Lagarias & Boulter, L.L.P.

In Independent Assn. of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) the firm broke important new ground for franchisees faced with arbitration when the Court of Appeals reversed numerous rulings of the trial court. The court held that the trial court erred in enforcing a provision banning group arbitration proceedings and instead ordered group arbitration. The court also held that franchisees bringing statutory claims were entitled to seek a fee allocation ruling enabling those statutory rights to be vindicated.

In Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (Cal. 2005) the firm litigated an important employee rights issue before the California Supreme Court. Specifically, the case addressed whether officers, directors, and shareholders of corporate employers could be liable for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. Although the court rejected such liability on the state of the law, Justice Moreno urged the legislature to extend such liability:

“The abuse of the corporate form to avoid paying overtime wages is well documented….The exploitation of such vulnerable workers by unscrupulous individuals hiding behind the corporate form takes place against a backdrop of diminished public resources for the enforcement of the state's labor laws….. the federal equivalent of section 1194 contained in the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has long given workers this right under a definition of "employer" that includes [corporate officers]… Taking a leaf from federal law, the Legislature could similarly authorize section 1194 actions against such individuals. I urge the Legislature to do so.”

In Ramsdell v. Lenscrafters, Inc., 135 Fed. Appx. 130 (9th Cir. 2005) the firm successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that a prohibition of class action lawsuits in employment arbitration agreements was unconscionable.