Civil Action with Brian & Shant

Join Anastasia Mazzella and Shant Karnikian as they discuss how attorneys can best utilize expert witnesses in their cases. They are joined by a highly respected expert witness in the field of neuropsychology, Dr. Dominique Kinney. In this episode, Dr. Kinney gives attorneys 6 tips on how to make the attorney-expert relationship more productive, including the importance of choosing the right expert early in the litigation and providing them with ample time to review records, why attorneys need to listen more and talk less when they meet with experts, the best way to prepare experts for depositions, and more. She also discusses why an expert witness is not meant to be a “team player” but rather an impartial authority who can be trusted to tell the truth. If you want a copy of Dr. Kinney’s Tips for Maximizing the Attorney-Expert Relationship, please reach out to Anastasia at am@kbklawyers.com. To contact Dr. Kinney about her services: 888-888-5902 Email: experts@arrowheadeval.com Website: California Independent Medical Evaluation Services | AES (arrowheadeval.com) For other questions reach out to: Brian Kabateck: bsk@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com For more information about Kabateck LLP, visit www.kbklawyers.com

In this episode Shant and Marina Pacheco connect with Alexandra Steele Cooper about what it’s like to go out on your own and start a new firm. Alexandra spent several years at a large firm as a trial lawyer before starting her own firm, Steele Cooper Law where she focuses on personal injury and employment law. She has recovered tens of millions of dollars for her clients. Hear how she prepared to open her own firm, the upsides of being your own boss, as well as, the drawbacks and how she uses a network of talented lawyers and support (including her husband) to help her when she has questions about her cases. She explains how she re-imagined herself with her own firm and what the process was like. Visit Steele Cooper law Check out the helpful site Alexandra mentioned Lawyerist Marina Pacheco: mrp@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com For more information about the firm, Kabateck LLP, visit www.kbklawyers.com

Brian and Shant discuss the crisis created by the lack certified court reporters in California. The shortage means that many cases don’t get a court reporter or that lawyers and clients are spending thousands of dollars to hire a private court reporter. Why has this happened? Two reasons: First, the passage rate for the court reporter certification exam is painfully low, around 20%. Second, the union which represents the court reporters continues to block any effort to use electronic recording or transcriptions as an alternative. They claim the technology isn’t good enough, which is false. The result is impending crisis where many people don't have access to justice. Next Brian and Shant talk about Disney’s lawsuit against Ron DeSantis. DeSantis recently revoked Disney’s rights of governance over their property area called Reedy Creek. Some people say it's a trumped up lawsuit that won’t go anywhere, but Brian and Shant say that the “takings clause” in the 5th Amendment is very strong and that DeSantis’s blatant public comments about retaliating against Disney for disagreeing on his stance on LGBTQ+ rights makes the lawsuit meritorious and could spell trouble for DeSantis. Brian Kabatek: bsk@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com For more information about the firm, Kabateck LLP, visit www.kbklawyers.com

Today our intake attorney Annie Martin-McDonough brought a fascinating topic to our attention with the “tort of seduction.” In the 1700’s this was a tort that allowed for the father of a daughter to sue a man, who had seduced and impregnated the woman, for loss of services. Later in the Victorian era the tort evolved to allow a woman to sue for emotional damages due to a loss of virtue if a man tricked her into a sexual relationship. Annie, Shant and Brian discuss how the tort differed from sexual assault and the history of the tort being abolished in many states starting in 1935 due to some reasons that were pro-women’s rights and other reasons that could be seen as sexist towards women. The tort still exists in many states today, though it is very rarely brought to court. Annie gives her argument and examples for the positive uses the tort could have today. Brian Kabatek: bsk@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com For more information about the firm, BK Law, visit www.kbklawyers.com

Brian and Shant speak with partner Stephanie Charlin on figuring out the policy limits of a party responsible for an injury. Currently, the law dictates that insurance companies are not required to release policy information until a case is filed and the information is requested during discovery. This is often a waste of time for plaintiff lawyers, the courts, and the victims, particularly if the policy has minimal coverage. They also discuss how to make sure you check to see if a defendant has additional policy coverage, aside from their primary insurance. If you have any questions about insurance or how it may impact your catastrophic injury cases, please reach out to us: Brian Kabatek: bsk@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com For more information about Kabateck LLP, visit www.kbklawyers.com

Brian, and Shant sit down with attorney Marina Pacheco of Kabateck LLP to discuss the complicated world of filing childhood sexual assault cases. Of particular importance is a deadline regarding the statute law CCP 340.1 (sec Q), which starting in January 2020 gave a three year window for people to file a childhood sexual assault case if they were ineligible to do so under previous laws and statutes. That provision is set to expire at the end of 2022. This primarily affects people over the age of 40 who were aware that their psychological injury was caused by the sexual assault for more than five years before the case was filed. After the expiration of the three year revival window, people over the age of 40 will still be able to file old cases, as long as they can demonstrate that they had not been aware of the abuse more than five years before the filing, meaning the memories were either repressed or the person was unaware that what they experienced would qualify as sexual abuse. The process to file a childhood sexual assault case for people who are over the age of 40 is a complicated process which requires proof of merit from a mental health professional plus proof of merit from an attorney. Marina breaks down the complicated provisions in a very detailed and worthwhile explanation.

With the California Private Attorneys General Act in the news again after the Supreme Court decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Brian and Shant dive into what the decision means for the future of PAGA and how it may be enforced now that the Federal Arbitration Act can preempt the California law in certain situations. They also discuss what might happen if enough signatures are collected to put PAGA on the chopping block in the 2024 election, including legislative compromises that would keep PAGA intact but attempt to reduce abuses, particularly those aimed at small businesses. Lastly, Brian and Shant discuss a ruling by the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case, Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that PAGA cases could not be dismissed by the court because of manageability issues, which is in direct opposition to the Second District Court’s ruling in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC in 2021. Since PAGA claims are meant to act in the stead of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, the court said that cases cannot be thrown out due to manageability concerns because, “the LWDA is not subject to a manageability requirement when it investigates Labor Code violations and assesses fines internally,” thus PAGA claims can not be subject to manageability requirements either. The case will now head to the California Supreme Court and Brian and Shant give their predictions on where the court will land.

Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian discuss the current situation for law students with their guest, Michael Waterstone, Dean of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. Graduates of Loyola Law School themselves, Brian and Shant speak with the Dean on where law school and law practice is headed, the effects of the pandemic on teaching and students, and the outlook for jobs in the legal field for Loyola Law School graduates. (hint: it's very good!) For more information on Loyola Law School Los Angeles visit www.LLS.edu. To reach Dean Waterstone via email: Michael.waterstone@lls.edu. To learn more about Kabateck LLP visit www.kbklawyers.com.

While the Court of Appeal issues opinions that continue to jeopardize PAGA, corporate lobbyists have drafted a proposed ballot initiative that would kill PAGA entirely. Brian and Shant address a recent court ruling as well as proposed legislation that may significantly weaken or even eliminate the use of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in California. In September, the Second District Court of Appeal, in the case of Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, held that trial courts had the right to determine whether a PAGA case is manageable and that a defendant’s right to present an affirmative defense must be taken into account. Brian and Shant discuss the common tactic defense attorneys take to make a PAGA case as unmanageable as possible by presenting an affirmative defense to each individual employee present in a PAGA claim, which means asking the court to hear from hundreds or even thousands of employees in a case—rendering a case unmanageable. Next, Brian and Shant discuss a recent “request for title and summary filing” (a pre-requisite for a ballot initiative) with the State’s Attorney General of a bill that would effectively eliminate PAGA. It would not preclude workers from acting on behalf of other aggrieved workers who have faced workplace violations, but it would also preclude lawyers from representing aggrieved workers under the PAGA statute. Instead, workers would be expected to file their own individual claims without the assistance of legal representation or to wait for the state itself to take on their case. If you have any questions about PAGA cases or have any other interesting cases or questions you would like to please reach out to us. Brian Kabatek: bsk@kbklawyers.com Shant Karnikian: sk@kbklawyers.com

Brian and Shant discuss Defense Preclusion, Tolling of Legal Malpractice SOL, Cost of Proof on a Prevailing RFA, and Juror Contact. Lucky Brands v Marcel Fashion (2nd Ct. of Appeals) A Defense Not Previously Raised is Precluded from Future Assertion Nguyen v Ford (6th DCA) In a Legal Malpractice Case, Tolling Only Applies to a Specific Subject Matter in the Particular Matter at Issue Universal Home Improvement Inc. v. Robertson (1st DCA) Recovery of Attorney Fees When Failing to Admit an RFA DeHoyos v Superior Court (4th DCA) Communication with Jurors Governed by the CCP, Not by a Universal Code of Criminal Procedure

Brian and Shant discuss vandalism and civil unrest with Michael Childress, Of Counsel at Kabateck LLP. Large and small business from around the country took a hit in the wake of protests related to the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. Brian, Shant, and Michael discuss how these events have impacted property insurance policyholders, the damage that ensued, and how to better understand the claims process.

Brian and Shant discuss Attorney Fees in Lemon Law Litigation; a Civil Rights Matter; an Elder Abuse Case; and in Class Actions. Mikhaeilpoor v BMW of North America (2nd DCA) Under Song-Beverly Attorney Fees are Mandatory for Prevailing Plaintiff Attorney Vargas v Howell (9th Circuit) A Civil Rights Matter Involving a Minor and An Unfavorable Ruling for Attorney Fees Arace v Medico Investments (4th DCA) An Elder Abuse Statute Requiring Mandatory Attorney Fees In Re Optical Disk Drive Products (9th Circuit) Fee Application Including a Handful of Attorney Teams with a Sealed Bid Containing a Cap on Fees

Brian, Shant, and their colleague Michael Childress discuss how insurance companies instill fear in the public in order to suppress a collective voice. Misinformation, intimidation, and claim denials have become the fundamental recipe for the multi-billion dollar industry. The team discusses these problems and discuss how the shift from service sector to profit center occurred.