Mark’s Mediation Strategies

There is news of how budget cuts are affecting the Los Angeles Superior Court, and the numbers are sobering for attorneys and their clients. In the Central District, there has been a 175% increase in the number of bench trials over the last few years and a 12% increase in jury trials. This, in turn, has reduced the time that many judges have for hearing routine matters such as law-and-motion and settlement conferences. Coupled with dramatic layoffs in staff and courtroom closings, expect more delays in getting civil cases to trial.

How can clients be protected from the impact of a shrinking court system? Some litigants may want to consider an early mediation, before the parties become locked in unyielding positions. Certainly, timing is an important factor. If parties are unprepared or unreceptive, their discussions may not be meaningful. Still, experience shows that the transition from legal warfare to negotiation can produce highly beneficial results, especially in the hands of a skilled mediator.

As always, I am ready to work with you and your clients to achieve satisfying case resolutions. If I can be of assistance, please call.

Regards,

Mark Loeterman

Mark Loeterman Mediation
Email:  Mark@MLmediation.com

From The Courts

There is welcome news for employers in a new state Supreme Court decision: individual employees, such as managers and supervisors, cannot be held personally liable for claims of retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  Jones v. The Lodge At Torrey Pines, S151022.

FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against or harassing their employees on the basis of protected categories. The statute also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have complained about discrimination or harassment.

A decade ago, in Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that employers, but not individual employees, may be held liable for discrimination claims.  In Jones, a sharply divided Court adopted the same rationale underpinning the Reno decision, saying that it applies equally to claims of retaliation.  In so doing, the Court disapproved both state and federal cases involving retaliation that had allowed individual employees to be sued.

(more…)

From The Courts

In a newly published case, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was reversible error for a trial judge to dismiss the buyer’s claim for negligent non-disclosure of property defects against its broker.  Michel v. Palos Verdes Network Group, Inc., 2007 WL3208735 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.).

The Court explained that a cause of action for negligent non-disclosure presents different legal elements than either a claim for fraudulent concealment or a claim for violation of Civil Code section 2079 – - the claims on which the case went to the jury.  Adopting the rationale of the Field decision, the Court said that a broker can be professionally competent under section 2079, which is premised on a negligence standard of care, but still not satisfy the greater duty of a trusted fiduciary.  

What is the practical effect of the Michel opinion?  Some predict that the case will make it easier for buyers to pursue non-disclosure claims against their brokers.

(more…)