Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Watch
In two recent cases, California state courts considered issues that have been the subject of federal court opinions interpreting California law. In both cases, there was no clear guidance from California courts on the issues prior to the federal decisions. Under appropriate circumstances, federal courts will apply state law to a dispute. In order to determine what the applicable state law may be, federal courts look first to state court cases. In the absence of definitive state court cases on the issue, a federal court will make its own interpretation of what it considers the applicable state law to be.
Federal courts had engrafted a “partial restraint” exception to California Business & Professions Code '16600's prohibition against covenants not to compete. In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 282 (Aug. 7, 2008) the California Supreme Court made clear that there is no such exception under Section 16600. The court considered the validity of a covenant against competition that restrained a former employee of the defendant from working for or soliciting certain clients of the defendant for a limited period following the termination of his employment. California Business and Professions Code '16600 prohibits contracts restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business except in limited circumstances prescribed by statute, such as upon the sale of a business, corporation, or limited liability company, or the dissolution of a partnership. However, federal cases interpreting California law had decided that there was also a “narrow restraint” exception to Section 16600 allowing a limited restraint on competition as long as it did not completely prohibit someone from practicing their profession, trade, or business. See Comedy Club, Inc. et. al v. Improv West Associates, et. al, 502 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir., 2007) amended 514 F.3d 833, (9th Cir., Jan. 23, 2008), discussed in Franchising Business & Law Alert, Oct. 2007, pages 5-6.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.