UCC AND CONTRACT LAW

Contractor v. Employee

Posted on October 3, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

The Kansas Supreme Court just issued an opinion that hundreds of truck drivers who delivered packages were employees and not independent contractors. This has huge tax, benefit and healthcare repercussions for FedEx.

According to the court, the drivers sued FedEx alleging they were improperly classified as independent contractors under the law. The drivers are seeking to recoup retroactive costs and expenses, as well as overtime. The state court issued the opinion in response to a request from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering appeals in 20 class-action suits, including the one in Kansas. All those had been decided in FedEx’s favor.

The Kansas court’s opinion is a setback for FedEx in a long-running dispute between it and some delivery drivers about whether they were contractors or employees before the company changed its business model in 2011, when it started contracting with corporations that employed drivers. In August, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against the company in a similar case that the company is appealing. The bottom line is that one must carefully document an the agreement and be honest in abiding by it.

At the law firm of William A. Miller we can help draft an independent contractor agreement and explain the benefit or danger of such. Call Bill at 602-319-6899 to discuss it or stop by for a visit at 8170 North 86th Place Suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.

Complex Litigation

Posted on September 19, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

Talk about complex litigation. We represent a company who has been tossed into a longstanding CERCLA case in California. The Leach Site and the Mouren-Laurens Site are in Compton, California. These sites have been the subject of hardball litigation between the owners and operators for almost 17 years. The plaintiff in that case, Rev. 973 LLC v. Mouren-Laurens, CV No. 98-10690 (C.D. Cal.), just filed an amended complaint naming 1,300 new defendants (PRPs) that allegedly generated wastes sent to the sites. The plaintiff is now in the process of serving notices on those PRPs that require the new PRPs to appear in the lawsuit by completing a PRP Appearance Notice and taking other required actions within 30 days after receiving the notice. These new parties may not file or serve any other documents in the lawsuit, including motions to dismiss or answers.

The ongoing case management order contemplates site investigation by mid 2015 and establishing procedures sometime in late 2014 for those parties to participate in the litigation. The case involves claims for private cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA and the California Health and Safety Code, for relief under RCRA, and for relief under various other theories. The case is pending before the Honorable Dale S. Fischer in the Central District of California. Judge Carl J. West (ret.) has been appointed as a Special Master. MK Environmental Consulting, Inc., has been appointed as an environmental consultant to conduct certain site investigation work, and site characterization work is ongoing. The defendants claim the cleanup costs will be in the range of $5 million. The plaintiff, Rev 973, llc claims the costs could be as high as $50 million.

If you have been sued in this matter, call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 to discuss it. Bill’s office is located in Scottsdale Arizona, but he is admitted Pro Hac, in the Federal Court in California who is handling this case.

Apple, Google, Intel & Adobe?

Posted on September 11, 2014 in UCC AND CONTRACT LAW

A California judge has extended, yet again, the start of a class-action, antitrust claim involving 64,000 current and former Silicon Valley tech workers. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh set an April 9 start date for the trial and if it goes, it will be huge news.

Apple, Google, Intel & Adobe are accused of conspiring not to recruit each other’s tech employees, therefore, suppressing wages in the mid 2000’s. The implications to this are monumental. I cannot imagine that the claims will ever see the light of the courtroom.

The four companies have appealed Koh’s rejection of a $324.5 million settlement proposed by both sides. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, could reject the appeal or overrule Koh by ordering her to approve the settlement.

At the law firm of William A. Miller in Scottsdale Arizona we handle many types of commercial and employment cases. Over the 27 we have been in business, we have referred a number of class action claims to prominent lawyers. We have also had the occasion to argue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Please call Bill direct at 602-319-6899 if you have a business, real estate or antitrust claim.

The firm has been actively representing litigants for over 27 years. We are located in Scottsdale, Arizona at 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208. 85258 or can be reached with questions at bmiller@williamamillerpllc.com or call 602-319-6899.

We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.

The Fox (Snake) Watched the Hen house

Posted on August 19, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

A lawyer (snake) has been sentenced to two years in prison for his role in taking a disabled client of money she was entitled to receive from a $500,000 insurance settlement. He should have received ten years! It’s like the fable of old where the Fox watched the hen house. A sorry joke indeed. Ed…

Read More

Saint Thomas More

Posted on August 17, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If you ever saw the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding you would remember that the bride’s father thought that Windex could cure all ills and that the Greeks’ were responsible for all of western civilization’s great accomplishments. That was hilarious. I still love that movie. As I approach 27 years as a trial lawyer…

Read More

9th Circuit “Stern” when it comes to Fraudulent Conveyance

Posted on August 4, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Stern v. Marshall (all cites omitted) federal courts have issued differing opinions regarding the range of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enter final judgments in adversary proceedings. In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, looking at Stern, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a bankruptcy court…

Read More

Crappy neighbors crappy home life

Posted on July 21, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If you practice law in New York, you better know finance. Texas, it’s oil law. Hollywood, the savvy lawyers get into entertainment law. If it’s Arizona you better know real estate. By hook or crook, it always shows up in Arizona. That’s because we are a fast growing State. In my early years, I represented…

Read More

Builder be Aware

Posted on July 11, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Home Builder be Aware! On April 22nd, 2014, HB 2018 was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer. The bill will amend two key anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814, the former relating to judicial foreclosures and the latter to non-judicial foreclosures. Borrowers have relied upon both of these statutes in order to…

Read More

Title Insurance in Arizona

Posted on July 6, 2014 in UCC AND CONTRACT LAW

I often get calls from home buyers from other States that require lawyers to close real estate transactions. In Arizona we do not necessarily need lawyers to close real estate deals as long as a licensed broker and title/escrow company is used. A title commitment is issued shortly after opening of escrow. Then, the fun…

Read More

Securities Fraud + Class Action = Alive and well.

Posted on in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

The Supreme Court made it harder for investors to band together to pursue class action claims that they were misled when they bought or sold securities. But the justices did not accept a broader challenge, one that could have put an end to most class actions for securities fraud. So, as we say, class actions…

Read More
© Copyright 2008 William A. Miller, Esq., All Rights Reserved