Staff, Author at HELMER FRIEDMAN LLP 310-396-7714

Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Publishes Article by Andrew H. Friedman

The June 2016 edition of the Advocate Magazine (published by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles) features an article by Helmer Friedman LLP partner Andrew H. Friedman. The article – “The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015” – examines, praises and lambasts those decisions from the U.S. and California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and the California Courts of Appeal and federal district courts. A copy of the article can be viewed here.

2015 continued a remarkable recent trend in which the California state and federal courts issued, on an almost daily basis, a deluge of employment decisions. Buried within this torrent of opinions are some cases – the “best” and the “worst” (from the perspective of the plaintiff employee) – about which the employment practitioner must be aware. This article attempts to “cherry-pick” and summarize not just the most important cases from 2015 (and very early 2016) but also those that are of the most utility to the plaintiff employment practitioner. Read more >>

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:45-08:00June 7th, 2016|employment law publications|Comments Off

Employment Law Article – California Litigation Review by Andrew Friedman
Gallery
Employment Law Article – California Litigation Review by Andrew Friedman

employment law, law review articles

Employment Law Article – California Litigation Review by Andrew Friedman

California Litigation Review Publishes Article By Andrew H. Friedman

Helmer Friedman LLP is pleased to congratulate Andrew H. Friedman for having an article published in the California Litigation Review. The California Litigation Review is published annually by the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California. The Review provides an annual overview of developments of interest to California’s civil litigators. “It is an honor to be published in the California Litigation Review along with such luminaries in civil litigation as Morgan Chu at Irell & Manella, Marcellus A. McRae of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Anna-Rose Mathieson of the California Appellate Law Group,” commented Mr. Friedman. A copy of Mr. Friedman’s article can be located here.

Staff2023-07-12T10:06:28-08:00April 7th, 2016|employment law, law review articles|Comments Off

Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor
Gallery
Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor

employment law, fair employment rights, Front Page News, Wage & Hour Violations, wrongful termination

Former General Manager Files Suit to Demand Justice From Government Contractor

The former General Manager of MV Transportation’s San Leandro, California office filed a lawsuit today in Los Angeles County Superior Court against his prior employer, MV Transportation, and its Regional Vice President, Clarence Michael Stewman (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC614873). Plaintiff Aaron Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges, among other things, that MV Transportation and Mr. Stewman lured him away from his job in Texas to begin a new position in California based on false promises and representations, and that after he arrived in California, the defendants reneged on their obligation to pay Mr. Gonzales his quarterly bonus for meeting performance goals.

California Labor Code Section 970 prohibits an employer or individual from persuading a person to move residences for a job, “by means of knowingly false representations” regarding compensation or other matter. Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit alleges that when he complained about the underpayment of his bonus, the company fired him in retaliation for his complaints, which is unlawful under California law.

MV Transportation provides passenger transportation via fixed-route, paratransit (for people with disabilities) and school buses. MV TRANSPORATION contracts primarily with government entities across the U.S. and Canada and provides consulting services world-wide. MV TRANSPORTATION boasts annual revenues of $1,000,000,000.00 (one billion dollars) and operates nearly 10,000 transit vehicles and employs more than 16,500 transit professionals.

Mr. Gonzales is represented by Helmer Friedman, LLP a Culver City, California law firm that represents employees and other individuals who seeking to assert their rights. Mr. Gonzales’ attorney, Andrew H. Friedman stated, “No private company, particularly ones that receive public money, ostensibly to carry out public services, should be permitted to flout employment laws and betray the trust that taxpayers have bestowed in them.” Mr. Friedman continued, “Corporations headquartered in Texas sometimes mistakenly think that they can come to California and act like this is the ‘wild west.’ But even corporations headquartered in other states must follow California employment laws.”

For more information about Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit, please contact Andrew Friedman or Lincoln Ellis at 310-396-7714. Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to Mr. Gonzales’ claims please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Mr. Ellis. A copy of Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit can be found here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00March 24th, 2016|employment law, fair employment rights, Front Page News, Wage & Hour Violations, wrongful termination|Comments Off

The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015
Gallery
The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015

employment law publications, law review articles, retaliation

The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015

Andrew H. Friedman Authors Article on the Most Notable Employment Cases of 2015

Helmer Friedman LLP is pleased to congratulate founding partner Andrew H. Friedman on his latest law review article — The Best and Worst Employment Cases of 2015, Cal. Lab. & Emp. L. R. Vol. 30, No. 1 (2016). In this article, Mr. Friedman opines on the the employment cases decided in 2015 which he believes are the most notable and/or of the most utility for the everyday employment practioner. The article can be viewed here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00January 26th, 2016|employment law publications, law review articles, retaliation|Comments Off

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees
Gallery
CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

June 24, 2015 –The former Chief Financial Officer of SolarMax Technology, Inc. – a renewable energy conglomerate located in Riverside, CA – has filed a lawsuit against the company and several of its directors and executive management team, including CEO David Hsu, Executive Vice President Ching Liu, and CFO Simon Yuan. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC585952). Among other things, plaintiff Michael McCaffrey alleges that he was fired for exposing fraud and financial improprieties in connection with approximately $60 million in capital SolarMax has raised from foreign nationals through the federal EB-5 Immigration and Visa Program (colloquially known as the “Visa for Sale” program). The EB-5 program provides wealthy foreign nationals (and their immediate families) with a two-year fast track to permanent U.S. residency in return for investing $1,000,000 or, in some cases, $500,000 in domestic businesses. The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. McCaffrey discovered that SolarMax, by engaging in a series of Enron-like “round trip” transactions with sham middleman entities, reported approximately $50,000,000 in phantom revenue on its 2011 and 2012 audited financial statements. In an effort to create a false impression of stronger financial performance and, thus, to attract investment capital, the suit alleges that SolarMax disseminated these artificially inflated figures to EB-5 investors (mostly in Taiwan and China) and others. Mr. McCaffrey also alleges that the inflated revenue figures were presented to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – part of U.S. Homeland Security – which regulates the EB-5 program.

“Most people do not realize that there is a program by which foreign citizens can literally purchase Green Cards if they have enough money and invest it in a qualifying business,” said Mr. Helmer. The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. McCaffrey exposed a series of other unlawful activities at SolarMax, including efforts to defraud the Social Security Administration by placing non-employee friends and relatives on the company’s payroll for the sole purpose of permitting them to earn Social Security credits. He further alleges that there existed a pattern of favoritism for the many employees of Chinese descent, and that he – and other employees who were not of Chinese descent – were subjected to unfair treatment and discrimination.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Helmer said, “Mr. McCaffrey, in his role as the CFO, was simply trying to ensure that SolarMax complied with the same set of rules and operated on the same playing field as all other law-abiding companies. Instead, he was fired after discovering a pattern of improprieties and trying to protect himself – and the company – by insisting that they be discontinued.”

For more information, please contact Gregory D. Helmer or Courtney Abrams at (310) 396-7714.

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Complaint

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Press Release

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00June 24th, 2015|fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off

State Bar of California’s Labor and Employment Law Section’s 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor & Employment Law Section Annual Meeting
Gallery
State Bar of California’s Labor and Employment Law Section’s 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor & Employment Law Section Annual Meeting

Andrew Friedman, speaking engagements

State Bar of California’s Labor and Employment Law Section’s 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor & Employment Law Section Annual Meeting

July 9, 2015 – Helmer Friedman LLP attorneys Andrew H. Friedman and Priyan Chandraratna will be speaking at the State Bar of California’s Labor and Employment Law Section’s 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor And Employment Law Section Annual Meeting on July 9 & 10, 2015 at:

JW Marriott LA Live,
900 W Olympic Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90015

Mr. Friedman will be speaking along with Anthony Oncidi (of Proskauer Rose LLP) on a panel entitled The Good, The Bad & The Ugly – A Review of Recent Employment Law Cases. In this fast-paced discussion, Mr. Friedman and Mr. Oncidi will reprise their annual review of recent employment law cases with an emphasis on those cases of most utility to the employment practitioner whether plaintiff, defense or neutral.

Mr. Chandraratna will be speaking on a panel entitled Employment Discrimination 101. This panel will provide a summary of the key challenges of litigating an employment discrimination case from the plaintiff and defense perspectives, including jurisdiction and venue selection, which causes of action to plead and how to plead them so the complaint sticks, strategies to attack the complaint early on in the litigation and key defenses. Mr. Chandraratna will be speaking with Daphne Anneet (of Burke Williams & Sorensen) and Dolores Leal (of Allred Maroko & Goldberg, Los Angeles).

For more information about the Labor and Employment Law Section’s 5th Advanced Wage & Hour Conference and 32nd Labor And Employment Law Section Annual Meeting, go to http://laborlaw.calbar.ca.gov/Education/AdvancedWageHourConference/Schedule.aspx

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00May 28th, 2015|Andrew Friedman, speaking engagements|Comments Off

Worker Dissent & Discontent: Addressing Complaints At Work & In Cyberspace
Gallery
Worker Dissent & Discontent: Addressing Complaints At Work & In Cyberspace

Andrew Friedman, speaking engagements

Worker Dissent & Discontent: Addressing Complaints At Work & In Cyberspace

June 9, 2015 – Andrew H. Friedman to speak at the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s June 9, 2015 Hollywood, California Seminar. Mr. Friedman will speak on a panel entitled Worker Dissent & Discontent: Addressing Complaints At Work & In Cyberspace along with:

Moderator: Patricia Kane, EEOC Enforcement Manager

Jean Libby, Senior Attorney, Region 21, National Labor Relations Board

Colleen Regan, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

For more information about this program, click here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 28th, 2015|Andrew Friedman, speaking engagements|Comments Off

Demurrers and Motions To Strike
Gallery
Demurrers and Motions To Strike

employment law publications, law review articles

Demurrers and Motions To Strike

Andrew H. Friedman Authors Article On Demurrers and Motions To Strike

Helmer Friedman LLP is proud to congratulate Andrew H. Friedman on the publication of his latest law review article – “Demurrers and Motions to Strike – They Aren’t Just for Defendants Anymore.” In this article, Mr. Friedman outlines the authorities addressing the pleading standards applicable to affirmative defenses, discusses the arguments favoring and disfavoring challenges to affirmative defenses, and summarizes the law regarding challenges to the most frequently asserted affirmative defenses. The article can be viewed here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 28th, 2015|employment law publications, law review articles|Comments Off

$5.7 Million Jury Verdict for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

May 1, 2015 –

Court of Appeal Affirm’s Ted Mathew’s $5.7 Million Jury Verdict For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Today, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court ruling and reinstated a $5.7 Million jury verdict that Charles “Ted” Mathews obtained on behalf Dr. Michael W. Fitzgibbons. Commenting about this victory, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, said “Ted’s victory today exemplifies why we wanted him to join our law firm. We think that Ted is one of the premier trial attorneys on the West Coast and we could not be happier that he is working with us.”

Mr. Mathews’ client, Dr. Fitzgibbons, sued his former employer, Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHI”), for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of IHHI’s chief executive officer (“CEO”). At trial, the jury impliedly found that IHHI’s CEO carried out his threat to “humble” Dr. Fitzgibbons by having him arrested after arranging for a loaded handgun to be planted in his car. The jury also impliedly found the CEO caused Dr. Fitzgibbons’s daughter to be in a serious auto accident after one of her tires was slashed. The CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons to punish him for his outspoken opposition to IHHI’s acquisition of the hospital where Dr. Fitzgibbons had just completed a term as chief of staff, and also Dr. Fitzgibbons’s success in an earlier lawsuit that resulted in a $150,000 attorneys fee award against IHHI. Accordingly, the jury found in favor of Dr. Fitzgibbons and awarded him $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against IHHI.

Following the trial, the trial court granted IHHI’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it found IHHI was not vicariously liable for its CEO’s misconduct under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the trial court, the CEO acted outside the scope of his employment because he held a personal grudge against Fitzgibbons and therefore his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the jury’s verdict because foreseeability of the CEO’s conduct is not the exclusive test for determining the employer’s vicarious liability for an employee’s torts. An employee also acts within the scope of employment when his or her tort is engendered by or arises from a dispute that relates to the employer’s business. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s implied finding the CEO retaliated against Dr. Fitzgibbons based on a dispute relating to IHHI’s acquisition and operation of the hospital, and the trial court’s finding the CEO acted out of a personal grudge impermissibly supplants the jury’s determination on the weight and credibility of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

Staff2018-04-12T13:45:55-08:00May 1st, 2015|Case Update, employment law, Front Page News, retaliation|Comments Off