Expert Counsel. Exceptional Solutions.

+1 (916) 822-8700

Categories
COVID News

U.S. Senate Passes $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

U.S. Senate Passes $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

On August 10th, 2021, with 68 yes votes vs. 29 no votes, the United States Senate passed the INVEST in America Act (H.R. 3684), a $1 trillion infrastructure revamp that has been a signature component of President Biden’s economic agenda. The bill constitutes a significant victory for the Biden Administration and received bipartisan support in its passing by the Senate.

More than half of the funds will go specifically to improvements in transportation, broadband telecommunications infrastructure, and public utilities. The bill also includes funding designated to combat climate change in the form of “publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, propane fueling infrastructure, and natural gas fueling infrastructure[.]” Specifically, the bill approves spending on the following:

  • $11 billion for road safety;
  • $15 billion on alternative fuel based vehicle infrastructure;
  • $17 billion toward port improvements;
  • $17 billion toward airports;
  • $21 billion on environmental reclamation;
  • $39 billion for public transit revitalization;
  • $66 billion to expand passenger rail lines;
  • $50 billion for flood and other natural disaster protection;
  • $55 billion in clean water distribution;
  • $65 billion in broadband infrastructure;
  • $73 in clean energy conversion; and
  • $110 billion for roads and bridges.

Despite already having passed the House, the bill must return to the House to be reconciled with the Senate’s version before it can be sent for President Biden’s signature. This is not expected to occur until September 20th, but it is expected to pass the House again and then proceed to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

The full bill can be read here. For more information, please contact the Burton Law Firm or your local congressperson.

Categories
COVID News

Public Mask Mandate Reinstatement

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Public Mask Mandate Reinstatement

On July 29, the Sacramento County Health Office issued  a Health Order, effective July 30, requiring masks to be worn indoors in public settings. This order comes because of an almost 300% rise in the number of hospitalizations for COVID-19 in the last month since the statewide restrictions were lifted. According to the order, 64.8% of positive COVID-19 tests in Sacramento County were found to be the Delta variant that is currently causing surges in COVID-19 cases all over the world. This order also references the recent CDC and California Department of Public Health recommendations to wear face coverings in indoor public settings, elevating the recommendations to a mandate.

The order requires:

  • Masks to be worn in all indoor public venues, regardless of one’s vaccination status.
  • Businesses to require face coverings indoors, and to post visible signage at all entry points to indoor settings stating the mask requirements.
  • All attendees of “Indoor Mega-Events” (gatherings of 5,000 or more attendees) to wear face coverings.
  • All attendees of “Outdoor Mega-Events” (gatherings of 10,000 or more attendees) to wear face coverings.

The entire order can be read on the Sacramento County Website linked here. Sacramento County Order of the Health Officer – 07-29-2021.pdf (saccounty.net)

Categories
COVID News

The American Families Plan: President Biden’s Next Step

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

The American Families Plan: President Biden’s Next Step

On April 28, 2021, President Biden unveiled the American Families Plan. This plan, if adopted in its entirety, would make significant changes to childcare, education, family and medical leave, and tax credits for low-income households. Many of the programs that it would expand would be funded via higher taxes on high income households[1], as well as increased enforcement of current tax policies via additional funding to the IRS. The White House says additional IRS funding would “go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes. . . . Additional resources would focus on large corporations, businesses, and estates, and higher-income individuals.”[2] This plan will also limit 1031 like-kind exchanges above $500,000 in deferred capital gains, end the preferred treatment of carried interest, and make the 2017 tax law’s limitation on excess losses that applies to non-corporate income permanent.

The American Families Plan will focus on providing the following benefits:

  • Childcare, in the form of universal prekindergarten for children 3 and 4 years old.
  • Strengthening education by providing better training for teachers, and by providing 2 years of free community college following high school.
  • Decreasing food insecurity of children, by providing free meals for children in high-poverty school districts, and by expanding access to summer EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) programs—programs that provide increased access to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits.
  • Reforming unemployment insurance, by putting money towards “unemployment insurance system modernization, equitable access, and fraud prevention”[3]
  • Creating a national paid family and medical leave program.
  • Granting a variety of tax credits to low-income households with children.

This legislation comes as the third installment of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan. Build Back Better consists of a series of legislation started with the American Rescue Plan that he has claimed is intended to help many Americans who have been impacted negatively by the pandemic as well as assist people who were struggling even before COVID-19 was a factor. It is still early to say if it will pass or not but the American Families Plan indicates what Biden hopes to accomplish during his time as President.


[1] Raise of the top marginal income tax from 37% to 39.5% (applies to incomes over $425,700 for single filers and $509,300 for joint filers). Taxing long term capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income for taxpayers with taxable income over $1 million. Taxing unrealized gains at death for unrealized gains above $1 million for single filers and 42 million for joint filers. Apply a 3.8% net investment income tax (NIIT) to active pass-through business income above $400,000. Pass-through businesses include partnerships, sole proprietorships, and S corporations.

[2] The White House Briefing Room Statements: “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan” 4/28/2021

[3] The White House Briefing Room Statements: “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan” 4/28/2021

Categories
News

Good News for New LLCs

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Good News for New LLCs

Every new business must decide its form of ownership. From sole proprietorship to corporation, there are several ways to organize your business, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. California recently provided a new advantage for limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and limited partnerships (LPs). Normally, a minimum franchise tax of $800 is imposed annually on the aforementioned entities. However, California will now waive the minimum tax for the first year of the entity’s existence, under two conditions.

First, the LLC, LLP, or LP in question must be registered with the California Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2021 but before January 1, 2024. Second, the waiver applies only to business entities with gross receipts of less than $250,000 for the year (rounded to the nearest dollar). The tax is scaled to gross receipts (not net income or profits), with $900 incurred for gross receipts from $250,000 to $499,999, $2,500 for gross receipts from $500,000 to $999,999, $6,000 for gross receipts from $1,000,000 to $4,999,999, and $11,790 for gross receipts of $5,000,000 or more.

To summarize:  If the LLC was registered on or after January 1, 2021, and has annual gross receipts of $249,999 or less, the minimum tax of $800 would be waived.  However, if the same LLC happened to have annual gross receipts of $250,000, it would owe a minimum tax of $900.  

Categories
News

United States Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Pro Bono Disclosure Laws

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

United States Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Pro Bono Disclosure Laws

In a 6-3 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a California law that forced non-profits to annually disclose their major contributors (i.e. those who contribute more than $5,000). The case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v Bonta, was split down liberal/conservative lines, where Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the plurality, holding that the disclosure requirement infringed on the Freedom of Association found under the First Amendment.

Drawing from history, Chief Justice Roberts pointed to how states such as Alabama had previously used similar laws to punish contributors to nonprofits that enriched the lives of minorities, such as the NAACP. Even though sent to the state government confidentially, Chief Roberts highlighted the potential that these records could be accidentally leaked or posted online, and therefor risked reprisal to those who contributed to unpopular organizations. He acknowledged these laws were created in California to fight fraud; however, he then pointed to the alleged lack of evidence that California’s law alone had successfully assisted with any “investigative, regulatory or enforcement efforts.”

Dissenting opinions stressed the incompatibility with using judicial precedent meant to protect civil-rights offences to those created to assist with financial fraud, as well as the impossibility to provide evidence that this law, as one tool of many, to fight fraud was not helpful. However, the Court was obviously not swayed. Therefore, for now, non-profits will not need to provide California with their list of donors. Even so, this list will still likely be required for the federal government, i.e. the IRS. As such, the administrative perks of having this law struck down is so far seen to be minimal.

 

Categories
News

Current Legality of Automatic Firearms in California

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Current Legality of Automatic Firearms in California

In 1989, California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (codified as Cal. Penal Code §§ 30500-31115) which, in effect, made it illegal to own or semi-automatic firearms (they were classified as assault weapons). Currently referred to Assault Weapons Control Act (“AWCA”) this ban has been challenged multiple times in its history and continues to be challenged today. In Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) and Harrott v. Kings County (2001), the California Supreme Court upheld the AWCA with relatively minor adjustments due to vagueness within the law.[1] Dissatisfied with California state court rulings, the AWCA began to be challenged in federal court under Second Amendment defenses.

Perhaps the most memorable, as well the most recent, federal case is Miller v. Bonta (2021).[2] In Miller, Judge Roger Benitez compared the AR-15 rifle to the Swiss Army Knife, calling it “a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment”.[3] The Miller Court proceeded to declare the AWCA unconstitutional under Second Amendment stating “[t]he banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns…[t]hose arms are dangerous[.]” Though declared unconstitutional, the Miller Court’s order was “stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004” by the 9th Circuit on June 21.[4] Rupp is a similar case which, in turn, has been “held in abeyance” until the resolution of Duncan v. Becerra, Docket No. 19-55376.[5] Duncan was decided on August 14, 2020 by the 9th Circuit invalidating the AWCA only to vacate its decision on February 25, 2021 in preparation for an en blanc 9th Circuit decision. Though confusing, what this means is that the fate of the AWCA will likely be decided by the 9th circuit in their en blanc (en blanc meaning, all judges of a particular court will hear the case appeal) decision of Duncan v. Becerra, not rather than Miller v. Bonta.

In other words, for now, AWCA is in full effect and the AR-15 rifle remains banned. [*The Burton Law Firm is an amalgamation of various attorneys with various beliefs and opinion. The firm takes no political position and merely provides analysis of the current law.] For more information, contact info@burtonlawfirm.com or call 916-822-8700 for a consultation.

 


[1] Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000); Harrott v. Kings County 25 Cal. 4th 1138 (2001).

[2] Miller v. Bonta, Case No. 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB) (S.D.Cal. 2021). Available here.

[3] Id at 1

[4] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2021/06/22/21-55608-order.pdf.

[5] https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-02-25-Order-Holding-Case-in-Abeyance-Pending-Duncan.pdf.

 

Categories
COVID News

Covid is Down But Not Out: Osha’s Guidance for Your Employees

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Covid is Down But Not Out: Osha’s Guidance for Your Employees

On June 15th, OSHA released new guidance for employers that brings them in line with the recent CDC guidance released on May 28th. This guidance allows vaccinated workers in all industries except the medical field to go back to work without wearing a mask, unless required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations.

For unvaccinated workers, OSHA still advises that masks be worn and social distancing be followed. In workplaces where all employees are fully vaccinated, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect workers from COVID-19 exposure. If there are unvaccinated employees in the workplace, steps do need to be taken to protect those employees. OSHA points to 11 mitigation measures that they advise employers to take:

  1. Grant PTO for employees to be vaccinated.
    1. They also note that businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for tax credits based on PTO given to employees to get vaccinated.
  2. Instruct any workers who are infected or unvaccinated workers who have had close contact with an infected individual to stay home from work.
  3. Implement physical distancing for unvaccinated and at-risk employees in all communal areas.
  4. Provide face coverings for unvaccinated and at-risk employees.
  5. Educate and train workers on COVID-19 policies and procedures in languages they understand.
  6. Suggest that unvaccinated customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings.
  7. Maintain Ventilation Systems.
  8. Perform routine cleaning and disinfection.
  9. Record and report COVID-19 infections and deaths.
  10. Implement protections from retaliation and set up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19 related hazards.
  11. Follow other applicable mandatory OSHA standards, including: respiratory protection, sanitation, protection from bloodborne pathogens, and OSHA requirements for employee access to medical and exposure records.

Some people will still choose to wear masks in the workplace, maybe to protect someone close to them, or maybe because it makes them feel comfortable. Regardless of the reason, it is important to respect the choices that others make regarding their safety.  This has been a trying time, and it is not always possible to know the circumstances that others are dealing with. Be kind and stay strong.

 

Categories
COVID News

Bars and Restaurants Given an Extension for To-Go Alcohol Deliveries until December 31, 2021

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Bars and Restaurants Given an Extension for To-Go Alcohol Deliveries until December 31, 2021

Although things are starting to return to normal as of June 15th (see blog post), loosened alcohol sales and consumption laws will remain in effect for the remainder of 2021.

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control provided various temporary allowances during COVID which included the ability to return purchased alcohol; allowances of off-sales purchases from on-sale retailers; purchasing “to-go” premixed alcoholic beverages; and acceptance of payment at delivery. In other words, it was easier for establishments to sell beer, wine, and pre-mixed cocktails/drinks for pick-up and delivery.

These loosened restrictions are expected to assist restaurants badly hurt by the pandemic, because they can continue to expand outdoor operations in areas such as sidewalks and parking lots, and can continue the sale of to-go alcoholic beverages with food deliveries.

Furthermore, if these allowances continue to be popular, the legislature has pondered keeping some of them permanent, which would be greatly endorsed by current restaurants and breweries.

For more details see the CA Press Release, or contact the Burton Law Firm at 916.822.8700.

Categories
Business Law

June 15th The End of a Masquerade: What Does it Mean to You?

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

June 15th The End of a Masquerade: What Does it Mean to You?

Contact UsRecently the California state government announced that it would be lifting mask mandates at a statewide level. The California Department of Public Health seeks to bring California in line with the CDC’s recent recommendations of allowing those who are vaccinated to forgo their masks in most settings.

The issued a release clarifies that though the requirement for masks will be relaxes, masks will still be required, regardless of vaccination status for those who are:

  • On public transit;
  • Indoors in K-12 schools and childcare;
  • Healthcare settings;
  • State and local correctional facilities and detention centers; and
  • Homeless shelters, emergency shelters, and cooling centers.

Cal/OSHA has considered issuing guidelines that will still require all employees in a workplace to wear masks unless everyone in a given room is fully vaccinated; however, that proposal has so far been withdrawn, but could potentially be revived. Of note, Cal/OSHA is an independent board in the state government, and while Governor Newsom does have the ability to step in and change those regulations, he has indicated in a recent press conference that he is not likely to do so.

The state has still not issued any capacity guidelines that would restrict large gatherings as of June 10th, thus it is expected that normal group activities shall continue without restrictions.

To date, Governor Newsom maintains his emergency powers as the COVID-19 virus is still present. As such, he maintains his authority to reimpose mandates if they become necessary as the situation continues to develop (e.g. the various international variants, which so far the vaccine is effective against).

For More information on how this may affect you CLICK HERE or call Burton Law Firm (916) 822-8700.

Categories
Business Law

It Pays to be Nice: What Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. Means for Collecting Attorney’s Fees

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

It Pays to be Nice: What Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. Means for Collecting Attorney’s Fees

On March 9, 2021, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, issued a ruling in Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc.  on a trial court’s judgment awarding attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(b) and 1033.5(a)(10), to homeowners who won a judgment against an unlicensed contractor.

Starting in 2015, litigating the case took over five years. The amount under controversy was only $22,096; however, the Plaintiffs won a judgment for $133,792.11 (six times the amount in controversy), plus post-judgment interest.  The Plaintiffs thereafter sought attorney’s fees of $271,530, which with interest equated to $292,140.

After the smoke settled, the trial court awarded only $90,000 in attorney fees (a $200k+ loss of fees).

There are two ways to calculate Attorney’s fees: (i) the Lodestar method, which is, roughly, the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours; or (ii) the percentage-of-recovery approach. It is at the discretion of the trial court which approach to choose, and here they used the Lodestar method (likely due to the embedded allowance to reduce the fees as they see fit).

The trial court had determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s $450 an hour rate was reasonable; however, it still denied their overall request for attorney’s fees due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s lack of civility and inability to justify their work. For example, the Court specifically drew attention to the Plaintiffs’ filed briefings “replete with attacks on defense counsel such as that defense counsel filed ‘knowingly false claims of witness tampering,’ ‘her comments were frivolous,’ something was ‘typical of the improper tactics employed by defendants and their counsel’”, and generally how “offensive” their arguments were. The Court drew attention to how the Plaintiffs had filed “300 pages of documents” and had spent an amount of time on the case which was “so far beyond what was necessary on this matter.”

Through the Court of Appeals does discuss the simplicity of the matter and other factors under review, its Opinion consistently highlights and makes it known the most important factor was how Counsel for plaintiff took this matter personally:

“[C]ivility in litigation tends to be efficient by allowing disputants to focus on core disagreements and to minimize tangential distractions. It is a salutary incentive for counsel in fee-shifting cases to know their own low blows may return to hit them in the pocketbook.” …. “In short, in this appeal the [Plaintiffs] have come out swinging, apparently believing the best defense is a good offense. This approach demonstrates the trial court was within its discretion to conclude the [Plaintiff] conducted litigation that was less than civil.

The Court of Appeals concluded that this, and the other factors, were a sound basis for reducing the requested attorney’s fees from about $300,000 to $90,000.

What does this mean? Any seasoned litigator knows that clients are personally invested in their cases and sometimes want their attorneys to likewise be as passionate as they are, and even to cause pain to the other side. It is a tactic many lawyers feel they have to engage in, or perhaps subconsciously lean toward to meet client’s expectations, despite the fact that Rules 3.1 and 3.2 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct specifically disapprove of this behavior.

Nevertheless, going forward, attorneys need to be aware that such aggravated actions and use of hyperbole will continually and increasingly be scrutinized by the Courts, and may hit them where it hurts: their wallets. As advocates, our job is to be adversarial; however, unless we can do so professionally and courteously, financial compensation may be targeted.

Call 916-822-8700 for more information. You can read the full case here at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/b298003.html