Brian and Shant discuss the following cases:
Legal Match.com: The attorney defendant was sued by a legal referral website for unpaid bills, but counterclaimed arguing that the contact was illegal and therefore unenforceable because the company was not registered with the State Bar as a referral service. The website argued that they are not a referral service because do not screen potential clients, but rather just provided a contact list. The Court of Appeal rejected the website’s argument.
Karnofsky v. At Your Door Self-Storage: Plaintiff signed agreement with storage facility that he assumed responsibility. Storage facility also offered insurance to cover for risk of loss. The court finds that this behavior is a legal shifting of the risk and Plaintiff cannot proceed in his lawsuit for claims of water damage against storage facility.
Chen v. Los Angeles Truck Centers: Fatal bus accident involving a tour bus where a California driver from a California tour company leaves from Nevada to Arizona. The tour bus was sold by an Indiana manufacturer who was originally named in the lawsuit. Brian and Shant dissect this rather perplexing law-school-exam-like fact pattern to analyze the Court’s conclusion that Indiana law governs the case. The Court holds that the law governing the case at the outset of the litigation remains the applicable law even if a party from that state is subsequently dismissed.
County of Ventura v. Public Employment Relations Board: SCIU was to organize non-physician employees at a private medical center in Ventura. The Public Employment Relations Board reasoned that the clinic employees are joint employees of the county. The county argues that the employees are private and are not entitled to unionize. Ultimately, the control factor is the main issue – if the entity retains control over the employer it looks to factors to determine the level of control over the employee.