The UCL Practitioner

Pound Civil Justice Institute Appellate Advocacy Award, with High Distinction, for my work on Frlekin v. Apple Inc.

I'm honored to announce that I received the 2022 Pound Civil Justice Institute Appellate Advocacy Award, with High Distinction, for my work on Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (2020). The award "recognizes excellence in appellate advocacy in America."  The 2022 award citation says that my work in Frlekin has had and will have "a significant impact on access to justice in future civil cases."  The award ceremony took place last month in Seattle in conjunction with the AAJ's annual convention.  So many thanks to the members of the Pound Institute committee who selected me for the award, as well as to Kevin Green, who nominated me. 

In Frlekin (discussed in this blog post), I represented a certified class of retail sales employees who worked in Apple's California stores.  The employees were required to undergo onsite security searches of their bags, Apple-branded technology devices, and other personal belongings when leaving the store for lunch or at the end of the day.  The California Supreme Court held that time spent waiting for and undergoing these searches was "controlled" by the employer and therefore met the definition of compensable "hours worked" within the meaning of the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders.  This central legal question was referred by the Ninth Circuit to the California Supreme Court for decision.  I wrote all the appellate briefs and presented the oral argument in both the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court.  Summary judgment on liability was subsequently entered in favor of the certified class. 

Report on Los Angeles County Superior Court webinar on emergency procedural changes due to COVID-19

Last Friday, the Los Angeles County Superior Court held a webinar to update practitioners on the procedural changes instituted as a result of the pandemic and to answer questions about the changes.  Attorney Andrew J. Sokolowski of the Matern Law Group in Manhattan Beach joined the webinar and wrote up the following very helpful and interesting report.  Thank you, Andrew, for allowing me to share your report with the readers of this blog.  The webinar was not recorded, and there will be no link to review later, so Andrew's detailed notes are particularly timely.  Hyperlinks to the cited emergency orders and rules are included below.

The LASC webinar was about 90 minutes and Presiding Judge Brazile, Asst. Presiding Judge Taylor, and the Clerk Sherri Carter provided plenty of useful information.

My main takeaways: For civil cases, there will be no motion hearings, trials, MSCs, or new motion dates before 6/22/2020. Even after 6/22/2020, for trials the court will prioritize the backlog of criminal cases, unlawful detainer cases, and other cases entitled to preference.

More detailed information is below, organized by topic in the order they were presented:

Summary of LASC and Chief Justice Emergency Orders

All emergency orders by LASC are done through power granted by the Chief Justice (CJ).

The CJ can give those powers for up to 30 days, but they (and the orders resulting from them) can be renewed.

3/17/2020 LASC Order

1. Closed the court for 3 days (3/17-19) which are holidays for purposes of calculating time.
2. Defined “essential functions” that the court will provide beginning on 3/20 when it reopens.
   1. For civil: Civil Ex Partes Only
   2. Law and motion is not essential and will not be heard.
   3. Motions to compel, MSJs, demurrers, etc. are not essential and will not be heard.
   4. Court will be looking for a true emergency. The example Judge Brazile gave was moving to compel a depo of a witness who was likely to die in the near future. So pretty stringent.
3. This order expires on 4/16 but Judge Brazile submitted a request to the CJ to extend it, which he should know this afternoon or Monday (and will likely be granted). The new order requests the extension through 6/22, although the CJ may cut it down to 30 days (to 5/17).
4. Judge Brazile stressed that this is the time for civility and doing your best to work things out informally.

3/23/2020 LASC Order

1. Limited access to the courthouse.
2. Suspended all criminal and civil jury and non-jury trials until further notice.

3/30/2020 CJ Order

1. Continued all trials for 60 days (through 5/30).
2. Ordered courts to make use of technology “when possible” – this is DISCRETIONARY.
3. Judge Brazile said civil cases will have to wait to use such means for hearings and trials, for reasons explained below.
4. Judge Brazile also indicated the Court does not have the power to issue a blanket order authorizing e-service. He does not have the authority, at least not yet, although the CJ may eventually grant that authority or issue an emergency order to that effect.

4/6/2020 Judicial Council Emergency Rules

1. Suspends UD actions.
2. Authorizes remote judicial proceedings at the court’s discretion. Capacity for implementing this varies county by county, so it was not mandated.
3. Extends 5-year rule by 6 months.
4. Allows remote appearance of deponents.
5. Judge Brazile anticipates the CJ will issue additional Emergency Rules for Civil. The initial focus has been on dealing with criminal cases due to Constitutional concerns.

LASC Ramp-Up

1. The target date for LASC to start ramping back up to normal services is 6/22/2020.
2. The ramp-up will be gradual. The ramp-up plan is still being finalized. But will include things like holding a reduced calendar at the outset, and gradually expanding to a full calendar for each courtroom.
3. There will be a backlog of criminal trials, UD trials, and other trials entitled to statutory preference. This will delay getting civil trials set, given that jurors will need to go to those cases first.

Why is civil delayed? (Sherri Carter)

1. 90% of LASC employees are now working remotely, for dedicated call centers dealing with self-help, etc.
2. Courtrooms are closed, staff is not there. Many have shifted to different responsibilities.

Information from questions submitted by attendees.

1. Are trial dates suspended through 6/22/2020? YES. Judge Brazile will be asking the CJ to extend the order suspending jury trials through the 6/22/2020 target date for ramp-up. 
2. When will jury trials resume again? Estimating late August or September, given that criminal, UD, and preference cases have to be addressed first.
3. Judge Brazile is also soliciting help from the Bar for ideas on how to conduct trials while maintaining social distancing, which will likely still be needed beyond when the court resumes providing services.
4. What about trials set between 4/16 and 6/22? They will be continued and reset at a later date after 6/22. All dates, including discovery, MSJ, etc. will be based on the new trial date. Notice will be sent by mail.
5. Trial date after 6/22? These will also likely be vacated and reset – but IC judges will have the ability to manage these trial dates more independently. However, a trial set e.g., for 6/29 is unlikely to go forward given criminal, UD, and preference case backlogs.
6. Can attorneys stipulate to a new trial date after 6/22? Yes, but subject to the Court’s approval. Pick a date sufficiently after the ramp-up starts.
7. Will there be remote law and motion after 6/22? For some cases yes, but court-provided remote tech will first be dedicated to criminal cases. There is still CourtCall, but this is not provided by the Court (i.e., the parties must pay for it).
8. Do the orders alter the period to exercise a 170.6? No.
9. Hearing between 3/17 and 6/22? These will be continued. At present, Judge Brazile cannot estimate when they will be heard.
10. Can I get a hearing date for new motions? The Court will start determining this over the next several weeks, but there will be no hearing dates for civil before 6/22/2020. No new reservation dates are being issued, so effectively new motions cannot be filed at Mosk.
11. Why can’t civil motions be heard? Complex is closed and Mosk is closed. Even with CourtCall or Zoom, there is no one present to make a record entry, even remote hearings would require staff to be present in court, civil staff is reduced 90% and largely reassigned to criminal and call centers, no staff to make calendar entries and send out notice.
12. Settlement conferences? Are not being conducted and will not be until the Court reopens.
13. Is formal Court attire required for remote hearings? No, business casual is fine.
14. Will there be remote trials after the Court reopens? For bench trials that would work. For jury trials, the Court needs comments from the Bar on how the logistics would work.
15. What about statutory deadlines for law and motion (e.g., motion to compel)? All the dates will be continued, and the next emergency order from the Court will include language on tolling. Regardless, there will be good cause for filing them late.

General Comments

1. My takeaway is that civil is doing less in order to provide call center services, and redeploy resources to criminal.
2. Also, judges are being cross-trained in other areas. 1/3 of bench officers are over 65 and vulnerable. The Court wants to protect them, and also plan for the unfortunate circumstance that some judges are incapacitated by COVID-19.
3. Judge Brazile stated multiple times: Now is the time for civility.
4. The Court will need the support of the Bar in the Legislature when budget time comes. He foresees circumstances similar to the budget challenges during the great recession. 

Court orders to manage the COVID-19 crisis (Updated)

This past Tuesday was the first day of the "shelter in place" order in San Francisco, and probably my last day physically in the office for a while.  (The "shelter in place" order permits businesses to conduct "Minimum Basic Operations" onsite, including "[t]he minimum necessary activities to maintain the value of the business's inventory, ensure security, process payroll and employee benefits, or for related functions" and "[t]he minimum necessary activities to facilitate employees of the business being able to continue to work remotely from their residences," both of which I was endeavoring to do for my firm on Tuesday.  In addition, the order exempts "Essential Businesses," which includes "[p]rofessional services, such as legal or accounting services, when necessary to assist in compliance with legally mandated activities," whatever that means.) 

Meanwhile, I had made a promise to try to finalize and file an amicus curiae letter in support of review in a pending Supreme Court case.  (I'll do a post about that case later. UPDATE Apr. 14, 2020: See this blog post.)  As of Tuesday, the Court's requirement for paper copies remained in place.  So, we decided to mail the paper copies instead of sending a messenger, which we would normally do.  Then, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court suspended the paper copies requirement.  (May I say that this change is one I hope "sticks" after this is all over.  The N.D. Cal. also suspended the requirement to deliver paper courtesy copies to chambers, yahoo!) 

Things are changing so fast, and every day brings new orders, with no consistency (yet) across the state's judicial branch or among the federal district courts.  All of us have pending cases in different courts and are wondering whether and when those matters will be directly affected by sua sponte court-ordered continuances or courthouse closures.  Here are some useful links: 

• "How COVID-19 Is Impacting the California Courts: Roundup of Services," The Recorder (Mar. 17, 2020).  The Recorder appears to be regularly updating this story as new orders are issued.  Also, the Recorder has lifted its paywall for all stories related to the crisis.  Thank you to the Recorder for doing that. 
• California Supreme Court's list of emergency orders. Evidently, the Supreme Court has to approve requests by the various Superior Courts for extensions and closures.  As a result, this list is a useful tool, but personally I would recommend visiting the page of the particular Superior Court in question to double-check exactly what has been ordered. 
• One Legal's "California court updates - Covid 19" page.  The attorney service One Legal appears to be collecting useful updates on this page, with links. 

Good luck to everybody in managing life during this strange period of time.  A pandemic, really? That's for science fiction novels. 

UPDATE Mar. 21, 2020:  In addition to the links above, Consumer Attorneys of California has this resource, which seems to be accessible to members and non-members alike:

• CAOC's Coronavirus-Related Court Announcements

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year to my lovely, loyal readers!  I hope your holidays were both: (a) wonderful; and (b) less busy than mine were.  Shortly before Christmas, I filed an opening brief on the merits in the California Supreme Court—my second Supreme Court case! (My first one was Brinker.)  Then, after taking a very short break for the holiday, I've been putting in long and heavy hours preparing to meet two other appellate deadlines on back-to-back dates coming up very soon this month. 

Since my last post in early December, some interesting new opinions have come down, and I hope to have time to start covering them in a few weeks.  Meanwhile, please continue to email me with UCL or class action comments or with news on interesting decisions.  I always enjoy hearing from those who take time out of their busy days to read this blog.  It's hard to believe that I first started doing this more than 14 years ago.  During all that time, my best motivation to continue has always been your page views and positive feedback. 

Contract attorney position available with my firm

The Kralowec Law Group has an immediate opening for a contract attorney to assist with projects in pending class action matters.  The ideal candidate will have at least 4-5 years of litigation experience, excellent research and writing skills, and a strong interest in plaintiff-side work.  Compensation depends on experience.  The selected candidate will work closely with me on projects in complex litigation matters, and may have the opportunity to become a full-time employee.  We have a busy and growing practice handling UCL, wage and hour, and antitrust class actions in state and federal court. 

To apply, contact me by email ([email protected]) with the following:

1. Subject line: Contract Attorney Application
2. Cover letter
3. Resume
4. Writing sample (on a substantive topic authored solely by you)
5. References 

UPDATE:  The position has been filled.  Thanks to all who applied.

Class certification issues raised by Duran and Brinker? I can help

A lot of new briefing may be coming up in the wake of Duran as well as the post-Brinker opinions that continue to be handed down. 

I am now accepting new appellate and trial-level briefing matters. 

If you have an appeal involving UCL, wage and hour, or class certification issues, I can handle it on an hourly or a flat-fee basis.  I can also assist you with your trial-level briefing, such as class certification motions, oppositions to demurrers or motions to dismiss, and oppositions to decertification motions.  If your judge requests further briefing on the impact of Duran, I can assist with that as well.

To inquire about retaining me for your matter, please contact me at my work email address, kkralowec -at- kraloweclaw -dot- com, or call me at 415-546-6800.

For samples of my work, my Supreme Court briefs in Brinker are here; my successful depublication requests in the three defense-favorable post-Brinker cases are available at these links; and my amicus brief for CELA in Duran is here. 

From an interview with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye

I just came across this late January interview by the Sacramento Bee's editorial board with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.  An excerpt:

Gary Reed: What are the most interesting cases before the Supreme Court?

Cantil-Sakauye: One of our most interesting cases was the Garcia bar admission case (authorizing Sergio Garcia to practice law though he had come to California as a child without documentation), because of the interplay of state and federal law. I’m finding class-action cases interesting, and wage and hour cases.

Miller v. Alabama (in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory life imprisonment without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.) We’re seeing broad cases at the California Supreme Court in reaction to U.S. Supreme cases. I wish I had all the time in the world to focus on those issues.

Dan Morain: Which justices do you most admire?

Cantil-Sakauye: I feel privileged to work with the group I’m in. I respect their history and how they look at law and tradition. I feel privileged because I don’t know how long it will last.

I like working with Goodwin Liu. He didn’t come from a trial court. He didn’t come from an appellate court. He came from academia. He will say, ‘Why are you doing this?’ He challenges us. This group is the mix of the old and the new.

This interview was before Justice Kennard announced her retirement, or I am sure the Chief would have been asked about her legacy.

RIP, appellate lawyer Sandy Svetcov

I was very saddened to hear the news of the untimely passing of appellate attorney Sandy Svetcov of the Robbins Geller firm, who died last Friday of cancer at age 72.  Sandy was so kind and encouraging to younger appellate lawyers.  The plaintiffs' bar has suffered an irreplaceable loss.  

The Ninth Circuit issued this press release, and the Recorder had this story.

My sympathies go out to his family and his colleagues at Robbins Geller.   [Via How Appealing]

UPDATE:  On Monday, the San Franciso Chronicle had this obituary by Bob Egelko.

Follow The UCL Practitioner on Twitter

If you are on Twitter, you can get this blog's new posts by following me there:  twitter.com/uclpractitioner

Happy Holidays!

The blog will be on hiatus until after the first of the year.  Happy holidays to everyone, and thanks as always for reading.  As of this past October, it has been nine years of blogging.  Knowing that you are all out there reading is what keeps me motivated.  Best wishes to all for a happy and prosperous 2013.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring in San Francisco

The newly-constituted federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring.  Positions are available in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Washington:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is looking for rigorous, innovative thinkers to shape policy and advance our consumer protection mission. We will be hiring dedicated, talented public servants in a wide array of areas and with many different levels of experience. We are currently looking for great candidates for the positions listed below. Click on any job grade to find out if it is the right opportunity for you. 

The deadline to apply is January 23, 2012.  More information is available here (click through to the job descriptions).

This morning I am attending the mid-Winter meeting of the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, of which I am currently the Secretary.  Save the date of November 1, 2012 October 25, 2012 for our annual Golden State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Institute, which will take place in San Fransisco again this year.

I have been very busy at work lately, but soon I will have an update on Brinker (with copies of the most recent briefs) and reports on Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2012) and Collins v. eMachines, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 28, 2011; pub. ord. Dec. 22, 2011; modified Dec. 28, 2011).

California Courts YouTube channel

Here is the link to the YouTube channel of the California Courts: The Judicial Branch of California.  "Video content on this channel was produced exclusively by or in partnership with the California Administrative Office of the Courts." 

It includes video of Judicial Council meetings; speeches by court officials including the Chief Justice; courthouse groundbreaking ceremonies; confirmation ceremonies; and various other videos. 

The channel was created in January 2009, but I will admit I was unaware of it until now.  This explains how the Brinker video could have been posted on YouTube before it was available on the California Channel website. 

Anniversary

As of today, I have been writing The UCL Practitioner for eight years!

The first two years of the blog's content, from October 2003 through September 2005, remains available at the original URL, http://17200blog.blogspot.com.  (For optimum viewing, use Explorer rather than Firefox when visiting that site.)

Clinical Professor sought for consumer law clinic at Hofstra Law School

I have been asked to publicize an opening for a Clinical Professor to lead a new clinic at Hofstra Law School in Hempstead, New York.  The clinic will focus on consumer law.  More details about the opening are available here. 

If you know someone who might be a good fit for this position, please forward this information to them.

No more appendices of non-California authorities!

Effective July 1, 2011, Rule of Court 3.1113(i) has been amended.  This Rule previously required filing copies of any non-California authorities cited in your briefs.  No more.  Appendices of non-California authorities are now required only if the judge specifically orders it:

(i) Copies of authorities

(1)A judge may require that if any authority other than California cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, or state or local rules is cited, a copy of the authority must be lodged with the papers that cite the authority and tabbed as required by rule 3.1110(f).

(2)If a California case is cited before the time it is published in the advance sheets of the Official Reports, the party must include the title, case number, date of decision, and, if from the Court of Appeal, district of the Court of Appeal in which the case was decided. A judge may require that a copy of that case must be lodged and tabbed as required by rule 3.1110(f).

(3)Upon the request of a party to the action, any party citing any authority other than California cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, or state or local rules must promptly provide a copy of such authority to the requesting party.

(Subd (i) amended effective July 1, 2011 ....)

Previously, the Rule read as follows:

(i) Copies of non-California authorities

If any authority other than California cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, or state or local rules is cited, a copy of the authority must be lodged with the papers that cite the authority and tabbed as required by rule 3.1110(f).  If a California case is cited before the time it is published in the advance sheets of the Official Reports, a copy of  that case must also be lodged and tabbed as required by rule 3.1110(f). 

I first learned about this Rule amendment as a result of my membership in the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.

BREAKING NEWS: Governor Brown nominates Professor Goodwin Liu to California Supreme Court

This news is just breaking. Links with more details later.

UPDATE:  Here is Governor Brown's press release.  News coverage is available in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times.  Here's Professor Liu's faculty bio page at Boalt. 

In a separate article, the Los Angeles Times points out that if Professor Liu is confirmed, the Supreme Court will have an Asian majority.  Justices Chin and Kennard, as well as Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, all have Asian roots. 

In the legal press, the Recorder reports that "Brown Disappoints Some Latinos with Choice of Liu for Supreme Court."  This article says that Governor Brown indicated that he expects Professor Liu to be on the bench by the time of the September oral argument session, which begins on the day after Labor Day in San Francisco.  That is when the same-sex marriage case is expected to be argued, according to a Daily Journal article last week. 

Milestone

Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the launch of my firm, The Kralowec Law Group. The firm is doing great and the whole process has been incredibly rewarding. Thanks to all my friends and colleagues who have been so supportive over the past year! 

Quick post on Kwikset

I have been meaning to post more analysis of the Kwikset decision, but I have been swamped at work this week.  I hope to get back to more regular blogging next week.  Happy Friday!

Ninth Circuit enjoins lawyers to take vacations! Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.

In Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010), the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment obtained as a result of opposing counsel's refusal to grant routine professional courtesies, and had this note of warning for the bar:

As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer once recognized, attorneys have an obligation as professionals to assume positions of important social responsibility. See David J. Brewer, The Ideal Lawyer, Atlantic Monthly, November 1906, at 587, 598 (“[T]he true lawyer never forgets the obligations which he as a lawyer owes to the republic, . . . he always remembers that he is a citizen.”). Moreover, attorneys, like everyone else, have critical personal and familial obligations that are particularly acute during holidays. It is important to the health of the legal profession that attorneys strike a balance between these competing demands on their time. See Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871, 889-90 (1999).

Slip op. at 18146 n.7.  Thank you, Ninth Circuit, for making us all feel less guilty if we spend some time away from the office this holiday season.

California Courts to launch redesigned website in January 2011

From an announcement the day before Thanksgiving:  "In an effort to improve online access to the California judicial branch, the California Courts website will unveil a new design in January, 2011." 

The website's URL will be changing from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov to http://www.courts.ca.gov.  If you have a website that links to court pages, as I do, it will be necessary to update the links. 

I hope very much that the redesign will include an RSS feed for new opinions.

Blog hiatus

This post will be the last until after Thanksgiving.  Please continue to forward interesting decisions, briefs, news, etc.  And, no, I'm not on vacation; I can be reached by email ([email protected]) or at the office (415-546-6800).

I hope everyone has a good Thanksgiving.  Plaintiffs' attorneys, please come to the CAOC Convention, which begins this Thursday night with the Women's Caucus reception.

CASD Class Action Symposium starts today in San Diego

I'm in San Diego today for the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego 3rd Annual Class Action Symposium.  If you are here please come up to me and say hi.  I will also be at the judges' reception tonight. 

Today also happens to be the seventh anniversary of the day on which I first created The UCL Practitioner.  It's interesting how things end up happening in life.  I'm not so sure I'd have my own firm in 2010 if I hadn't created this blog in 2003.  What I do know is that such a result was very far from my mind at the time.

Blog pages updated

I've updated my list of pending California Supreme Court cases of interest to practitioners in our field.  The main update was to move the decided cases, such as Clayworth, Clark and County of Santa Clara, from the pending section to the concluded section of the list.  There have been few review grants of interest lately.  If I've forgotten any let me know. 

I've also added Clayworth and Clark to my list of leading Supreme Court UCL decisions. 

OFF-TOPIC BREAKING NEWS: Judge Walker strikes down Prop. 8

In case you haven't seen it, here is Judge Walker's 138-page order today finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.  I've updated this off-topic post on the same subject.

Alameda County Superior Court accepts electronic filing of CMC statements as of 06/01/10

This is not directly related to UCL or class action practice, but for those of us with cases in Alameda County, it could be very useful.  As of June 1, 2010, the Alameda County Superior Court permits electronic filing of CMC statements in civil cases.  More information, and instructions, are available at this link.  There is no fee for this service.

I'm sure many of us are looking forward to the day when all state courts accept electronic filings as easily as the federal courts do, but this is a great start. 

"A World Without Lawyers"

I'm in San Diego at a CAOC Board meeting this morning, and I learned about this:

Supreme Court takes up attorney work product case: Coito v. Superior Court (State of California)

Although not strictly related to the UCL or class action practice, the Supreme Court's grant of review yesterday in Coito v. Superior Court (State of California), no. 181712, is of interest.  The case will address the extent to which the attorney work product doctrine protects witness statements gathered in investigating a case. 

On a 2-1 vote, the Court of Appeal (Fifth Appellate District) held that the witness statements in question were not protected. Coito v. Superior Court (State of California), 182 Cal. App. 4th 758 (2010).  More on that opinion can be found at Professor Martin's blog, California Appellate Report, and in these two posts at The Complex Litigator.

Blog hiatus

The blog will be on hiatus for a couple of weeks.  Please continue to contact me about working together on cases, new decisions, or anything else.  I can be reached by email ([email protected]) or phone (415-546-6800). 

Thanks for coming!

Thanks to all who attended the Rutter Group seminar on 17200 practice this week.  I hope you found it useful.  I certainly did.

One of the attendees asked me about my new website, www.kraloweclaw.com.  It is under construction.  For now, I've set it to forward to www.uclpractitioner.com.  When the new site launches, I will announce it here.  As you can imagine, building a new website when I already have a comprehensive one was not at the top of the to-do list for my new law firm, but it will be launched eventually.

Let me also extend my sincere thanks to all the people who have emailed or called with congratulations and good wishes on my new venture.  I can't tell you how much I appreciate the support and confidence everyone has expressed.  And special thanks to my friends who sent flowers.  My office looks a lot like a flower shop right now. 

Announcing The Kralowec Law Group

I am pleased to announce the formation of my new class action law firm, The Kralowec Law Group, as of March 1, 2010.  My updated contact information is to the left and below.

I will continue to represent plaintiffs in consumer, wage and hour, antitrust, and other class action cases, and to provide hourly consultation work and brief writing services at the trial and appellate levels.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help with your case.  I would welcome the opportunity to discuss new cases and explore new co-counseling opportunities.

I am very excited about my new venture.  And of course, I have every intention of continuing to write this blog as I have done for the past six years.  I hope to see some of you at the Rutter Group program tonight in San Francisco and Wednesday night in Los Angeles. 

The Kralowec Law Group
188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 546-6800
Fax: (415) 546-6801
Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
Email: [email protected]