Category

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Sometimes, civil litigation may have serious and lasting consequences that go beyond finances or business. A breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit filed by a college student concerning his medical treatment against Aetna Insurance led to an investigation by California’s insurance commissioner. The student claimed that Aetna denied coverage for infusion of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of his immune disorder. Depositions during this lawsuit’s discovery period instigated the commissioner’s inquiry. Aetna’s former medical director admitted under oath that he never looked at the patient’s records when deciding whether to approve or reject care. He claimed that he followed Aetna’s training and procedures. These supposedly consisted of nurses reviewing records and making recommendations. Furthermore, he also acknowledged that he did not know about the student’s condition or appropriate treatment. The physician further testified that he was unaware of the medical outcome if this treatment was discontinued. He served as director of Aetna in Southern California from March of 2012 to February of 2015. The insurance commissioner said that the state is investigating the extent of this practice and it would be concerning if the insurer made coverage decisions without a physician reviewing medical records. He also claimed that this practice could be illegal. He said any insured individuals who may have been impacted by this practice should contact the commission. Aetna, the nation’s largest health insurer, is defending this physician. According to its statement, Aetna will explain its clinical review process during the state’s investigation. Aetna’s medical directors take their medical professionals’ responsibilities seriously and they work collaboratively with nurses whose opinions and recommendations are part of the decision-making process, according to its statement. Individuals can suffer many serious and long-term consequences when other parties do not meet their obligations under an insurance policy or other contact. An attorney can help assure that these responsibilities are met or that an injured party can seek damages or compensation. Source: Fortune, “Aetna under investigation after former exec admits denying care without reading patient’s records,” Natasha Bach, Feb. 12, 2018

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, January 24, 2018. California civil litigation may involve the latest trends and sensations. “Grumpy Cat,” the internet feline, who represented many of life’s difficulties in social media memes in 2012, is the star of a federal lawsuit in southern California. Grumpy Cat Limited filed a lawsuit against Grenade Beverage in 2015 for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting of a website and an accounting. It claimed that it gave Grenade only a limited license to use the cat’s image for a Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino iced coffee beverage. However, Grenade allegedly planned to go beyond this license by selling a Grumpy Cat roasted coffee. Grenade, in turn, filed a countersuit with a breach of contract claim that Grumpy did not meet the terms of this contract and made up reasons to get out of it. Grenade asked for $1 million in damages from the unsuccessful product launch of the Grumppuccino. It also charged breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and intentional misrepresentation and reverse name hijacking. Adding another life to this feline litigation, the owners of Grenade ultimately formed a limited liability company called Grumpy Beverage, which intervened in the case. Trial began earlier this month. Grumpy Cat, whose actual name is Tardar Sauce, attended the trial in a pet carrier. Her owner sat next to the cat and was expected to show her cat when she testifies. The owner’s brother and business partner inadvertently launched this online sensation by accidentally posted a photo of the cat with the grumpy appearance, attributed to an underbite and feline dwarfism. Grumpy Cat’s attorneys argued in court that there was a license agreement for the Grumppuccino, but there were possible talks concerning other future products that they could launch. Grenade said that Grumpy Cat did not offer meaningful support for the product and took other steps to undermine it. Parties in more routine cases may seek legal representation to help assure that their rights are protected in court. An attorney can also help assure that parties meet their contract obligations to avoid the filing of a lawsuit.

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, January 10, 2018. California’s 40 million residents can legally engage in the recreational use of marijuana after January 1. While one legal obstacle to its use was removed, there may be civil litigation stemming from the workplace use of marijuana. Every state permits employers to terminate a worker who uses marijuana at work. The California state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Court noted back then what is still true today. The federal government still classifies marijuana as a Class I drug, which is illegal for any reason. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently reemphasized this position and withdrew the federal government’s hands-off position on prosecution. A Chief Operating Officer for a marijuana dispensary stated that employers still have the right to conduct drug tests and mandate a drug-free work place. There are safety issues concerning the use of marijuana at the workplace. The U.S, Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 5,190 workers were killed on the job in 2016, which was the highest number of fatalities since 2008. Any impairment can be particularly damaging in professions and occupations such as doctors and construction workers. However, as with alcohol, a habitual marijuana user may function better at work than an infrequent user. Many California employers are just going to have to decide whether a worker should be fired if the worker appears impaired. Insurers have the dual problem of paying higher workers’ compensation claims for injuries. However, they also must pay legal lawsuits concerning employees claiming that they were wrongly dismissed. Additionally, new grounds for wrongful termination lawsuits are on the horizon. Federal law does not require an employee to reveal whether they have a condition that is treatable by marijuana, such as cancer or glaucoma. If an employee has a prescription for marijuana for these conditions, the employee can claim that their employer did not make a reasonable accommodation. This issue is going to grow more complicated as more workers may use marijuana for recreational and medical purposes, and it can be conveniently ingested at work in the form of a pill, candy and food. An attorney can help advise employees on their rights and the rapidly-developing law on this issue.

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, December 27, 2017. California homeowners can face serious consequences in civil litigation over late mortgage payments. Foreclosure can cause serious financial consequences. Mortgage payments are usually due on the first day of each month, but extensions can be granted until the fifteenth of the month before a late fee is charged. Late fees may be charged for each month a payment is missed or if a homeowner goes into default or is 30 days late. When a payment is missed, the loan becomes past due and may be reported on a credit report. One missed or late payment on a credit report can reduce a homeowner’s credit score. A homeowner may remedy a late payment caused by a temporary financial hardship under a reinstatement plan. The homeowner just repays the amount owed and no formalized plan is needed. Another option is a forbearance plan where a temporary financial hardship, such as a natural disaster, prevented payment, but the homeowner will return to their income level in a few months. The homeowner pays a reduced amount during the hardship. However, the mortgage will continue to accrue interest and arrearages must be paid when the forbearance plan is concluded. A repayment plan may be appropriate when the homeowner missed some payments but is able to pay more than the monthly mortgage payments over the next few months to make up missed payments. The homeowner makes increased payments, normally for two to six months, until the debt becomes current. Homeowners who are making less money, have increased expenses or lost a spouse through death or divorce may seek a modification. This reduces the monthly payment to an affordable amount and makes the loan current by adding the missed payments to the owed amounts. Before approval, this often requires a three or four-month trial plan of consecutive on-time payments. A homeowner who cannot afford monthly payments and owes more than their home is worth may consider a short sale. They can sell their home and manage this process. Finally, a deed in lieu of foreclosure applies to a homeowner who cannot afford their monthly payments and does not wish to participate in its sale. The homeowner relinquishes ownership in return for all or part of the mortgage debt.

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, December 13, 2017. Parties in civil litigation in California may face enormous, even multi-million-dollar consequences. Earlier this month, Mozilla filed a lawsuit against Yahoo alleging breach of contract over a 2014 deal. Mozilla filed this countersuit after being sued by Yahoo and is seeking hundreds of million dollars in this action. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County, stems from a deal in which Yahoo agreed to pay Mozilla to provide searches within its Firefox Web browser. After Verizon acquired Yahoo’s websites this summer, Mozilla terminated this agreement and made Google its default search engine. In November, Mozilla launched a new version of its web browser and said that Google was its default search provider in North America. Allegedly, Yahoo was still contractually-required to continue to pay Mozilla $375 million each year through 2019 even if it terminated Mozilla as its search partner. Days before this lawsuit, Yahoo already sued Mozilla for breach of contract. Yahoo claimed that it satisfied all the contract’s material obligations. Yahoo originally entered this contract in a bold attempt to restore its competitive advantage in a Google-dominated search market, where the financial stakes are enormous. Yahoo and Google obtain lucrative advertising revenue from Web browsers and search ads were profitable for Yahoo even though Google was dominant in this market. Mozilla charged that Yahoo did not meet expectations regarding its investment in its search engines and other assurances. It claimed that the Firefox browser market share fell by 25 percent because advertising was not relevant for users and the results were below average. Because of pervasive security breaches at Yahoo, Firefox users switched their search engines even though Yahoo was set as the default engine. Civil litigation can have financial consequences for any party and devastate a business. An attorney can help assure that their rights are pursued in these proceedings. Source: The San Francisco Chronicle, “Mozilla, Yahoo sue each other over search deal,” Wendy Lee, Dec. 5, 2017

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Women alleging sexual misconduct by powerful and well-known celebrities, such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Matt Lauer, face many risks. Strictly speaking, they may also face the risk of a civil lawsuit by breaking nondisclosure agreements. However, the risk of a breach of contract lawsuit in these cases have decreased. Nondisclosure agreements purchase silence as part of the financial settlement of harassment or sexual misconduct allegations, or may be contained in employment contracts. These agreements are often executed before a lawsuit is filed or before a case goes to trial. Confidentiality agreements sometimes require accusers to destroy evidence concerning the allegations, such as emails. Accusers may face little choice but to agree to silence as their only option to obtain any compensation or justice, especially when the statute of limitations expired and prevents the filing of criminal charges. Some accusers want to avoid the trauma and stress of a public court fight. Courts may refuse to enforce these clauses if there is an overriding public interest, such as exposing an abuser so that other individuals are not victimized or that an accuser’s free speech rights are restricted. Most judges are also generally reluctant to penalize a victim for violating these agreements. The accused may try to sue the alleged victim for breach of contract and seek the return of the financial settlement. However, this often draws attention to the original charges and is perceived as continued abuse of the victim. These agreements were reportedly breached in at least two well-known cases. Bill Cosby sued one of his accusers in 2016 after Pennsylvania law enforcement officials filed charges that he drugged and molested her in 2004. He claimed that she breached the agreement by answering the prosecutor’s questions before he was charged. The victim claimed that he publicly claimed that he did not assault anyone. He withdrew the lawsuit months later. Former CEO of Fox News Roger Ailes sued Gretchen Carlson in 2016 when she publicly claimed that she was fired for her refusal of his sexual advances. He claimed that the contract first required confidential arbitration. Ailes died in May, however.

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, November 22, 2017. Employees have undertaken civil litigation when their employers have penalized them over their pregnancies and other family matters. In an unusual case, however, a school guidance counselor filed a wrongful termination lawsuit earlier this month and claimed that his school district fired him because his wife gave birth to twins. The plaintiff claimed that the Atascadero School District hired him as a counselor under a one-year contract in August of 2015. It also gave him the possibility of contract renewal. The counselor learned that his wife was pregnant in September of 2015 and told one of his co-workers in November. The colleague then informed the vice principal who was the plaintiff’s supervisor. The vice principal allegedly made inappropriate comments to the plaintiff, including inferences that he was unable to pay for the size of his family and inquiries about his wife’s stay-at-home lifestyle. The counselor went on family leave near the time of his children’s birth in April. Later that month, he met with the vice principal and the school principal. The vice principal reversed his earlier assurances that the counselor’s contract would be renewed and said that the school needed someone who worked harder than ever and was having the time of his life. He also told him that one on the newborn children was ugly, according to the allegations. The vice principal later called the plaintiff during his leave and told him that someone else was being hired and that his contract was not being renewed because he left a meeting 15 minutes early. His contract expired at the end of his leave in June. The school district did not contact him about another job application that he submitted. In his lawsuit, filed with the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, the counselor charges that the school district engaged in pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of the California Family Rights Act. He claimed that the school did not accommodate him, did not notify him about other job opportunities and engaged in harassment and retaliation because of his wife’s pregnancy. The school district denied the charges. It said that it complied with the state’s Family Rights Act and promoted a respectful workplace.

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, November 9, 2017. Inappropriate touching, rude comments and other types of sexual harassment can lead to additional legal issues at the workplace such as wrongful termination. A former NBC Universal employee in Los Angeles filed a wrongful termination civil action in Sept. against her former employer and claimed that it created a hostile work environment by not fully investigating sexual harassment charges. The suit was filed in a California state court. However, the media conglomerate is vigorously defending the action and had it removed to federal court. The plaintiff claimed that her employer inadequately responded to inappropriate and gender-based sexual comments when she was employed as senior digital fulfillment specialist between 2016 and Aug. 2017. Her direct supervisor allegedly used a nickname for his genitalia and described his sexual conduct and the conduct of other male employes. He also made, according to the complaint, crude comments about an LGBTQ event and domestic violence victims. The plaintiff charged that she discussed this alleged harassment with the employer’s human resources office but there was no adequate investigation. She was not assigned to another supervisor. As a result, she claimed that she suffered mental or physical disabilities from continuing retaliation and harassment that restricted her personal and professional life. She was ultimately placed on sick leave until she lost her job. The plaintiff alleged that NBCUniversal wrongfully terminated her employment because of her complaints on sexual harassment and in retaliation for her disabilities and request for accommodation. She also said that the employer misrepresented the grounds for termination as the employer moving her job to a non-remote position although she said that she was not offered the opportunity for an office-based job. NBC said that it safeguards equal employment opportunities and provides a safe and respectful workplace. It also asserted affirmative defenses, such as business judgment, that the complaint was not timely filed, that the plaintiff did not exhaust other legal remedies and that her own conduct contributed to the injuries she allegedly suffered. It also challenged the constitutionality of the requested damages, described the lawsuit as being frivolous and demanded attorney fees. An attorney can help victims of sexual harassment at the workplace and wrongful termination assert their rights. They can gather evidence and fight the counter-charges brought by employers.