Hacker v. Fabe, 92 Cal. App. 5th 1267 (2023)

In 2005, attorney Jacqueline Fabe filed claim for unpaid wages against her employer with the Labor Commissioner.  Her employer then filed a malpractice suit against Fabe, and Fabe in response filed a retaliation suit with the Labor Commissioner.  Fabe and the Labor Commissioner later won on all claims.  In March 2010, Fabe filed a motion

We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Parrish, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1270 (2009)

FLIR Systems purchased Indigo Systems, which manufactures and sells microbolometers (a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision and thermal imaging), for $185 million in 2004. William Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons were shareholders and officers of Indigo before the company was sold to FLIR; after the sale, they continued working for

FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Parrish, 2009 WL 1653103 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

FLIR Systems purchased Indigo Systems, which manufactures and sells microbolometers (a device used in connection with infrared cameras, night vision and thermal imaging), for $185 million in 2004. William Parrish and Timothy Fitzgibbons were shareholders and officers of Indigo before the company was sold to FLIR; after the sale, they continued working

Coleman v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (E.D. Cal. 2003)

Floyd Coleman, who was employed as a probation officer for the County of Sacramento, sued Standard Life Insurance Company after it denied him long-term disability benefits for his knee condition and chronic back pain. Coleman sued for a violation of ERISA and under state law for breach of contract and

2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (2003)

A purchaser of land (2,022 Ranch, LLC) sued its title insurer (Chicago Title) for breach of contract and bad faith. During the course of the litigation, 2,022 Ranch sought documents from Chicago Title’s claims file and also to depose claims handlers and their supervisors concerning Chicago Title’s handling of and refusal to

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003)

Curtis and Inez Campbell sued their automobile insurance carrier (State Farm) for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after State Farm declined to settle within the $50,000 policy limit a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit that had been filed against Curtis Campbell. Although State