California is home to many celebrities and public figures, and the paparazzi is regularly and continually make attempts to take photos of these public individuals, or to score interviews with them. Public figures are individuals who have placed themselves in public view, such as actors and actresses, sports athletes, and politicians – many people involved in the entertainment industry are considered to be public figures. But city attorneys, authors, and average citizens who publicly advocate to influence resolution on public issues have all been considered to be public figures in California as well.

Sometimes the paparazzi crosses a line into something that feels like an invasion of the public figure’s privacy in order to capture a picture or to get a statement. But since these public figures are people of interest, and have placed themselves in the public sphere, where is the line between private and public?

Privacy Rights In California

Everyone in California, from celebrity to average Joe, is entitled to roughly the same right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. However, those individuals who are considered to be public figures tend to have a more difficult time obtaining recovery when their privacy is violated than private individuals do.

There are four causes of action for invasion of privacy tort in California that have arisen through case law, meaning through decisions made by the courts. These invasions of privacy include:

1. Intrusion into private matters/private spaces. Public figures have little reprieve from invasions of privacy when they are out in public, but when they are in private spaces or engaged in private matters, they retain a right of privacy. Usually a public figure’s home serves as a private sanctuary where the individual can reasonably expect some privacy.
2. Public disclosure of private facts. It is an invasion of privacy for someone to publicly disclose private facts that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person concerning another where those facts are of no legitimate public concern. Facts that are not newsworthy or are not widely known may be considered private.
3. Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness. Sometimes also referred to as one’s right of publicity, it is an invasion of another’s privacy to misappropriate the name or likeness of another, in particular for commercial gains. This is particularly relevant to public figures whose name or image is used without permission to endorse products or services.
4. Portraying a person in a false light. It is impermissible for an individual to portray another in a false light, i.e., portray another in a way that is highly offensive and implied to be true when it is actually false.

California law additionally provides some protections of privacy under Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.8, which are particularly relevant to the techniques used by the paparazzi to get photographs of public figures. These laws prohibit a person from entering on to the private property of another without permission for the purposes of taking a photograph or making a recording.

Personal medical information, medical records patient information are highly sensitive and confidential documents that should be safeguarded against unnecessary disclosure without the patient’s consent at all costs. The information contained in a patient’s medical records is private, and may not be disclosed without permission, save a few exceptional circumstances.

What Laws Protect Patient Medical Information?

There are a number of federal laws in place that are designed to protect the privacy of patient medical records, such as the:

• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Section 160, and 164A and E),
• HIPPA Security Rule (45 C.F.R. Section 160, and 164A and C), and
• HIPPA Breach Notification Rule (45 CFR Sections 164.400-414).

California additionally offers protection for patient medical records through California Civil Code Sections 56-56.37, also referred to as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Under California law, a patient’s personal medical information, i.e., any individually identifiable information that is kept in physical or electronic form, is protected from unauthorized disclosure by health care providers, health care insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, and other entities with access to this sensitive information, unless a court order demands such disclosure.

Medical information can include information concerning a patient’s medical history, mental health history, their physical or mental condition, or any course of treatment they are on. Individually identifiable information can include information such as a patient’s name, contact information, Social Security number or any other information that can be combined with publicly available information in order to identify the patient.

Patient Consent To Disclosure

Many times, a patient is referred to a specialist who requires copies of the patient’s medical records. However, the patient’s current doctor is not allowed to provide the patient’s medical records to the specialist without first obtaining the consent of the patient. If a patient wants to consent to the disclosure of their personal medical information, the patient must give permission in writing.

The requirements for providing patient consent to the sharing, releasing or disclosure of confidential medical records are outlined in California Civil Code Sections 56.11, which requires that the patient’s consent must be:

In writing and signed by the patient, the patient’s legal representative, or the beneficiary or personal representative of the patient (if the patient is deceased).

• Specific as to the permissible uses of the disclosed information, including detailing any restrictions or limitations on the disclosure of the patient’s medical records.
• Clear as to who is authorized to release/disclose the medical information concerning the patient, and must be clear as to who is the authorized recipient of the released/disclosed medical information.
• Clear as to the duration that the authorization is valid for.

Remedies For Unauthorized Disclosure

When a patient’s medical information is illegally disclosed or obtained without permission, the patient has a cause of action under California law. When the patient can show that the unauthorized disclosure amounted to some economic loss or a personal injury to the patient, then the patient has grounds for a suit. If you believe your information was disclosed without your authorization in writing and you have been damaged, contact our firm right away to speak with an experienced Los Angeles business attorney who can determine your rights and options.

We also advise businesses on how to substantially limit their liability and ensure their business policies conform to both state and federal statutes on a daily basis. Contact us if you have been accused of disclosing a patient or employee’s medical information without permission, or are unsure if your business is in full compliance with HIPPA and current employment laws.

There has been a lot of political talk lately about the pay gap between male and female workers, and California is one of the more progressive states when it comes to tackling this issue. In October, Governor Jerry Brown took steps to help close that gap in California by signing S.B. 358, which will revise the existing version of the California Fair Pay Act, specifically Cal. Labor Code §1197.5.

The existing law prohibits an employer from paying male and female workers in the same establishment at different wage rates for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Exceptions exist under the current law, for seniority, merit, quality and quantity of work, or some other bona fide factor other than the sex of the worker. At present, it is a misdemeanor offense to pay workers of opposite sex differently in violation of the law.

Taking effect on January 1, 2016, the law will be strengthened and will incorporate changes, such as:

• Employees are permitted to discuss their own wages, and the wages of others, openly. These changes are designed to promote pay transparency.
• Instead of prohibiting wage differentials between workers of the opposite sex in the same establishment, the new law will prohibit paying workers of the opposite sex differently for substantially similar work, taking into consideration skill, effort, and responsibility associated with the work.
• If there is a wage differential between workers of the opposite sex, the burden is on the employer to affirmatively demonstrate why the wage differential exists, based on seniority, merit, quality and quantity of work, or some other bona fide factor other than the sex of the worker. These factors must be applied reasonably, and must account for the whole differential. This new provision will place a higher burden on employers who are trying to justify a pay gap between similarly situated employees of different sex.
• Employers are prohibited from discharging, discriminating against, or retaliating against workers who seek action under the new provisions of the new law, and any employee who is discharged, discriminated against, or suffers retaliation by their employer for seeking action under the provisions of the new law will be eligible to recover lost wages (including interest and lost benefits), may seek reinstatement or other suitable equitable relief. This change makes it easier for employees to establish a prima facie case against their employer.
• Employers are required to retain records concerning employees’ wages and wage rates for a period of three years, as opposed to the current two years.

What Can Employers Do In Preparation For This Change?

The new law is meant to provide additional protections to employees by placing new burdens on employers. Worker’s rights are important, and it is important that business owners and employers be appraised of the new changes that will be taking effect in the new year concerning employee wages. Any business who has California employees will be subject to these new requirements.

Employers should get ready for this change by evaluating employees’ payment structure and assessing whether there is any potential for problems to arise. Employers have a few months before the law takes effect, in which they can take steps to correct or mitigate any potential employee pay issues. Analyzing any wage differentials and assessing whether any reasonable factors exist that warrants the differential in employee’s pay are just a couple of important steps an employer should be taking at this time. Employers can also advise management of the changes in the law, especially the provisions concerning workers’ new ability to openly discuss wages.

For more information on the ramifications of this legal update, or should you need advisement for any employment-related matter, contact Spotora and Associates, PC today and to speak with a senior level Los Angeles business attorney.

For quite some time the paparazzi in California has relied upon the use of drones – which are unmanned, aerial devices that are operated remotely by a user or operator – to capture photographs of celebrities from afar, usually by piloting the unmanned drones over the private property owned by the celebrities to capture the shot. A new California bill aims to provide celebrities with a little more privacy by prohibiting the use of drones over private property, the LATimes reports.

Drone regulation has been a high-popularized issue in the area of technology law lately, especially in California.  Not only have the paparazzi made quite a bit of use out of drones for photography purposes, but others have taken up flying the contraptions to take photos of the wildfires that have been ravaging California.  The drones have even interfered with firefighting efforts in the recent past.  There have also been problems with drones being used to transport contraband into prison environments. However, many civilians enjoy drone manipulation as a hobby, and do not use their drones to break the law.

New Bill Puts Stop to Paparazzi Invasion of Celebrities’ Privacy

The bill, AB 856, deems flying a drone onto the private property of another for the purpose of taking photographs of video to be a physical invasion of privacy that will not be tolerated.  While previous versions of the bill would have made flying a drone within 350 feet over private property without consent a trespassing violation, the final version of the bill, which will be signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the upcoming weeks, is not as extreme.

Trespass is codified in California Penal Code Section 602 et seq. and already covers a variety of very specific trespassing violations.  Adding another trespass provision for the use of drones to take pictures of someone else, particularly a celebrity, would add more provisions to the already jumbled and dense area of trespass crimes.

The governor rejected many earlier versions of the drone bill as they would have created new crimes by adding new trespassing provisions to the law along with new punishments. In addition, making drone flying for photography purposes would unduly place restraints on a burgeoning drone industry. Rather, the new bill sets out to redefine the existing law to better incorporate invasions of privacy committed with a drone camera.

What Are The Existing Laws on Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of privacy is based in tort law, and in California case law has established four tort actions based on invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion into private places, conversations or other matters,
2. Public disclosures of private facts,
3. Presentation of a person to the public in a false light, and
4. Appropriation of another’s image or personality.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 214 (1998). The use of drones to take unauthorized photos of celebrities in their homes and on their personal property would be an intrusion into a private place and under California Civil Code Section 1708.8, a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when they knowingly enter the land of another person without permission for the purpose of capturing any form of visual image of the person whose privacy is being invaded.

This bill is yet another example of how the law must catch up at times to address the legal implications a new technology presents, and it highlights the importance of obtaining proper legal advisement while navigating the complicated world of technology.

If you are working with a new technology or other product/service and do not yet fully understand the legalities and implications of your venture, it is especially important to retain an experienced business attorney for advisement on how to limit your liability and protect any intellectual property rights.

What LLCs Need to Know About the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

Any manager or owner of a California LLC established after January 1, 2014 needs to be familiar with how the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA) impacts their business.

Unanimous Approval Required When Issue Not Addressed

The RULLCA places certain restrictions on voting approval of certain issues that are not addressed specifically by the operating agreement. For instance, unanimous voting approval is required in order to:

● Merge the LLC with another entity or to convert the LLC to another type of entity.
● Dispose of LLC property, such as selling, leasing or exchanging the property.
● Amend the operating agreement.
● Do anything on behalf of the LLC that is outside of the ordinary course of business.

Because unanimous voting approval is required to do any of the above if it is not specifically provided for in the operating agreement, one member or manager of the LLC could stall out a decision to act on one of these matters by withholding their approval. Addressing these issues explicitly in a written operating agreement can circumvent a lot of potential headaches.

What The RULLCA Means for Agreements

Under the RULLCA, any agreement between the members of the LLC concerning the governance of the LLC is considered binding, which can create a lot of problems within the company if an agreement was made orally or was implied. Under the RULLCA, it is important to memorialize, in writing, any operating agreement concerning:

● Management’s rights and duties.
● The activities and conduct of the LLC.
● Relations between and among members of the LLC.
● How amendments to the operating agreement are to be made.

When matters concerning LLC governance are made in writing, there is less risk that members of the LLC will dispute the agreement, because the terms and conditions of the operating agreement have been documented.

Also, for LLCs that choose to be manager-managed, the RULLCA requires that this should be made explicit in both the operating agreement for the LLC, as well as in the the articles of organization.

Fiduciary Responsibilities under the RULLCA

Members or managers of an LLC owe fiduciary duties to one another and the LLC under the RULLCA; however, these fiduciary duties can be modified if they are modified in a written operating agreement, but they may not be eliminated altogether or modified in such a way that they are rendered manifestly unreasonable. Under Section 17704.09 of the California Corporations Code, those fiduciary duties include:

● The duty of care.
● The duty of loyalty.
● The duty of good faith and fair dealing.

When modifications to the fiduciary duties are made in the written operating agreement, they could be potentially drafted in a way that could open up individual members or managers of the LLC to liability for the LLC’s actions. This is because under the RULLCA, members or managers can lose their indemnification protections if the fiduciary duties of the members or managers are modified. LLC members and managers should make sure that they fully understand any modifications that have been made to the fiduciary duties in the written operating agreement before consenting to them.

Contact our office to speak with a senior Los Angeles business attorney for more information on what RULLCA means for your business entity today.

Recently, a $90 million award against ABM Security was overturned by a California appeals court after the court found that the facts of the case were indisputable. The security company provided security guards with regular rest breaks, and the guards took them. In question was whether it was lawful for the security company to require the guards to leave radios/pagers on during these breaks, in addition to responding to security issues as needed while on break.

Essentially, plaintiffs in the case, which went to trial almost three years ago, claimed that ABM Security was not in compliance with California law because the company required guards to remain “on call” even during rest breaks. Plaintiffs maintained that during rest breaks, they should be relieved of all duties and not be required to respond to security issues, or leave pagers and radios on during these breaks. Following a lengthy court battle, plaintiffs in the case, Augustus v. ABM Security, which included thousands of former and current security guards with the company, were awarded a summary judgment.

The appeals court found that while meal breaks, or breaks that are unpaid, do not require security guards to remain on call, rest breaks do not require that employees are relieved of being on duty, only that security guards are relieved of performing actual work while on rest breaks under state law. The appeals court determined that being on call did not mean that employees perform work, however being available to work was not one and the same as performing actual work. The Court also noted that security guards for ABM engaged in activities such as making personal telephone calls and surfing the Internet while on rest break.

Ultimately, the California appeals court specified that meal breaks required that guards or employees are relieved of all duty in regards to work, while the definition of rest breaks contained no similar language.

What did this mean for employers? The bottom line is that while Department of Labor Standards Enforcement opinions and prior court rulings do not agree in regards to the extent of control employers have over employees during rest breaks, employers are not required to relieve employees of all duties during these breaks, but cannot require that security guards or other employees perform actual work.

As experienced Los Angeles employment lawyers, we realize the issues employers face in regards to employment policies and issues. For unsurpassed legal guidance and support, trust the skilled and dedicated staff at Spotora & Associates.

A recent breach or “hack” of Sony Corporation’s security safeguards has been widely in the news in recent weeks, however the real impact of this hack may not yet be completely realized. The breach of the company’s security safeguards has affected not only celebrities, but employees as well. Now, it seems that the thousands of leaked documents are in regards to breach of contract, health privacy, employment, and more. The private information of both celebrities and employees is at risk, but it seems to go much further according to recent news articles.

U.S. government officials feel certain that North Korea was behind the Sony hack. Whoever it was, it has certainly caused an uproar among celebrities, film makers, and the company’s own employees. In fact, intimate details about employees that never would have been made public now have. Some of the information that has been exposed due to the breach include employee social security numbers, disciplinary files, medical records, and according to one source, one of Sony’s senior executives breastfeeding diet. Not only frustrating, but embarrassing for some.

Once source claims that out of 17 employees in the U.S. who earn $1 million per year working for Sony, one is a woman. What may be upsetting to Hannah Minghella, a co-president of production at the company’s Columbia Pictures division, is that Michael DeLuca, her male counterpart, is making nearly one million dollars more for doing the same job.

Following the November 24th attack on Sony’s entertainment division, employees were advised not to connect to the company’s email system and corporate network, as it had become apparent its security system had been infiltrated. Although Sony took quick action and did everything in its power, the infiltration occurred regardless.

Sony is likely to face an untold number of lawsuits in the coming weeks and months, as much of the information leaked is reportedly in regards to salary negotiations, internal communications about specific employees, discussion of termination decisions, performance reviews, and other data that could support claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, unfair termination, and more.

As Los Angeles employment lawyers, we can only imagine the issues Sony has already and will face in the coming days and weeks. Our firm represents clients in a wide array of employee-related matters including harassment, wrongful termination, age, race, sexual preference, or religious discrimination, wage and hour law, ERISA, and more. While taking preventive measures initially in a business setting to protect against these types of claims, it is still common for employees to file claims against employers. Contact our skilled team of professionals for unsurpassed legal guidance and representation.

For those wanting a simple, no hassle divorce, summary dissolution is an option. It hinges on not having many assets, a low debt load and no request for spousal support.

Divorces are never fun to go through, and if there was a way to avoid the hassle, anxiety, stress and anger, most couples would jump at the chance. In California, there is a way to avoid the drama and get straight to the point. It’s called “Summary Dissolution”. If going to court is necessary because the parties can’t or don’t want to cooperate, then that option remains available.

“If you don’t really want to drag the kids and yourself through a messy, long drawn-out and nasty divorce, find out if summary dissolution is an option for you. This means you don’t even need to speak to a judge and will only have to fill out a minimal number of forms. Sure, it sounds easy, but there are exceptions, of course, and so it’s typically wise to seek the advice of a family lawyer so you know your rights and can get the explanation in plain English, rather than legal jargon. Our firm is noted for making legalese legal-easy to understand,” said Anthony J. Spotora, managing attorney of his Los Angeles law firm, which practices family law.

Not everyone is qualified to get a summary dissolution. “So, if you don’t qualify, you need to go the regular route to get a divorce. How do you know if you don’t qualify? I usually have a list of questions for the client that deal with living arrangements. For instance, I need to know if they have been married or living as registered domestic partners for less than five years. In addition, one of the requirements to qualify for summary dissolution is that the couple has no children – period,” Spotora said.

Another requirement that needs to be met when applying for a summary dissolution is that the parties do not own or have an interest in any property and if they have a debt load, they must have accrued less than $5,000 in debt since the marriage/partnership. They must also not own more than $33,000 worth of property bought together.

“It gets even more complex, in that you can’t own any separate property valued over $33,000, you have to agree that you will not seek support, and you have to sign a property agreement that splits what debts and property you do have. You can see why we advise divorcees to call us and get the full rundown on what they need to qualify for a summary dissolution. In some cases, they may not meet the qualifications and we’d need to go to court, but we won’t know that until we’ve spoken with them,” Spotora said.

When it comes to divorce and wanting to save time and money, it’s well worth talking to a highly qualified attorney, who will outline what options exist and how they may affect the proceedings. It’s better to have all the information needed to make an informed decision on how to proceed in the least stressful manner, particularly if children are involved.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

While no one wants to think of a marriage as a business, it often is just that. The partners work together to run it by agreement.

One of the more controversial areas of California divorce law centers on whether or not to have a prenuptial agreement. Many feel it’s not exactly the epitome of being amorous. And frankly, it really isn’t all that romantic, but it’s necessary in case something happens later. Not being protected can be a major disaster to the spouse who happens to have less money and/or assets than the other. It’s not that a prenup is intentionally a power play involving finances, but some cases turn out that way when the marriage comes apart. California is a community property state, so everything is split 50/50 unless a prenup says otherwise.

Prenuptials are not just for the wealthy, although you’d wonder about that reading the newspapers and watching television. Mostly, it seems, that only celebrities opt to have a prenup. In reality, they are for everyone and anyone who wants one. There’s a very common myth floating around that a couple doesn’t need to go this route if they don’t have much money between them. This is not the case.

Virtually anything and everything can be the focus of a prenuptial agreement. Getting around the “not so romantic” stigma associated with them often works if the couple just has a very frank and wide-ranging discussion about how each of them handles finances before they get married. Finding out later that the husband spends thousands on sports equipment, while the wife thinks the money should be set aside for the children’s education, is not exactly conducive to a happy, well-balanced marriage. The bottom line is if you don’t want surprises later, get things out in the open now, because no one knows what will happen.

What if one of the spouses comes into more money in the future, as a result of their business or a talent they have? If you know how to handle the division of community property in advance of any possible divorce, you’ll be well ahead of the game and won’t necessarily have to face the bitter acrimony that sometimes accompanies divorces without a prenup in place. If you don’t know how to go about setting that kind of agreement up, contact an experienced attorney.

This brings up another very common belief, that prenuptials really only protect the partner with the most money and take it away from the partner that doesn’t have much. The reality is that prenuptial agreements are designed to protect both parties.

It should also be noted that just about anything can be written into a prenup, but that doesn’t mean that everything and the kitchen sink must be included in the agreement. These agreements can either be incredibly complex or strikingly simple. It’s up to the parties to decide what they want.

By the way, living together without the benefit of a marriage license is not the way to get around not having a prenuptial. Some couples think if they just live together, the live-in has no claim to the other’s property or income. Wrong. The person making the money and with the assets could be taking a huge risk just living together. It’s called palimony. If you want to protect what you’ve got, get a prenup drafted and signed.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles family lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Whether pertaining to your personal or professional life, chances are you have entered into, or sought to enter into a partnership at some point.  For some, it provides a sense of security; for others, a dinner drink led to a friendly discussion about an idea you had and WHAM, you’re going to move on that idea together – as partners, or; for those timid-hearted types, perhaps you gravitated toward a partnership because you simply wanted half the responsibility, half the risk, and half the potential blame.

Whatever your cause, and whatever your (personal) purpose, you could stand to save yourself a lot of time, frustration and money by knowing up front what sort of partnership you’re actually getting into.

Whereas some people use ‘partnership’ more as a term of art (i.e., corporation owners may call themselves ‘partners’, but that does not necessarily make it so), there are, in fact, a variety of legally recognized partnerships.  They are: (1) General Partnerships; (2) Limited Partnerships; (3) Limited Liability Partnerships; (4) Limited Liability Companies and; (5) Joint Ventures. And of these different types of partnerships – some governed by corporate law and still others governed more by contract law – the one that is of particular interest in this article is that of the “General Partnership”.

Attorneys are often surprised to find the staggering number of parties involved in general partnerships who believe they are being afforded certain corporate law advantages.  Let’s take a moment to touch upon a bit of the confusion.

A General Partnership is like a sole proprietorship except that there are two (2) or more persons conducting business under one name.  Unlike Limited Liability Companies, for example, no articles need to be filed with the Secretary of State, nor does the partnership even need to enter into a written partnership agreement (although it has been considered a terrible idea not to). A significant difference between formally established partnerships (i.e., LLC’s, LLP’s, etc.) and that of a general partnership is that each partner in a general partnership is jointly and severally liable for the actions and debts of the partnership.  Since any partner may bind the partnership, the other partners may be held liable for actions, contracts and/or debts in which they didn’t even know existed.  Take that one step further — partners can even be held personally liable for the acts of agents or employees that had apparent authority to bind the partnership.

So, for those of you not wishing to formally establish a partnership at the state level, and, whether you are willing to entertain and execute a partnership agreement or not, you may wish to have a better understanding of the risky business you could be entering into, or, may already be involved in, as a partner in a general partnership.