Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP
949-340-3400|949-427-1654

October 2017 Archives

An Exception to the Exception - The Special Errand Rule

In Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 915, Plaintiffs and appellants Morales-Simental, et al. appealed from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant and respondent Genentech, Inc.  Plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries and sustained damages as a result of the negligence of Vincent Inte Ong, an employee of Genentech Inc., during a vehicle collision.  The issue was whether or not Ong was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision.  The court looked to the doctrine of respondeat superior. 

Ninth Circuit Upholds California Tax Appeals Process as Providing a Plain, Speedy, and Efficient Remedy

In Hyatt v. Yee, the plaintiff disputed the California Franchise Tax Board's ("FTB's") determination that he owed $7.4 million in unpaid taxes for the 1991 and 1992 tax years on the ground that he moved to Nevada in 1991. Under California law, a plaintiff contesting an assessment may not litigate in state court until exhausting administrative remedies set out in Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19381. Generally, a plaintiff must first pay the disputed tax before seeking a refund. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19382. Under this "pay-then-protest" scheme, if the FTB does not mail a notice of action on the claim within six months, the plaintiff may sue in state court. Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 19385. However, if a plaintiff is contesting an assessment solely based on residency, he may instead opt to "protest-then-pay" a tax by seeking reconsideration in front of the FTB, appealing to the State Board of Equalization ("SBE"), and then suing in state court. See Cal. Rev. & Tax Code §§ 19044 & 19381.

Employees May Recover Penalties for Inadvertent Wage Statement Errors Without Any Showing of "Injury"

California Labor Code § 226(a) requires employers to provide accurate, itemized wage statements that show, among other things, gross and net wages earned, total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, total deductions, the dates of the pay period, and the employee's name and the last four digits of his Social Security number or an employee identification number. § 226(e) entitles an employee bringing suit in his or her individual capacity to recover penalties of up to $4,000, plus attorney's fees and costs if he or she establishes that an employer "knowingly and intentionally" failed to comply with § 226(a) and that he or she suffered "injury" as a result.

Valuation for Cramdown is "Replacement-Value" Not "Foreclosure-Value"

In Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. Partnership, the Ninth Circuit held that for chapter 11 cramdown purposes, the valuation of property need not account for the potential extinguishment of subordinated affordable housing covenants which, if extinguished through foreclosure, would significantly increase the value of the property. As such, the Ninth Circuit allowed the much lower valuation of the property which assumed the covenants were in place and allowed the debtor to value the senior lender's secured claim at a very low number. This allowed the debtor to value the lender's secured claim at a low amount and treat the rest of its claim as unsecured under Bankruptcy Code section 506(a). 

California Corporations - Virtual Shareholder Meetings

A "Virtual Shareholder Meeting" is one in which the shareholders not physically present in person or by proxy participate in a meeting through electronic transmission or electronic video screen. California permits all or partial Virtual Shareholder Meetings, subject to numerous limitations and requirements.

Irvine
Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP
• 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 600 • Irvine, CA 92618
• Local: 949-340-3400 • Fax: 949-340-3000 • Map & Directions
or contact us at 949-427-1654

Riverside
Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP
• 3550 Vine Street, Suite 210 • Riverside, CA 92507 
• Local: 951-275-9300 • Fax: 951-275-9303 • Map & Directions
or contact us at 949-427-1654

Map