Reyzin Law Firm

Interesting week. While I do not like talking about work, sometimes something happens that is worth sharing. This week two events took place that, in my opinion, are worth mentioning. On Wednesday, 4th District Court of Appeal issued a ruling in a case Bakker v. Libs, colloquially referred by the Court of Appeal as Bakker II. In this case, we represented defendant/respondent. The Court of Appel denied the Appellant request and upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing the... Bakker’s complaint. However, it is not the merits of the case nor the reasoning behind the Court of Appeal’s ruling that is of interest. The ruling issued by the Court on Wednesday disposed of a judicial controversy that lasted almost a decade; the original complaint was filed in April 2008. During this almost ten-year period, this case went through: a) a trial, b) an appeal, c) bankruptcy, d) court case #2, e) appeal. I will not belabor all the intricacies of the procedural history, the Court did excellent job presenting a concise and clear recital of procedural history (Full Opinion http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D071457.PDF ), suffice it to say, I have not heard of case involving such an uncomplicated issues having to gone through such rigors of judicial scrutiny. The reason for such a prolonged procedural history was the plaintiff, who after twenty years of practicing law had lost her license, but evidently, not her taste for litigation. She did not leave a single proverbial stone unturned, even the stones that no one else would dare to touch. The case is a testament to the reality that even perceivably straight-forward disputes can be a very long, complicated, and labor intensive endeavor. After all Bakker v. Libs was considered and ruled on by two State judges (5 years apart); one Federal judge; and two appellant court panels (6 years apart.) Everyone on the right side of the v. are very happy. This afternoon was the last judicial session for Hon. Lisa Schall, who after 32 years as a judge in San Diego Superior Court has retired today. I had a pleasure to be in her department this afternoon to watch her wrap things up. Once I’ll step on this bench, she said to the attorneys and parties present, all of this will be in my rear-view mirror. With that said, she awarded the $103.5 thousand in attorney fees to RLF for the case we litigated in August of this year representing two tow truck drivers against their former employer for paying them commissions for the tows and other roadside services performed in lieu of compensating them for the hours worked. The award of attorney fees was in addition to the $108+ thousand judgment awarded after trial. ( Defendant already filed a Notice of Appeal.)

Reyzin Law Firm Receives 2016 Best of Carlsbad Award CARLSBAD October 21, 2016 -- Reyzin Law Firm has been selected for the 2016 Best of Carlsbad Award in the Employment Attorney category by the Carlsbad Award Program. http://carlsbad.carlsbad.localawardscenter.org/PressRelease

For those who take our constitutional rights for granted: France lacks an equivalent of the U.S.’s First Amendment. France’s Declaration of Human Rights, which is part of the Constitution, does include an article protecting free speech, however, it’s technically illegal to publicly insult someone. The France’s penal code forbids any private insult toward a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 624-4). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34580169?#_=_

Reyzin Law Firm Receives 2016 Best of Carlsbad Award CARLSBAD October 21, 2016 -- Reyzin Law Firm has been selected for the 2016 Best of Carlsbad Award in the Employment Attorney category by the Carlsbad Award Program. http://carlsbad.carlsbad.localawardscenter.org/PressRelease

A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960). So the ordinary meaning of the term tangible object in 1519, as no one here disputes, covers fish (including too-small red grouper). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, asserting in her dissent in Yates v. United States (135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015)) that fish are tangible objects. The majority found that a fisherman wasn’t tampering with evidence when he threw back grouper he’d caught illegally; under Sarbanes-Oxley, the justices reasoned, the fish didn’t fit the description of any record, document or tangible object.