Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Franchisor's Control over'System Uniformity'Insufficient to Show'Vicarious Liability
The recent and long-awaited opinion from the California Supreme Court in Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 Cal. LEXIS 6251 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014), clarifies the circumstances under which a franchisor may be liable for the employment practices of its franchisees under California law, helping to calm the nerves of franchisors in the wake of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel's July 2014 determination that the NLRB will pursue claims against McDonald's under joint-employer liability theory. See, 'NLRB: McDonald's Is Joint Employer With Franchisees,' Franchising Business & Law Alert, Sept. 2014. Unlike the NLRB's recent determination, the California Supreme Court, in a sharply divided decision, determined that a franchisor's exercise of control over its franchisees to ensure system uniformity is not alone sufficient control that would be necessary to hold a franchisor vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisees. Since the Patterson decision comes from the highest court in California, its holding may resonate to other forums outside of the state. However, the divided 4-3 opinion in Patterson, coupled with the clear unrest in this area of law in recent months, means franchisors would be premature to breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of this opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.