California’s Senate Bill 632 seeks to impose a seven hour limit on depositions in asbestos cases at the expense of defendants’ due process rights. Specifically, SB 632 will require that “a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness’ counsel of record,” be limited to seven hours of total testimony in any civil action for injury or illness that involves a plaintiff with mesothelioma if a licensed physician attests that: (1) either the deponent suffers from mesothelioma, is over 70 years of age, and his or her health or well-being would be prejudiced by a deposition beyond seven hours; or (2) without regard to the deponent’s age, the deponent’s mesothelioma raises substantial medical doubt of survival beyond six months.

SB 632 allows for an additional seven hours, but no more than fourteen hours of total testimony, if the court makes a factual finding supporting the extension and determines that the health of the deponent does not appear to be endangered by the granting of additional time. Notably, however, SB 632 ensures that the time constraints do not apply to questioning by plaintiff’s counsel and eliminates judicial discretion allowing a deposition to go beyond the fourteen hour limit.

A shortened period for cross-examinations is inherently prejudicial because all defendants maintain an interest in properly and fairly preparing their defense and no party should be required to jeopardize that right. Imposing a seven hour limit on a key witness’ deposition will ensure that defendants’ due process rights will be violated by not allowing adequate time to defend the case at a deposition. As a hotbed for asbestos litigation, plaintiffs in California typically name dozens of defendants for a wide variety of alleged exposures in a myriad of industries and locations that generally consist of work histories spanning thirty to forty years. In addition, such time constraints will pin codefendants against each other as each attempts to jockey for more time to properly cross-examine a plaintiff in an effort to build their defense. The number of parties in a typical asbestos case coupled with the varying alleged exposures stretched over decades will make it impossible for a defendant to conduct an effective cross-examination under the time constraints proposed by SB 632.

The plaintiff’s bar argues that time limits under this bill will protect plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma from questions where answers could be ascertained from other sources like written interrogatories. Responses to written interrogatories, however, are typically devoid of substantive information and are littered with boilerplate objections that the interrogatories are burdensome and oppressive. Further, the time constraints should not only take into account a plaintiff’s medical condition, but should be measured against the effect the time limits have on all parties, as well as the orderly and fair administration of justice. Currently, case management orders governing asbestos cases filed throughout California limit plaintiffs’ deposition to twenty hours and allow judicial discretion to extend the time limit to fairly examine the deponent on a showing
Continue Reading California’s Proposed Bill Seeks to Place Time Restraints on Depositions and Threatens Defendants’ Due Process Rights

Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez
Superior Court of Massachusetts
(Suffolk, Business Litigation Session)
Docket No. 1684-CV-03911-BLS-2


The Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts invalidated a contractual forum selection clause and dismissed an employer’s action to enforce a noncompetition agreement signed by a former employee, because the employer forced a Massachusetts forum upon a California employee in order to circumvent California public policy against the enforcement of noncompetition agreements.

Plaintiff-employer Oxford Global Resources, LLC (“Oxford”), a recruiting and staffing company specializing in placement of information technology contractors to businesses, hired defendant-employee Hernandez to an entry-level position as an account manager. When hired, Hernandez had to sign an offer letter and a separate “protective covenants agreement” which contained confidentiality, noncompetition, and non-solicitation provisions. The agreement also contained a forum selection clause requiring that any lawsuit arising from the agreement be brought in Massachusetts, and a choice-of-law provision providing for the application of Massachusetts law to the agreement.

Oxford hired Hernandez to work in its Campbell, California, office. Hernandez interviewed for the position in California; signed the offer letter and agreement in California; was trained by Oxford in California; conducted all of his work for Oxford in California; and reported to Oxford supervisors who were located in California. Indeed, the Court found that all relevant events and all of Oxford’s alleged injuries occurred in California. The only connection to Massachusetts, the Court noted, was Oxford’s allegation that its principle place of business was there.

Oxford sued Hernandez in Massachusetts alleging that Hernandez used information regarding the identity of Oxford’s customers to solicit those customers on behalf of a competitor in California. Hernandez moved to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which permits dismissal when “the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 223A, § 5. Despite the forum selection clause, Hernandez prevailed and the Court dismissed the action in order for it to be heard in a California court.

The Court engaged in a three-step analysis leading to dismissal. First, it determined that California law governed the agreement despite the choice-of-law provision favoring Massachusetts law because the agreement was an improper contract of adhesion since Hernandez did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate it. Oxford’s offer to Hernandez was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, no negotiation of the agreement’s terms took place, and Hernandez had no bargaining power as an entry-level employee with no previous experience in the industry. The Court discounted the agreement’s boilerplate language that Hernandez had the opportunity to consult a lawyer and that he was not under duress as insufficient to overcome the disparity in bargaining power between the parties.

Significantly, the Court found the choice-of-law provision to be an apparent attempt by Oxford to circumvent California’s public policy against the enforcement of noncompetition agreements. Without the provision, California law would have governed the agreement because California had the most significant relationship to the
Continue Reading Massachusetts Superior Court Invalidates Forum Selection Clause and Dismisses Employer’s Action To Enforce a Noncompetition Agreement

california-160550_960_720California’s Unfair Competition Law

The Legislature enacted California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”) to deter unfair business practices and protect consumers from exploitations in the marketplace. Allen v. Hyland’s Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 300 F.R.D. 643, 667. Under the UCL “unfair competition” means “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act.” Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200; 17500. The Legislature initially imposed no standing requirements for private litigants to bring suit and, “[a]s a result, a private individual or entity with no relationship to the alleged wrongful practice could use the statute to force a business to repay substantial sums arguably acquired through a UCL violation.” In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 329 (dissenting opinion).

In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 64, a ballot proposition designed to prevent “shakedown suits” brought under the UCL. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th at 316. Lawmakers aimed Proposition 64 at “unscrupulous lawyers” who exploited the UCL’s generous standing requirement to extort money from small businesses by bringing frivolous lawsuits. Id.[1]  

Proposition 64 required that for private litigants to bring an action under the UCL the litigant must suffer an actual economic injury as a result of the unfair business practice at issue. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204. Critically, under Proposition 64, local public prosecutors can still bring UCL lawsuits without meeting the more stringent standing requirements applicable to private litigants. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204. Thus, while Proposition 64 limited private litigants’ standing to sue under the UCL, government prosecutors’ standing was in no way affected by this law. Californians For Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 232.

The Aftermath of Proposition 64

Ever since the Legislature amended the UCL pursuant to Proposition 64, California courts have been faced with the issue of interpreting the “as a result of” language under the UCL. The California Supreme Court has opined the “as a result of” language requires that a putative plaintiff actually relies on the conduct at issue in order to have standing to sue under the UCL. In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 326. The actual reliance need not be the only cause of the plaintiff’s harm; so long as the reliance is a substantial factor in actually influencing the plaintiff’s decision, standing will lie. Id., at 326-27.

In 2016 the Court of Appeal for the Second District recognized that the “as a result of” language required “reliance on a statement for its truth and accuracy.” Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 154, 185 (citing Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 327).

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

The California Supreme Court will have another opportunity to further define “as a result of” under the UCL in a case which appellant Banana Republic recently filed for review. In Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC the plaintiffs alleged that they were “lured” into a
Continue Reading Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC: How the California Court of Appeals Has Reduced Proposition 64 (2004) to 40% Off its Intended Value

celldriveOn December 23, 2016 in Santa Clara, California, in Modisette v. Apple, Inc., 16CV304364, the family of a five-year-old girl killed in a car crash on Christmas Eve 2014 filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that Apple’s FaceTime application distracted a driver and caused the death of Moriah Modisette.  Like the majority of distracted driver accidents, this one could have been prevented. On the one hand, the driver could have waited until he stopped driving before using the FaceTime application. On the other hand, Apple could have designed a lock-out feature or warned FaceTime users of the dangers of driving while FaceTiming.

In Modisette v. Apple, Inc., the court must decide whether a smartphone manufacturer like Apple has a duty to protect the public and FaceTime users by preventing the use of the application while driving. FaceTime is a factory-installed video communication service similar to Skype and Google Hangouts that allows Apple device users to conduct one-on-one video calls. Ultimately, this case raises an important question: Should a smartphone manufacturer be liable for injuries caused by distracted drivers using a phone application, and if so, are distracted drivers a superseding intervening cause?

Plaintiffs allege that Apple’s iPhone was defective because Apple failed to install and implement the safer alternative design for which it sought a patent in December 2008, which was later issued in April 2014. The alternative design would “lock out” a driver’s ability to FaceTime while driving. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to warn drivers that FaceTiming while driving was likely to be dangerous.  Plaintiffs further allege that the conduct of the driver is “inextricably intertwined” with Apple’s failure to implement the patented lock out feature, and as a result, Apple allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care.

This is not the first time Apple has been involved in a products liability lawsuit arising out of an accident caused by a distracted driver. In 2015, in Meador v. Apple, Inc. (2016) WL 4425527 (E.D.Tex.), Apple was sued for a 2013 crash involving a driver distracted by checking her text messages. The question raised in Meador is similar to the Modisette’s case: Does a smartphone manufacturer have a duty to prevent drivers from using the device while driving? On August 16, 2016, in a pretrial report and recommendation, United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell recommended that the case be dismissed with prejudice because a “real risk of injury did not materialize until [the driver] neglected her duty to safely operate her vehicle by diverting her attention to the roadway.” Meador v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2016) WL 7665863, at 4. Thus, Judge Mitchell opined that Apple’s failure to lock out the driver did “nothing more than create the condition that made Plaintiffs’ injuries possible.” Id. As a result of Judge Mitchell’s recommendation, the Meador case has been stayed pending an order from the District Judge on Apple’s Motion to Dismiss.

In a similar case involving text messages against a network provider in
Continue Reading Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Apple’s Responsibility or an Attempt to limit Drivers’ Personal Responsibility?

california-160550_960_720Last month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two coordinated “take-home” asbestos exposure cases, in which it held that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care to protect an employees’ household members from exposure to asbestos through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers on their work clothing and/or persons, also referred to as “take-home” exposure plaintiffs.  The Court noted that the duty of care existed regardless of whether the plaintiff states a claim for general negligence or premises liability.  This ruling helps clarify the law in California on the duty of care owed to “take-home” exposure plaintiffs, and in doing so further establishes California as a plaintiff-friendly state in asbestos litigation.

The Court’s opinion was premised on two “take-home” asbestos cases.  In one matter, the plaintiff filed suit against various defendants alleging that they exposed him to asbestos and caused his peritoneal mesothelioma.  Among the defendants was Pneumo Abex, LLC.  The plaintiff alleged that his uncle worked and was exposed to asbestos in a Pneumo Abex plant, which he then took home on his clothes and person and to which the plaintiff was subsequently exposed to during the 1970s.  In the other matter, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against various defendants, alleging that their mother passed away from mesothelioma after also having been exposed to asbestos.  Among other defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that BNSF Railway Company employed and exposed the decedent’s husband to asbestos fibers, which he then brought home to the household he shared with the decedent, thereby exposing her to asbestos as well.

The Supreme Court set out to determine whether an employer or premises owner using asbestos has a duty to protect individuals secondarily exposed to asbestos through the clothing and persons of individuals either employed by the defendant or on the defendant’s premises.  After evaluating the facts and law, the Court held that “[w]here it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing, or personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the premises to household members, employers have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission,” and that the duty applies to employers and “also applies to premises owners who use asbestos on their property, subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners.”  However, the Court noted that this duty  extends only to members of a worker’s household, regardless of whether they are a relative.

In reaching this holding, the California Supreme Court first noted that California Civil Code section 1714 “establishes a general duty to exercise ordinary care in one’s activities,” thereby meaning that the issue is not whether a new duty should be established, but rather whether the Court should create an exception such that employers and premises owners would not owe a duty of reasonable care towards a workers’ household members secondarily exposed to asbestos.  California law requires that courts consider the factors outlined in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968)
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Recognizes a Duty of Care to “Take-Home” Plaintiffs