Jump To Navigation

News

Business Organization and Transactions Articles

Marketing Your New Business

You may sell the best product or service in your market, but if no one knows about your business, you cannot be successful. In other words, along with providing a quality product or service, you must be able to market your business successfully. A marketing plan can be just as crucial as a business plan for a small business. Fortunately, many steps that you take to improve your business are components of marketing. But the goal is to take these steps and others into consideration when developing a cohesive marketing plan that will improve your business profits.

Read More

What should you know before you decide to breach a contract?

Every day, business owners, vendors, suppliers, customers and lenders create contracts, or agreements that one party will do something in exchange for the other's promise to do something, usually a promise to pay. For the most part, these agreements are carried out without problems, and if the parties do disagree, they can resolve the matter without too much trouble. On occasion, however, a party to a contract breaches, or breaks, the contract and the parties to the contract are unable to resolve how to proceed.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law Case Summaries

[03/04] Tamosaitis v. URS, Inc.
In this action brought by plaintiff-employee alleging violations of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) whistleblower protection provision concerning cleanup efforts of nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State, the district court's dismissal of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) from the suit and grant of summary judgment in defendant URS Corp.'s favor is affirmed, and the grant of summary judgment in defendant URS Energy & Construction's favor is reversed, where: 1) the ERA empowers whistleblowing employees at nuclear energy sites to bring anti-retaliation claims to federal court after one year of agency inaction; 2) dismissal of the DOE was proper because there was no administrative complaint pending against the DOE for one year before plaintiff filed suit against the DOE in federal court, and the ERA's administrative exhaustion requirement was not satisfied as against the DOE; 3) dismissal of URS Corp. for lack of administrative exhaustion was proper as URS Corp. was not adequately named in the original administrative complaint; 4) administrative exhaustion was sufficient as to URS Energy, as plaintiff gave adequate notice to URS Energy that it was the named respondent to his complaint; 5) there was sufficient evidence to create a triable issue as to whether plaintiff's whistleblowing activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action URS Energy took against him; and 6) plaintiff had a constitutional right to jury trial for his claims seeking money damages under the ERA.

[02/27] Universal Protection Service v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Franco)
Petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition challenging the superior court's order granting real party in interest Franco's demand to arbitrate her employment-related disputes with petitioner Universal and ruling that the arbitrator would decide the arbitrability of Franco's class action claims is denied, where: 1) the court erred by granting Franco’s petition in reliance on Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Dazzle; 2) the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules unambiguously state that the arbitrator is to decide whether the parties' arbitration agreement permits class arbitration; and 3) the parties' reference to AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent that the arbitrator decide the issue of arbitrability.

[02/27] Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Edwards)
Petition for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition challenging the superior court's order granting petitioner's amended motion to compel arbitration in which the court ordered the parties to arbitrate all of real party in interest Edward's claims (including her class action and representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)) is granted to the extent that it seeks to set aside the order compelling Edward's class and PAGA claims to arbitration, but denied as to the remainder of the requested relief, and the trial court is directed to enter a new order denying petitioner's amended motion to compel arbitration, where: 1) the trial court correctly ruled that Iskanian v. CLS Transportation rendered the PAGA waiver within the parties' dispute resolution agreement unenforceable, but the court then erred by invalidating and severing the waiver provision and sending Edward's entire complaint to arbitration; and 2) Edward's PAGA waiver was not severable from the remainder of the agreement, thus rending the entire dispute resolution agreement unenforceable and precluding the court from requiring that the parties arbitrate their disputes.

[02/26] Matthews v. City of New York
In this case, plaintiff police officer brought suit against the City of New York, alleging that the City retaliated against him for speaking to his commanding officers about an arrest quota policy at his precinct of the New York City Police Department. Judgment of the district court granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff spoke as a public employee, not a citizen, and that his speech was therefore not protected by the First Amendment, is vacated and remanded, where because plaintiff's comments on precinct policy did not fall within his official duties and because he elected a channel with a civilian analogue to pursue his complaint, he spoke as a citizen.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Tell Us About Your Case

Please fill out the form below or call us at 570-961-1166.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close