the girls, in her capacity as guardian ad litem, sued the coach for sexual molestation and his wife for negligence, negligent supervision and negligent failure to warn, train or educate the girls as to the dangers presented by her husband. The husband was also charged criminally. The mediation was made more complex by the fact that the insurer for the coach and his wife raised several coverage defenses and provided a defense to the wife under a reservation of rights; the insurer separately instituted a declaratory relief action.
Minor plaintiffs, two girls who were under the age of ten during the relevant time period, were sexually assaulted and molested on the premises of defendant homeowners' association ("HOA") by a tennis coach who gave them private lessons and taught them during tennis camps sponsored by the HOA. Plaintiffs alleged a claim for premises liability, contending the HOA violated its own community access and tennis court rules by allowing the coach, who was not a resident of the community, to give the lessons to Plaintiffs (who were also not residents of the community) without any monitoriing or supervision. Plaintiffs alleged the assaults were both foreseeable to the HOA and preventable. Defendant HOA contended it never employed the tennis coach, had no notice of his propensities, and never received reports of similar conduct on its property; the HOA therefore contended it did not owe Plaintiffs a legal duty to protect them from the tennis coach's sexual assaults and molestation. The case also involved a companion coverage dispute, in which the HOA's insurer contended coverage was excluded under the applicable policies' Abuse or Molestation Exclusion.
Plaintiff, a university student, contended the university recklessly assigned him a roommate the school knew was a repeated sexual predator without any warning, and that the roommate thereafter committed a sexual assault upon him. As a result, a psychiatrist diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Defendant contended it took steps to address the other student's issues before assigning him as a roommate of Plaintiff, including counseling. Plaintiff contended the university should have previously expelled the other student as a standard of care.

Premises Liability

Personal injury case resolved in which Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence stemming from its employees leaving a pallet in the aisle where Plaintiff was shopping. Plaintiff snagged her left foot on the pallet and fell on her left side.
Plaintiff sued Defendant winery for damages resulting from an injury sustained on Defendant's premises. Plaintiff underwent surgery and alleged she subsequently developed right peroneal neuropathy. Defendants contended that Plaintiff was either solely at fault for the accident or was comparatively negligent.
Plaintiff was riding a scooter rented from one of the defendants on a city street after nightfall when the front tire became caught in a crack in the cement roadway. Plaintiff flew over the handlebars of the scooter and smashed her face and jaw on the street, breaking her jaw and injuring her elbow. Plaintiff sued the rental company for product liability-design and manufacturing defects and negligence, and the city for premises liability-negligence and dangerous condition of public property.

Product Liability

Plaintiff sued her employer and the manufacturer of a metal detector after she sustained severe injury to her hand when she was cleaning the machine. Plaintiff contended the manufacturer failed to include metal guards on the machine, in violation of OSHA standards and its own safety standards and procedures. The manufacturer contended plaintiff was contributorily negligent and ignored warnings on the machine. The manufacturer also contended that the employer bore a comparatively greater degree of fault due to its negligent failure to train Plaintiff on how to properly clean the equipment.
Plaintiff purchased flexible steel braided fuel hoses from the defendant for use in its natural gas fuel systems. Plaintiff alleged the hoses did not meet required testing and specification requirements and that the hoses failed, causing the plaintiff to replace thousands of hoses.

Wrongful Death

Wrongful death action in which Defendant asserted decedent was contributorily negligent. The carrier, defending under a reservation of rights, contended there was no duty to indemnify due to the employee exclusion in the subject commercial auto policy.
Defendant's liability insurance carrier paid out full policy proceeds, which were allocated among four plaintiffs. Workers' comp carrier's lien was also negotiated as a condition of payment of policy proceeds.
Wrongful death case filed against security consulting firm by parents of three children who were murdered in shopping center parking lot. Plaintiffs contended security firm failed to use reasonable care to protect decedents from harmful conduct of other persons that the firm could have reasonably anticipated.

Neutral Profile

HON. JAN M. ADLER, RET.

View More Neutrals

HON. JAN M. ADLER, RET.

HON. JAN M. ADLER, RET.

Introduction

Practice Areas

Hobbies & Interests

Testimonials

Links and Articles

Experience Summary

Legal Career

Education & Professional Affiliations

Achievements & Awards

Legal Experience

Representative Case Information

Recent Representative Cases

Business/Commercial

Antitrust

Complex Commercial

Consumer Class Action

Contractual

Corporate Governance

Fraud/Misrepresentation

Securities

Employment

Breach of Contract

Disability

Disability Discrimination

Discrimination

ERISA

Labor Code

PAGA

Retaliation

Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

Wage and Hour

Wage and Hour Class Action

Whistleblower Wrongful Term

Wrongful Term & Discrimination

Wrongful Termination

Intellectual Property

General IP

IP Patent

IP Trade Secrets

IP Trademark

Professional Malpractice

Medical Malpractice

Prof Malpractice Accounting

Real Estate

Breach Of Contract

Property Damage

Real Property

Transaction

Tort

Civil Rights

Personal Injury

PI Auto

PI Sexual Assault

Premises Liability

Product Liability

Wrongful Death

Downtown Los Angeles

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

West Los Angeles