Young Entrepreneurs Academy CEO Roundtable Mar 08, 2016

Patrick Maloney will be on the panel for tonight’s CEO Roundtable of business leaders providing insight and guidance to local high school students participating in the Young Entrepreneurs Academy. To learn more about YEA, Click Here.


2016 Super Lawyers Jan 20, 2016

Congratulations to Patrick M. Maloney for being named to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers list, an honor bestowed upon only 5% of attorneys. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.


New Standard for Terminating Sanctions Dec 23, 2015

Shocking Behavior Sets New Standard for Terminating Sanctions
By Carl Mueller, The Maloney Firm, APC
 

In a recent decision, Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the California Appellate Court definitively set the upward limit on abusive behavior during a deposition:

If ever a case required terminating sanctions, this is it. Crawford threatened to use pepper spray and a taser on opposing counsel and was openly contemptuous of the trial court. He made it impossible to continue with the litigation. Far from the trial court abusing its discretion, it would have been an abuse of discretion not to impose a terminating sanction.

Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) Appellate Case No. B257412 (emphasis added).

 
To be sure, the behavior of the attorney in question, the named appellant, Mr. Crawford, was particularly egregious. At his deposition, Mr. Crawford produced a can of pepper spray during initial admonitions said:

Mr. Traver, if things get out of hand, I brought a what is legally pepper spray, and I will pepper spray you if you get out of hand.

Which Mr. Crawford followed by producing a stun gun and saying:

If that doesn’t quell you, this is a flashlight that turns into a stun gun.

Mr. Crawford then demonstratively discharged the stun gun twice.
 

Continue Reading


Defending Class Action Lawsuits Oct 08, 2015

Defeating Class Certification – When a Win Really Isn’t a Win
By Gene Williams, The Maloney Firm, APC
 

Attorneys who defend against class action lawsuits know that the most effective and decisive way to beat such a lawsuit is to defeat class certification. A denial of class certification reduces an otherwise large case with significant exposure for the defendant to a single plaintiff (or a small number of plaintiffs), and can then be resolved either with a motion for summary judgment or a modest settlement. However, not all denials of class certification are treated equally, as the defendant in Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc., Santa Clara County Sup. Ct. No. 1-12-CV-227103 recently learned.
 

In Tellez, plaintiff filed a putative class action against Rich Voss Trucking alleging wage and hour violations. After substantial delay by the plaintiff, including one granted extension of time to file a motion for class certification and after another request for extension was denied, Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The court set the motion for hearing and issued a tentative denying the motion for class certification, but provided no basis for that denial. The tentative simply stated that the motion was denied.
 

In connection with the hearing on the motion, the plaintiff failed to comply with Santa Clara County local rules regarding contesting a tentative, which required the plaintiff to call the court and opposing counsel the day before the hearing to inform them of the party’s intent to contest the tentative. As a result, the defendant’s counsel did not appear at the hearing, and the court expressed its frustration with Plaintiff’s counsel that it could not substantively discuss the motion because defendant’s counsel was not present. The court simply indicated that the tentative would become final. When plaintiff’s counsel asked if the Court would provide a more detailed explanation of the basis for its denial of class certification, the Court stated that “I don’t intend to.”  

Continue Reading


South Bay MCLE Series on Oct. 15th – The “B” Word Sep 24, 2015

Terms like “Chapter 11,” “automatic stay,” “core proceedings,” “exclusivity period,” and “nondischargeability” often sound like a foreign language to those who do not regularly practice in the bankruptcy courts. This presentation will help to demystify this lingo and provide attorneys with the an overview of the bankruptcy process so they can provide appropriate advice to their clients. Space is limited. Please RSVP by calling 310.540.1505 or emailing mmaloney@maloneyfirm.com.

This presentation has been approved by the State Bar of California for 1.0 hour of MCLE credit.
 
Read More


Does the Chipotle GMO Lawsuit Go Too Far? Sep 16, 2015

Does the Chipotle GMO Lawsuit Go Too Far?
By Gene Williams, The Maloney Firm, APC
 

In recent years, the American public has become markedly more health-conscious with respect to the ingredients contained in the food it consumes, and has demanded increased transparency from the companies who manufacture, prepare and sell food. The companies have acted predictably, looking to capitalize on the public’s desire for information by disclosing more and more information regarding what is or isn’t in the food they sell. The government has done its part by implementing heightened standards for food labeling. And consumer protection attorneys have played their role of watchdog, making sure that the companies who are profiting from this new heightened consumer focus on the ingredients in their food are honest with respect to the representations they make. The system has worked, for the most part, by providing the public with additional information regarding the contents of the food they consume, while allowing companies to profit by charging more for foods that contain premium ingredients, or that remove ingredients perceived as unhealthy or potentially dangerous.
 

One such example has been products containing genetically modified organisms (“GMOs.”) A large segment of the public has come to feel that GMOs are unhealthy or unsafe, and are willing to pay a premium for products that do not contain GMOs. Companies have obliged by offering and promoting “non-GMO” products, usually at a premium, and consumer protection attorneys have filed lawsuits against companies who falsely claim to be offering “non-GMO” products. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether GMOs are actually unhealthy or unsafe (many of us living in California have benefitted greatly from the drought-resistant and pesticide-resistant grains and fruits that are “genetically modified”), the checks and balances of the system have worked – consumers are given the information necessary to decide whether or not they want to pay more for GMO-free foods, while the companies profit from selling those foods at a higher rate.
 

Continue Reading


The Latest on Employee Arbitration Agreements Sep 10, 2015

Court of Appeal Provides Guidance to Employers on Preparing Enforceable Employee Arbitration Agreements
By Gene Williams, The Maloney Firm, APC
 

The 1st District Court of Appeal shot down an employee arbitration agreement that was egregiously one-sided toward the employer and was forced upon the employee with no time to review it. In finding the agreement unconscionable and unenforceable, the Court set forth a number of guidelines that should help employers create employee arbitration agreements, or modify existing agreements, that stand up to judicial scrutiny and will be held enforceable.
 

In Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense Inc., 2015 DJDAR 9447 (Aug. 17, 2015), the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff, Julia Carlson, accepted an offer of employment from defendant Home Team Pest Defense. On her first day, Carlson was given access to the company’s electronic system that contained the company policies, including the agreement to arbitrate. However, Carlson was not given access to the dispute resolution policy, which set forth the arbitration terms. When Carlson complained that she did not have access to the policy, and that she did not feel comfortable signing the agreement without seeing the policy and negotiating the terms, she was told that she could call a telephone number “in a couple of weeks” to see if someone had a copy of the policy. She was advised, however, that she could not wait to review the policy before signing the agreement to arbitrate, and that refusal to sign would be considered a refusal to accept the job offer. Fearful of losing the potential job, as well as her unemployment benefits, Carlson agreed to sign the agreement.
 

Continue Reading


South Bay MCLE Series on September 17th – From Arrest to Trial Aug 17, 2015

Former Deputy District Attorney Dmitry Gorin will present on identifying and resolving criminal law issues in civil practice, providing examples of criminal cross-over problems from family law, civil litigation, and other practice areas. Space is limited. Please RSVP by calling 310.540.1505 or emailing mmaloney@maloneyfirm.com.



This presentation has been approved by the State Bar of California for 1.0 hour of MCLE credit.
 
Read More


Patrick Maloney Named Fellow of Litigation Counsel of America Jun 27, 2015

Los Angeles attorney Patrick Maloney, founder and managing partner of The Maloney Firm, APC, has been selected as a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers.
 

Mr. Maloney has served as lead trial counsel in numerous matters in both federal and state court, as well as in arbitration. He regularly represents clients in disputes involving contracts, fraud, and anti-competitive conduct; employment litigation; and shareholder and partnership disputes. He also represents both clients and lawyers in legal malpractice and fiduciary duty cases, and in fee disputes.
 

Fellowship in the LCA is highly selective and by invitation only. Fellows are selected based upon excellence and accomplishment in litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels, and superior ethical reputation. The LCA is aggressively diverse in its composition. Established as a trial and appellate lawyer honorary society reflecting the American bar in the twenty-first century, the LCA represents the best in law among its membership. The number of Fellowships has been kept at an exclusive limit by design, allowing qualifications, diversity and inclusion to align effectively, with recognition of excellence in litigation across all segments of the bar. Fellows are generally at the partner or shareholder level, or are independent practitioners with recognized experience and accomplishment. In addition, the LCA is dedicated to promoting superior advocacy, professionalism and ethical standards among its Fellows.
 

Mr. Maloney is a board member of the South Bay Bar Association and chair of Employment Law Section. He also serves as a volunteer fee arbitrator for the Los Angeles County Bar Association. He has been named to the 2015 Southern California Super Lawyers list and holds an AV peer-review ranking from Martindale Hubbell.
 

The Maloney Firm, APC is a full service law firm based in El Segundo, California. The Maloney Firm may be reached at 310.540.1505 or found on the internet at www.maloneyfirm.com. Mr. Maloney may be reached directly at 310.347.4601 or pmaloney@maloneyfirm.com.


South Bay MCLE Series on July 30th – Law Firm Strategy and Planning via Budgeting Jun 26, 2015

In this program, Kurt Obermeyer will walk through the budget process that can work best for your firm and allow you to not only efficiently budget for future income and expenses, but also planning strategies to yield the most successful practice possible. Space is limited. Please RSVP by calling 310.540.1505 or emailing mmaloney@maloneyfirm.com.



This presentation has been approved by the State Bar of California for 1.0 hour of MCLE credit.
 
Read More