Photo of James Kachmar

James Kachmar

Subscribe to James Kachmar's Posts

James is a shareholder in Weintraub Tobin’s litigation section.  He represents corporate and individual clients in both state and federal courts in various business litigation matters, including trade secret misappropriation, unfair business competition, stockholder disputes, and intellectual property disputes.

Follow:Read more about James KachmarJames's Linkedin Profile

Labor Code section 2810 was enacted by the California Legislature in 2004. The primary provision of section 2810 prohibits a party such as an employer from contracting for certain types of services, including construction services if that party knows or should know the contract “does not include funds sufficient to allow the contractor to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided.” It also provides a private cause of action in favor of employees “aggrieved” by any violations. 

Section 2810 was enacted to address “wide spread subminimum wages and working conditions” that existed primarily in construction, janitorial, security and garment industries at the time. In Castillo v. Toll Bros., Inc. (decided July 28, 2011), a California appellate court addressed the provisions of section 2810 for apparently the first time. Toll Bros. was the general contractor on several construction projects and was later sued by employees of subcontractors alleging violations of wage and hour laws, including section 2810. The employees argued that Toll Bros., in bidding the projects, did not include sufficient funds to the subcontractors that resulted in the claimed wage and hour violations.Continue Reading LAW ALERT: “Minimizing” Employer Liability Under Labor Code §2810

On July 18, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, in which it upheld the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance enacted by Los Angeles in December 2005. That ordinance provides that when grocery stores of a specific size are acquired by a new owner, the current employees have certain rights during a 90-day transition period.   These rights include: the seller must prepare a list of non-managerial employees with at least six months employment as of the date of transfer and the buyer of the store must hire from that list during the transition period. Furthermore, the hired employees may only be discharged for cause during the transition period and that, at the end of the transition period, the buyer must prepare a written evaluation of each employee’s performance and “consider” offering all “satisfactory” employees continued employment. There are similar ordinances that have been adopted by several other California municipalities, such as Berkeley (Marina Business Workers), Emeryville (Hotel Workers), and San Jose (Airport Business Workers).Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Ordinance Regulating Ability to Replace Workers Upon Buying a Business

     Although several federal courts in California have previously considered the issue of preemption in trade secret misappropriation cases, the Sixth Appellate District, in K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. ___ Cal.Rptr. 3d ____ (6th Dist. Mar. 3, 2009), became one of the first (if not the first) California state court to hold that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) preempts state common law claims based on the same facts as a misappropriation claim. This ruling could have a significant impact on how trade secret misappropriation cases are both pled and litigated in California.Continue Reading TRADE SECRETS AND PREEMPTION