ntiffs' privacy without consent or permission for commercial marketing and advertising for their company which generates substantial monthly and annual profits.4. Plaintiffs' have the sole right to determine how to market and exploit commercially their own name, image, identity and likeness, or, to maintain their total privacy from such activities, which is their desire. Defendant's have breached this right exposing Plaintiffs publicly.5. Defendants setup multiple placards – at a minimum seven – at various locations at the mall, and possibly elsewhere.6. Defendants had no legal right to do this, and their unmlawful conduct has caused damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.7. Plaintiff's seek damages for commercial use of their NIL, including damages for invasion of privacy, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and for an accounting of profits, losses to Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill, along with punitive damages under California Civil Code Section 3294 for intentionally and maliciously invading their rights without legal justification. Second Cause of Action(Right of Publicity – California Civil Code Section 3344 – Against all Defendants)8. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation in the above paragraphs 1-21 above, and re-alleges them herein.9. The above acts also constitute a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344 and entitle Plaintiff to the same relief and remedies set forth above.10. Defendants used Plaintiff name, image, identity and likeness in their advertisements which sought to directly promote Defendants own business, and which, on information and belief generated substantial profits for Defendants.11. This misappropriation of NIL could not have been accidental, as the images had to be taken, sorted through, edited, and sent to a print shop for creation of the large placard advertisement. It is beyond belief that anyone could do such a think without any reg

e affirmative evidence creating an issue of material fact. The plaintiff argued that punitive damages were warranted because the lack of warnings listing the full range of complications associated with the mesh devices “gave rise to a strong inference that these IFUs were likely to deceive doctors.” Id. (citation omitted). For this proposition, the plaintiff’s “evidence” was an excerpt from the report of her case-specific expert, the redoubtable Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig. The court held that the plaintiff “[could not] properly rely on Dr. Rosenzweig’s opinion as evidence on the motives of Defendants to create a genuine issue of material fact on their shifted burden, because “[i]nferences about the intent or motive of parties or others lie outside the bounds of expert testimony.” Id. at *18 (citations omitted). “Accordingly,” the court concluded “the opinion of Dr. Rosenzweig does not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that Defendants acted with ‘malice, oppression or fraud’ under California Civil Code § 3294.” Id. Summary judgment for the defendant on the punitive damages claim.Brennan is a terrific decision, giving the back of its figurative hand to several varieties of familiar (and often successful) plaintiff nonsense. Further evidence that “love, actually, is all around.” We are officially in the holiday spirit. Stay safe out there.

orker is entitled to preference for a position, the Employer shall offer the position to the Laid Off Worker with the greatest Length of Service in (1) and then (2) with the Employer at the employment site.4. Notice Requirement to Worker:An Employer shall make the offer to a Laid Off Worker, in writing, to the last known mailing address, electronic mail, and text message phone number. A Laid Off Worker who is offered a position pursuant to this article shall be given no less than five (5) business days in which to accept or decline the offer.5. Enforcement:A Laid Off Worker may bring an action in the Superior Court of the State of California against an Employer for violations of this article and may be awarded: (1) Hiring and reinstatement rights pursuant to this article; (2) All actual damages (including, but not limited to, lost pay and benefits) suffered by the Laid Off Worker and for statutory damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater; and (3) Punitive damage, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294; and (4) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.A civil action by a Laid Off Worker alleging a violation of any provision of this article shall commence only after the following requirements have been met: (1) The Laid Off Worker provides written notice to the Employer of the provisions of the article alleged to have been violated and the facts to support the alleged violation; and (2) the Employer is provided 15 days from receipt of the written notice to cure any alleged violation.Notwithstanding any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance to the contrary, no criminal penalties shall attach for violation of this article.6. Collective Bargaining Agreement:An employer with a collective bargaining agreement in place on June 14, 2020 that contains a right of recall provision will be exempt from this ordinance.

The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying CRST's motion for summary adjudication and entering a new order granting summary adjudication in favor of CRST on the punitive damages issue. The Court held there is no evidence that the CRST fleet manager (Marge Davis) was a "managing agent" within the meaning of the punitive damages statute (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b)) because she had no authority to change or establish corporate policy.Trial Court Erred By Failing To Certify Class Action For Unpaid Rest PeriodsBartoni v. American Med. Response W., 11 Cal. App. 5th 1084 (2017)Current and former employees of an ambulance service company sued their employer for unpaid meal and rest periods.

To begin with, where the stockbroker is liable for financial elder abuse, the court shall award to the senior citizen their compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and all other remedies otherwise provided by law.What are the “other remedies otherwise provided by law?” If the stockbroker has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, in addition to the actual damages, the senior citizen may recover punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code §3294 for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. In addition to punitive damages, Cal. Civ. Code §3345 allows for treble damages in consumer fraud cases against whereThe defendant knew the conduct was directed toward a senior citizen,The defendant has caused the senior citizen a loss of income or substantial loss of property set aside for retirement or for personal or family care and maintenance, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen andThe senior citizen was substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to the defendant’s conduct because of age, impaired understanding, and actually suffered substantial emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct.

The trial court granted the motion, and Davis appealed.Applicable LawUnder California law, an employer may be held liable for punitive damages for the malicious acts or omissions of employees with sufficient discretion to determine corporate policy, such as officers, directors or managing agents. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Managing agents are employees who “exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decision-making so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.”

*blank stare*) The court noted that under Davenport v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 325 F.2d 785,787 (9th Cir. 1963) which stated, “A District court need not consider punitive damages in determining the amount in controversy when such damages are unavailable as a matter of state law,” you don’t count punitives in this type of case. The court noted that Trahan’s wage and hour claims were inherently tied to employment contracts Trahan and the class had with U.S. Bank, and according to Brewer v. Premier Golf Props., 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 225, 235 (Ct. App. 2008)(review denied Mar. 18, 2009); and Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a), “such claims cannot support punitive damages under California law.” Just as quick as one crawfish is devoured at the New Orleans Jazz Fest, Trahan stipulated in his oral argument that “in the light of these authorities, despite what is currently alleged in his complaint, he cannot, and will not attempt to, collect punitive damages or pursue a conversion claim in this case.”

In California, a corporate defendant can only be subject to punitive damages if a corporate officer, director or managing agent committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. Cal. Civil Code, § 3294(b). Everyone knows who the officers and directors are, but the meaning of "managing agent" has been open to debate.

It appears to be a blend of (1) the UTSA, and (2) California’s laws on the availability of punitive damages, including arequirement that the willful and malicious conduct be proven by clear and convincing evidence.See Cal. Civil Code § 3294(a).However, as the Judicial Council notes, “No reported California state court case has addressed whether the jury or the court should decide whether any misappropriation was ‘willful and malicious,’ and if so, whether the finding must be made by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence.”Will California courts import the state’s general punitive damages law requirement of clear and convincing evidence into the UTSA?Conclusion.Many questions are raised and remain unanswered by these relatively new jury instructions.