,

California’s Wage And Hour Laws Can Apply To Work Performed Out Of State

,
California’s Wage And Hour Laws Can Apply To Work Performed Out Of State

Whether or not California’s wage and hour laws apply to work performed out of state generally depends upon the circumstances of employment.  In Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2017), the court rejected the argument that the “job situs” of the plaintiff was determinative as to whether the California Labor code applied.  Instead, the Bernstein court explained that: “[i]nstead of considering principal ‘job situs’ in a vacuum, the California Supreme Court has endorsed a multifaced approach.

,

Thinking of Renting Out Your Place on Airbnb? That May Not Be a Good Idea if You Live in L.A.

,
Thinking of Renting Out Your Place on Airbnb? That May Not Be a Good Idea if You Live in L.A.

Premises zoned residential, such as R1, R2 and R3, in the City of Los Angeles should not be rented through Airbnb or similar services.  

Current zoning laws in the City of Los Angeles prohibit short-term rentals in residential zones, such as R1, R2 and R3.  Residential zones given the “R” designation are intended to provide a quiet living environment, free of commercial, business and industrial activities.  Operation of residential premises as a hotel, hostel, bed and breakfast, or similar commercial enterprise is not permitted under an R1, R2 or R3 designation.  See L.A.M.C., Ch. I, Art. 2, §§ 12.03, 12.08, 12.09, 12.10.  The Los Angeles Municipal Code lists allowed uses of these residential designations.  Notably missing from the permitted uses is the use of residential premises as a hotel, hostel, bed and breakfast, or similar commercial enterprise

,

Homeowner's Associations Liable For Failure To Provide Access

,
Homeowner's Associations Liable For Failure To Provide Access

HOAs may be liable to homeowners if they prevent or hinder a homeowner's right of ingress or egress. 

Homeowners cannot be barred from ingress or egress (right of entry or exit) to their units and cannot be barred from physical access to their units, unless:

1.  The HOA has a court order or an arbitration award;

2.  Construction is in progress;

3.  A hazardous condition exists; or

4.  The unit is uninhabitable or red tagged. Civil Code §§ 4505, 4510.

,

Inability to Pay High Arbitration Fees May be a Defense to Arbitration Agreements

,
Inability to Pay High Arbitration Fees May be a Defense to Arbitration Agreements

Where a party to an arbitration agreement is financially incapable of sharing the costs of arbitration, the Court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the action and deny arbitration.  See Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, 219 Cal.App.4th 87 (2013); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.  Confronted with the issue of whether plaintiffs could be excused from the obligation to pay fees associated with arbitration, the Court of Appeal concluded they could.  Roldan, 219 Cal.App.4th at 95.  “If, as plaintiffs contend, they lack the means to share the cost of the arbitration, to rule otherwise might effectively deprive them of access to any forum for resolution of their claims against [defendants].  We will not do that.  Of course, as the trial court recognized, we cannot order the arbitration forum to waive its fees.”  Roldan, 219 Cal.App.4th at 96.  

Credit Card Arbitration Agreements Under Attack

Credit Card Arbitration Agreements Under Attack

The California Supreme Court is once again reviewing consumer credit card arbitration agreements. 

In December 2014, the California Court of Appeal held in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that California’s law against arbitrating claims for public injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the False Advertising Law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The appellate court declared that “the FAApreempts all state-law rules that prohibit arbitration of a particular type of claim because an outright ban, no matter how laudable the purpose, interferes with the FAA’s objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.”  Thus, the appellate court found in Citibank’s favor that arbitration agreements are enforceable even when they strip California credit card holders of the right to public injunctive relief.  Now the California Supreme Court is reviewing that lower court ruling.