Business Law Journal

In VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed the importance of drafting a contract with a clear understanding of every word and clause, and the effect each has on the contract as a whole.

On September 30, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) No. 235, now codified as California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, introducing a significant shift towards encouraging proactive initial disclosures in state court civil litigation. This legislative change amends California’s Civil Discovery Act to include proactive initial disclosure rules that align with those used in Federal Court. Effective for almost all civil cases filed after January 1, 2024, until January 1, 2027, this amendment heralds a new era of discovery rules in California that aim to foster judicial efficiency, transparency, and fairness in civil litigation.

The recent decision in Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC, 2024 WL 358231 (1/31/24), asks the question: Will common exculpatory lease terms protect the landlord from an adverse jury verdict of gross negligence?  Ultimately, the answer is “No.”

California requires that businesses file a Statement of Information to maintain compliance and the legal standing of your business - corporations are required to file a Statement of Information annually in the month of registration, while LLCs are required to submit the Statement of Information biennially (and within 90 days of registration). One of the latest scams targeting business, both foreign and domestic, involves fraudulent or misleading requests to submit a California Statement of Information on the business’ behalf. These deceptive practices can pose severe risks to your business by exploiting your legal obligations and imposing exorbitant fees.

Arbitration is a creature born of contract, and is favored as an expeditious and economical alternative to a civil lawsuit — in part due to the limited discovery available to parties in arbitration. Increasingly, however, arbitrations have increased in complexity, with discovery growing to proportions more typically seen in civil lawsuits (and likewise growing in cost). However, a California Court of Appeal has now explicitly enforced one of the limitations on discovery in arbitration, foreclosing discovery efforts from spilling over to nonparties to an arbitration unless the parties have otherwise agreed.

International enforcement of U.S. trademark rights just became much more difficult.  On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision with concurrences from Justices Jackson and Sotomayor in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043, 2023 WL 4239255 (U.S. June 29, 2023) (“Abitron”).  The Court settled a decades-long circuit split on extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act by applying a new framework that focuses on where the mark is being used in commerce rather than where the effect of that use is felt.

In an eleventh-hour ruling made shortly before enforcement of the California Privacy Rights Act’s regulations was set to begin on July 1, a California judge has delayed enforcement until March 29, 2024.  The delay reduces the pressure on businesses who had been facing potential enforcement of unfinalized regulations.  However, the ruling is not a complete reprieve as the delay does not affect enforcement of the statute itself which can still be enforced as of July 1 by both the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the California Department of Justice.  

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a junior trademark user uses a parody of a famous trademark as an indicia of source for its own goods, the junior user cannot rely on the First Amendment to shield it from liability for trademark infringement for artistic or so-called “expressive works,” nor the parody exception to trademark dilution claims under the Lanham Act.

In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic.  As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies.  At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged to apply for PPP loans.  Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly. 

In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic.  As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies.  At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged by aggressive lenders to apply for PPP loans.  Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly.