Announcements

The buyers alleged that the sellers and their agents had deliberately failed to disclose complaints from other owners about excessive noise transmission from condominium units directly above theirs, and that their lives were significantly disrupted by noise from their upstairs neighbor. They sought to rescind the transaction on the basis of fraud, and sought damaged in excess of $600,000.

The rescission claim was tried to a judge, and the damages claims were tried to a jury. Following a three-week jury trial, the Court granted the sellers' motion for nonsuit and dismissed the jury. Thereafter, on the rescission claim, the Court issued a written decision in which it found that the buyers failed to prove any of the elements of their claim, and directed that judgment be entered in favor of defendants.

Attorney Stevan Adelman, a real estate partner in the firm who has been selected as a Northern California Superlawyer each year since 2008, successfully represented the sellers from the inception of the case through trial. You may call (408) 292-1765 to speak with him about real estate issues.

MILLER MORTON CAILLAT & NEVIS OBTAINS $15.35 MILLION ARBITRATION AWARD

Within the Law

Week of May 25, 2012

Contrary to many of the news headlines, the California Supreme Court did not do away with the obligation of employers to provide hourly employees with a meal break.

Rather, the California Supreme Court concluded, "An employer must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period, but need not ensure the employee does no work." Labor Code section 512 provides that, "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than thirty minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both employer and employee."

The California Supreme Court confirmed that California employers have an obligation to provide meal periods to its employees. The Court stated that the employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duties, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted thirty minute break and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

On the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Proof an employer had knowledge of the employee working through a meal period will not alone subject the employer to liability for premium pay. On the other hand, an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in a way that omits breaks.

Therefore, employers continue to have an obligation to provide their employees with a work-free lunch break; however, there is no duty on the employer to police those breaks and ensure that no work is performed.

If you have any questions about your obligations as an employer, you should have your policies reviewed. Call 408) 292-1765 to talk with Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis attorneys David K. Kornbluh or Joseph A. Scanlan

MILLER MORTON CAILLAT & NEVIS -- SUPER LAWYERS

Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis is proud of all its attorneys and their achievements, from our broad real estate practice with expertise in all areas of the real estate industry to litigating multi-million dollar construction cases to the personal development of an estate plan.

Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis is pleased that these attorneys have been honored for inclusion on the Northern California Super Lawyers or Rising Stars lists: David L. Nevis,, Peter A. Kline, Stevan C. Adelman, William K. Hurley, Anthony F. Ventura, Frank J. Perretta and Peter V. Dessau.

The San Jose and Newport Beach Lawyers at Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis.

Problem-solvers. Advocates. Counselors.