Employer lawsuit 419
October 7th, 2011 
admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Rutti v Lojack Corp. Inc. 596 F.3d 1046 (9Cir 2010) [1] Employee R’s commuting in employer L’s car not compensable under Employee Commuter Flexibility Act 25 USC 254, even if condition of employment.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com [2] Conditions placed on use of L’s car does not change the conclusion. Activity preliminary to commuting also not compensable, unless it is a “principal activity” of employer. Planning day’s routes and jobs is presumptively non-compensable and, here, is also de minimis; likewise, uploading daily report at end of day. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two 418
October 6th, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v City of Santee 182 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2010) (4/1) M claimed rent control ordinance when retroactively applied deprived M of right to petition, since unconstitutional ordinance foreclosed that right. San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com Held, no private right of action for money damages for claimed violation of right to petition under Cal. Const. art. I, § 13. Limited to declaratory and injunctive relief. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Alleged sheriff deputies over-detained 417
October 3rd, 2011 admin Premises liability is another area of San-Diego-Personal-Injury-attorney.com
Avalos v Baca 596 F.3d 583 (9Cir 2010) § 1983. A. alleged sheriff deputies over-detained him due to others’ administrative error.San-Diego-Auto-Accident-lawyer.com [1] Named Ds not personally involved, so action against Ds inofficial capacity only. a must show Ds had Monell official policy or practice of over-detaining, which A. did not allege. [2] A. alleged Ds coerced him into $500 settlement and claim waiver. No freestanding right to be free of coerced waiver, but rather is affirmative defense to Ds’ waiver argument. Therefore no clearly established right sufficient to defeat Ds’ qualified immunity. [3] Conspiracy claims properly dismissed where underlying claims were dismissed. [4] RICO claims fail in that predicate acts (1 & 2 above) were not violations of the law. San Diego personal injury attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off