FIRM NEWS & NOTES

Click to visit ARTICLES

Partner Named "Super Lawyer" Yet Again!

For the fifth time, Christopher Engh was named a "Super Lawyer" for Northern California in the area of estate planning by Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. The "Super Lawyer" selection process includes peer nominations from throughout Northern California, a blue ribbon panel review and independent research of each candidate. Those selected represent the top 5% of attorneys in the Northern California area.

Krueger Speaks to Greater Stockton Employment Advisory Counsel

Associate, Kerry L. Krueger, recently spoke to the Greater Stockton Employment Advisory Council (GSEAC).  Her presentation was entitled Sensitive Terminations: Mitigating Litigation in Employee Terminations.  Ms. Krueger provided the participants with valuable advice on how to avoid claims for wrongful termination.

Smith Speaks to Realtors About Short Sales

Partner Kim Smith recently presented a program entitled "The Tips and Traps of Short Sales" to a sell-out crowd at the annual meeting of the Tuolumne County Association of Realtors.  Mr. Smith provided much-needed information concerning the short sale process, alternatives to short sales, and the problems Realtors often experience in short sales, whether as the agent for the seller or the buyer.  Mr. Smith also held a question-and-answer period in which the Association members asked questions concerning a variety of legal issues. 

Engh Teaches Wills & Trust

Partner Christopher Engh has resumed teaching the Wills and Trust course to law students  at Humphreys College, Laurence Drivon School of Law located in Stockton. Mr. Engh taught the course for four years beginning in 2004 and then resumed teaching in August of 2010 after a two-year break. The law students are in their third year of a four-year program. The course is a two-quarter course. In the first quarter, the focus is on Wills, the probate process, and challenges to Wills. Students study trust law in the second quarter.

Lafferty Elected President of Stockton Civic Theatre Board

Partner Allison Cherry Lafferty has been elected to serve as the President of the Board of Directors of Stockton Civic Theatre, which has presented live local theater productions since 1950.  Stockton Civic Theatre is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors who are committed to supporting and developing arts in the local community.  Allison has served on the Board since 2005, and previously served as Secretary, Vice President of Marketing, and President-Elect.     

Estate Planning Update: Current Status of the Transfer Tax System

Christopher Engh

The unthinkable has happened: as matters stand now, for decedents dying in 2010, there will be no estate or generation-skipping taxes due, regardless of the size of the decedent’s estate. Further, lifetime transfers made on or after January 1, 2010, will not be subject to a generation skipping tax. Experts were predicting for months before the end of 2009 that Congress would enact legislation to extend the 2009 estate and generation-skipping tax rates and exemption amounts. A bill to that effect passed the House of Representatives, but the more closely divided Senate did not act. There has been discussion in the estate planning press that Congress may act later this year to institute an estate tax or a generation skipping tax for decedents dying this year, but, if such legislation is passed later in the year, and an attempt is made in the legislation to impose the tax retroactively, there could be some constitutional issues which could take years to resolve.

Though there is no estate or generation-skipping tax due for people who die in 2010, unless Congress acts later this year, in 2011, the estate tax and a generation-skipping tax will return automatically, with a top tax rate of 55% and a $1 million exemption. In essence, the law in 2011 will revert to the law as the way it was for decedents who died in 2001.

As a trade off for the elimination of estate and generation-skipping taxes for decedents who died this year, Congress, when it passed the law in 2001, abolished the step up in basis. As a result, the income tax basis of an asset acquired from an individual who dies in 2010, under current law, will not equal the estate tax value of that asset (that is, the value on the date of the decedent’s death). Instead, the basis of the asset in the hands of the decedent will "carry over" to those who inherit the property. Therefore, if a decedent who dies this year bought a share of stock for $100 20 years ago and it is worth $200 when he dies, the basis in the hands of the person who inherits that stock from the decedent will be $100, not $200 as it would have been had the decedent died in 2009. The impact of this "carry over" basis, of course, is significant when analyzing the income tax consequences in the hands of the person who inherits the asset if that person decides to sell the assets since he will have to pay income tax (perhaps capital gains tax) on the difference between the sales price and the basis.

There are two exceptions to the "carry over" basis rule. First, the decedent’s personal representative may increase the bases of assets passing to anyone up to a $1,300,000 limitation. The basis of an asset with this increase, however, may not exceed its fair market value on the date of the decedent’s death. Second, the personal representative may increase the bases of assets that the surviving spouse receives, either outright or through a qualified spousal property trust (like a QTIP Trust), up to a $3 million limitation.

Unless there is legislative action this year, these "carry over" basis rules exist only for decedents dying in 2010. Absent some legislative change, the "step up" basis rules return in 2011.

Krueger Selected as Guest Faculty for Graduate Student Program at University of Pacific

Kerry L. Krueger was a guest faculty for graduate students in the Higher Education Administration program at the University of Pacific.  She taught on issues related to the suspension and expulsion of students and the due process requirements for discipline.  She also taught on the students’ rights to protest, hate speech codes and other free speech issues for Educational institutions. 

Estate Planning Update: The No-Contest Clause

Christopher Engh

For many years, the law governing no-contest clauses in California has been confusing and far too complicated. In addition, the ability of lawyers to seek a court ruling in advance of the filing of a document as to whether or not the proposed action would in fact be a contest has generated contentious and expensive litigation. In fact, in 2009 alone, there were at least six published appellate cases in California addressing the issue of whether a proposed action would in fact constitute a violation of a no-contest clause.

Given the complexity and the expense of no-contest clause disputes, there were some commentators who suggested that the legislature should abolish no-contest clauses. This movement, though having many adherents, violated long-standing principles in California that no-contest clauses are enforceable, though they are to be strictly construed.

After much debate and consideration, the California legislature in 2008 finally passed a sweeping reform of the no-contest statutes, with the new law to take effect January 1, 2010. The thrust of the new law is to limit the enforceability of no-contest clauses and to reduce litigation.

The new law, though effective beginning January 1, 2010, applies to instruments irrevocable on or after January 1, 2001, whenever executed. (See Probate Code § 21315(a).) Instruments irrevocable before January 1, 2001, are governed by the law in effect before the enactment of the new statute.

Under the new statutory scheme, no-contest clauses are enforceable only against three types of contests: the filing of a creditor’s claim or the prosecution of an action based on a creditor’s claim, if the no-contest provides that such conduct will be deemed a contest; to a pleading challenging the transfer of property on the grounds that it was not the transferor’s property at the time of the transfer, again only if the no-contest clause provides that such an action shall be deemed a contest; and, finally, to a direct contest brought without probable cause.

A direct contest is a pleading (a filing in a court action) that alleges the invalidity of a protected instrument on the grounds of forgery; lack of due execution; lack of capacity; menace; fraud; undue influence; and for other enumerated reasons in the statute.

Obviously, the key question is whether the contest is brought with probable cause. In defining this term, the legislature elected to use a very low standard. Probable cause exists under the statute if, at the time of filing the direct contest, the facts known to the contestant would cause a reasonable person to believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested relief will be granted after an opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (Probate Code § 21311(b).) Though the term "reasonable likelihood" is not defined in the statute, it has been defined in the case law as meaning "more than merely possible but less than more probable than not." (See Alvarez v. Superior Court 154 Cal.App.4th 642, 653, fn. 4.)

No-contest clauses only protect what is defined in the statute as "protected instruments." These are either the document which contains the no-contest clause or a document which is in existence at the time the document containing the no contest clause is executed and is specifically identified in the no-contest clause. This restricted definition will require clients, if they want the no-contest clause to apply to trust amendments, to ensure that their amendment contains a no-contest clause, and if they want the no-contest clause to apply to documents in existence at the time the will or trust is signed, to ensure that the no-contest clause refers to those other documents specifically.

Though the statutory scheme seems fairly complete, there are some open questions. First, at what point will the court rule on whether probable cause exists if a direct contest is filed? Since the new law does not authorize the safe harbor petitions which were so popular under the former law, a party cannot seek court determination in advance as to whether a proposed pleading would constitute a direct contest brought without probable cause. Most likely, the issue will be raised by a respondent in response to a contest and decided by the court in its decision on the trial regarding the merits of the contest.

Also, the new statute is silent on what law governs contests involving revocable trusts. Admittedly, it will be rare that action taken regarding a revocable trust could ever be deemed a contest, but a recent Supreme Court case (Johnson v. Greenelsh, 47 Cal.4th 598, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622) revealed that actions taken by a trust beneficiary challenging the conduct of a settlor the beneficiaries believe is incompetent can very well trigger the application of a no-contest clause.

Though the new California statute limits the enforceability of no-contest clauses, such clauses can still be quite effective if properly drafted.

Krueger Co-Authored Poster Publication at the 2010 Sports and Recreation Law Association Conference

Kerry Krueger co-authored a poster publication for oral presentation at the 2010 Sports and Recreation Law Association conference.  The publication, “Tentacles of Power”: A socio-legal exploration of Oliver vs. NCAA (2009), Dinh, Leong, Killick, Krueger, & Ciccolella critically explores the legal and sociological implications of the regulations enforced by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the name of preserving the amateur model of collegiate athletics.  It examines Oliver v. NCAA (2009), a case that considered whether the NCAA Bylaws could limit an attorney’s representation of a student-athlete.  This case illustrates several concerns, including the excessive regulation of student-athletes’ rights within US intercollegiate sport and the possible exploitation of student-athletes.  It also highlights the significant power imbalance evident between student-athletes and the NCAA and explores the mechanisms by which these unequal power relations are maintained.  

In Oliver, an athlete was suspended from the intercollegiate baseball team at Oklahoma State University (OSU) by the NCAA after it was reported that, while still in high school and prior to attending OSU, he met with the Minnesota Twins in the presence of his attorney. This action allegedly violated NCAA Bylaws 12.3.2.1 (“No Agent Rule”) and 19.7 (“Restitution Rule”).  The athlete challenged the NCAA arguing that these Bylaws are void as a matter of public policy because they prevent a lawyer from competently representing a client. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that Bylaw 12.3.2.1 was arbitrary and capricious in that it had no relevance to the NCAA’s stated mission of preserving amateurism; instead, it only limited the player’s ability to effectively negotiate a contract.  Furthermore, Bylaw 19.7 interferes with the court’s judicial powers and exists solely to coerce member institutions to ignore court orders. The NCAA responded that it had no contract with the student-athlete, and thus, no duty of “good faith and fair dealing”. However, the court determined the plaintiff was an intended third party beneficiary of the NCAA’s contract with OSU, and granted the plaintiff equitable relief.  The court found Bylaw 12.3.2.1 arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The court also found Bylaw 19.7 punitive in its outcome, “a direct attack on the constitutional right of access to courts”, overreaching, arbitrary, and a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Ohio court explicitly stated its concern that the NCAA Bylaws were selective in their application and had serious reservations about their ethical implications.  Of note, the NCAA settled with the plaintiff after the Ohio ruling.  

The publication was presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Sport and Recreation Law Association in Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 4 – 6, 2010, by co-authors, Dinh and Leong

Firm Welcomes New Associate, Oona E. Mallett

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson is pleased to announce that Oona E. Mallett has become an associate with the firm. Oona is a 2003 graduate of University of the Pacific, Stockton, with a B.A. in Global Economic Relations as well as a B.A. in Spanish. She holds an M.A., also in Spanish, from the University of California, Davis.

Oona received her J.D. in 2009 from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, graduating with Great Distinction and Order of the Coif. While at McGeorge, Oona was awarded the Witkin Award: Professional Responsibility (Fall 2008), was a Student Member of the Anthony M. Kennedy American Inn of Court (2008-2009) and was a Primary Legislation Editor and a Primary Articles & Symposium Editor for the McGeorge Law Review during the 2008-2009 school year. Oona is admitted to the California Bar and is a member of the State Bar of California as well as the San Joaquin County Bar Association.

Scott Rooker Joins Stockton Chorale

Scott Rooker has become a member of the Stockton Chorale.  Founded in 1951, the Stockton Chorale boasts approximately 100 singers from all over the Central Valley, and performs several concerts every year.  This spring the Chorale will be featuring Mendelssohn's Lobgesang: Hymn of Praise and Ray's Gospel Mass.

Mr. Rooker has been singing since childhood, and has participated in many university and church choirs, including the Brigham Young University Men's Chorus, Delta Singers, and Delta Chorale.  He is excited to be a part of such a venerable Stockton institution, and to be able to keep singing.

Schrum To Serve a Second Term as Chair of the Board of Directors of the YMCA of San Joaquin County

Partner Laurie Bell Schrum was elected to serve a second term as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the YMCA of San Joaquin County.   The YMCA of San Joaquin County was founded in 1885.  It is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors who are committed to the YMCA's mission of building strong kids, strong families, and strong communities. 

The attorneys of Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson have a long tradition of community involvement and volunteerism.  Ms. Schrum continues in the footsteps of partner Thomas O. Perry, who served on the Board of Directors of the YMCA of San Joaquin County for many years, and who also previously served as the Chair of the Board.

Court of Appeal Affirms Firm's Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Action

The Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed judgment in favor of the firm's client, an emergency physician, after a jury found that our client was not negligent in the diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff.  Plaintiff appealed the judgment maintaining that the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings.  The court of appeal, after oral argument, found that plaintiff's arguments and briefs were devoid of support and affirmed the trial court, awarding our client costs of the appeal.  Partner, Thomas O. Perry represented our client at the trial in 2007.  Kathleen M. Abdallah was appellate counsel. 

Firm Successfully Resolves Client's Case After Serious Rear-End Collision

Partner Thomas O. Perry, working in conjunction with associate Joshua Stevens, successfully resolved a plaintiff's rear-end automobile accident case prior to trial.  The client sustained neck and shoulder injuries after being rear-ended in Modesto, California in 2007.  Mr. Perry and Mr. Stevens recovered $125,000 for the client. 

Defendant's insurance company disputed liability and contended that the client sustained no lasting injuries in the accident. As a result of Mr. Perry's and Mr. Stevens' diligent handling of the matter, the client received just compensation for his injuries.

Rooker Speaks to Realtors

Lim Concludes Wage and Hour Class Action

Partner Closes Major Real Estate Transaction

Partner Kim Smith recently represented Woodbridge Center East, LLC in the sale of a shopping center parcel in Manteca.  The transaction successfully closed on September 3.  The client continues to own most of the remainder of the shopping center located at the northeast corner of Union Road and Lathrop Road.

Reynolds Joins Board of The Children's Museum

Associate Matthew S. Reynolds recently became a member of the Board of Directors of the Children's Museum of Stockton.  The Children's Museum, located near Stockton's downtown waterfront, has provided educational and entertaining exhibits for its young visitors for more than two decades.  The Board of Directors raises funds and provides improvements for the museum. To learn more about the Children's Museum of Stockton, see http://www.stocktongov.com/Childrensmuseum/.

Firm Closes Multi-Million Dollar Loans

Partner Laurie Bell Schrum and associate Matthew S. Reynolds, with backup from partner Gary Christopherson, recently closed a complex series of loans totaling more than $25 million for our client, a regional health care provider. The loans – commonly referred to as "HUD-insured loans" or simply "HUD loans" – are insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and are secured by numerous skilled nursing and mental health facilities located throughout Central and Northern California. Due to the involvement of HUD, the loan process and documentation required are far more cumbersome than in "typical" commercial secured property loans.

Krueger Presents Scholarship Award at Pacific Legal Scholars Program Welcome Reception

On August 23, 2009, associate Kerry Krueger presented University of the Pacific sophomore Kelly Volkar with the inaugural Barristers' Scholarship.  Ms. Krueger presented the award, which is generously supported by the Barristers' Section of the San Joaquin County Bar Association, as part of the festivities surrounding the Pacific Legal Scholars Program Welcome Reception.  The reception was well-attended by incoming and returning students, faculty and members of the Stockton legal community. 

During her presentation speech, Ms. Krueger emphasized the virtues of the Legal Scholars Program and thanked the program's director, Dr. Cynthia Ostberg, for allowing the local legal community to be a part of the program's success.

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson would like to congratulate Ms. Volkar for her achievement in receiving the Barristers' Scholarship and wish her continued success.

Reynolds Graduates from Leadership Stockton

On June 11, 2009, associate Matthew S. Reynolds graduated from Leadership Stockton, a prestigious community-based leadership training program which has been provided by the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce for over 27 years.  The program, which has analogs throughout the country, boasts among its alumni current San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore and former City of Stockton Mayor Ed Chavez.  Leadership Stockton focuses on providing participants with functional knowledge of all aspects of the local community, including the local government, the non-profit sector, and law enforcement. 

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson has been an active supporter of Leadership Stockton almost from its inception.  The firm boasts a large number of program graduates, including partners Velma Lim (Class of 1985), Allison Cherry Lafferty (Class of 2002), and Laurie Bell Schrum (Class of 2004).  To learn more about Leadership Stockton, see http://www.leadershipstockton.com.  

Lafferty Speaks at the Trial Attorneys of America Annual Meeting in Chicago

Allison Cherry Lafferty spoke, in June, at the Trial Attorneys of America annual meeting.  Trial Attorneys of America is a nationwide organization dedicated to the defense of product liability litigation.  Ms. Lafferty is a member of the organization and participated in a presentation entitled "Keys to Successfully Defending a Catastrophic Injury Case."  Ms. Lafferty discussed her experiences in a major catastrophic injury action and the effective use of a statistician as an expert in the defense of a products liability claim.

Firm Successfully Resolves Client's Case After Serious Slip and Fall Injury

Joshua Stevens successfully resolved a plaintiff’s slip and fall case at mediation. The client sustained a serious back injury after entering a local area major supermarket and slipping in a large puddle of water when no rubber mat was present in the entryway. Without proceeding to trial, Mr. Stevens recovered $225,000 for the client.

Defendant disputed liability and the extent of the client’s damages, and contended the client was comparatively negligent. Nevertheless, Mr. Stevens’ careful work-up of the case generated just compensation for the client’s injuries and losses.

Krueger Gives Presentation to Greater Stockton Employer Advisory Council

In May, Kerry L. Krueger gave a presentation to the Greater Stockton Employer Advisory Council (GSEAC) on the topic of "Hiring to Avoid Firing".  Ms. Krueger provided tips to business owners, managers and HR professionals on the tactics of making smart hiring decisions to avoid the turmoil of terminations.

Associate Runs Boston Marathon

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson is proud to announce that Kerry Krueger completed her 8th Boston Marathon this month. This is Ms. Krueger's 31st marathon.  She is one of only two runners from Stockton to qualify and run the race.  Her time in the 2009 race qualified her to run next year.  Congratulations Kerry!

Partner Elected Chairman of the Board of Port Commissioners of the Stockton Port District

Gary Christopherson was elected the Chairman of the Board of Port Commissioners of the Stockton Port District in February 2009.  This begins Gary's 11th year as a port commissioner and his second term as Chairman. 

The deep water Port of Stockton is the second largest inland port on the west coast and trades internationally with over four dozen countries. 

Jury Denies Medical Malpractice Claim

Partner Thomas O. Perry, tried a case in Alameda County on behalf of a Nurse Practitioner working in an Emergency Room.

The patient alleged she was injured because a neck fracture, later discovered, was not diagnosed in the Emergency Room. Perry presented evidence that established, under the circumstances, there was no reason to suspect a fracture, with all signs pointing to a simple neck strain. He also presented evidence to establish that the patient did not suffer any significant harm as a result of the delay in diagnosis.

After a short deliberation, the jury agreed, and exonerated our client.

Tom reports that his stay in downtown Oakland was pleasant, and an interesting change from our usual venues.

California Litigation Review

Gary Christopherson, Kathleen Abdallah and Allison Cherry Lafferty recently published an article summarizing developments in evidence law for the California Litigation Review, a publication of the Litigation Section of the California State Bar. Mr. Christopherson, Ms. Abdallah and Ms. Lafferty have contributed to this valuable publication for a number of years.

Firm Successfully Resolves Nasty Dispute in Arbitration

A case the firm handled presented a dilemma. Two healthcare providers, including our client, had opposing versions of events surrounding care provided to a patient. If aired in open court, the patient would benefit from the spectacle of defendants’ fighting amongst themselves as to what was said and done. To avoid this, we proposed that the defendants negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff, with the question of who would be responsible to be decided in a private arbitration. A settlement was agreed upon with the patient. After a one day hearing, a neutral arbitrator rendered a binding decision exonerating our client from liability, and placing the responsibility elsewhere.

The case strategy was developed by Tom Perry, who represented our client at the arbitration. Other attorneys working on the case included law firm partner, Allison Lafferty, and associate Joshua Stevens.

New Associate Joins Firm

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson is pleased to announce that Scott R. Rooker has become an associate with the firm. Scott, a Stockton native, graduated from Bear Creek High School in 1994. He served a full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints in North Carolina before attending Brigham Young University, graduating in 2003 with a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities, emphasis in Music.

Scott received his Juris Doctor, with a concentration in Taxation, from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 2008, graduating with distinction. He is a member of the Traynor Honor Society. He is admitted to the California Bar and is a member of the San Joaquin County Bar Association.

Scott and his wife, Rhonda, have two children.

Jury Rules in Favor of Firm's Client

Partner, Tom Perry, recently concluded a jury trial in El Dorado County for a healthcare client that operated a Skilled Nursing Facility. The management of the facility fired two nursing employees – an Licensed Vocational Nurse and a Certified Nursing Assistant – after an incident in which an elderly resident was verbally and physically abused by a third employee (who was also fired) during a night shift. The two nursing employees brought suit, claiming wrongful termination.

The employer had determined that the two plaintiffs did not take necessary steps to protect the resident from potential further abuse during the shift. The employer contended that the two should have summoned a supervisor, with authority to send the abusive employee home, pending further investigation.

The plaintiffs were “at will” employees so they could legally be fired for any lawful reason or no reason. To successfully maintain a legal action, it would be necessary for them to prove discrimination or some other unlawful motive on the part of the employer for the termination.

In this case the employees alleged that they were fired in retaliation for reporting the incident to the State Ombudsmen. This was alleged to be a violation of State law protecting “whistle blowers.” The employees were “mandated reporters” under State law, and were required to report abuse that they witnessed.

Since it was agreed that the plaintiffs in fact made these reports and that they were soon thereafter fired, the burden shifted under California employment law principles to the employer to prove that there was a legitimate business reason for the firings. Mr. Perry presented evidence that the employer had a “zero tolerance” policy for abuse, and that those who failed to protect a resident are subject to discipline, as was the abusive employee.

The greatest practical difficulty in defending the case was a natural inclination for jurors to be sympathetic to the employees and to think that perhaps they should have been subjected to a lesser penalty such as suspension or a warning. It was necessary to repeatedly remind the jurors that their function was not to substitute their judgment as to what they thought was fair, but to focus on whether the employer did anything unlawful.

After a six day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client, the employer.

The case illustrates several points. First, the “at will” doctrine is recognized and enforceable. But, despite this, it is easy for employees to turn the tables and to require the employer prove that it had a good and lawful reason for firing them. Fortunately, in this case, the presentation of the employer’s evidence was persuasive. If not, the employer would face the prospect under State law of paying the employees’ attorney fees as well as any damages awarded.

Earlier in the year Tom Perry also teamed with Kerry Krueger of our firm recently and successfully defended at trial a contractor sued for employment discrimination. 

Defense Verdict After Three Month Product Liability Trial  

Allison Cherry Lafferty was part of the legal team that successfully obtained a defense verdict in a product liability lawsuit brought by William Collins and his family. Collins was a truck driver who was severely injured while traveling down Interstate 5 when a 2-1/2 pound chunk of concrete was thrown at his truck by a juvenile. Ms. Lafferty represented Navistar, Inc., the manufacturer of the truck driven by Mr. Collins. After a three month jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.

New Associate Joins Firm 

Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson is pleased to announce that Matthew S. Reynolds has become an associate with the firm. Matthew is a graduate of University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts with Highest Distinction in 1999. He is a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honors society.

Mr. Reynolds attained his Juris Doctor from the UCLA School of Law in 2004, where he was an Editor of the UCLA Law Review and a research assistant to interim Dean Norman Abrams. He was admitted to the California Bar in 2004, as well as the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Central Districts of the U.S. District Court, California, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

He is a member of the San Joaquin County Bar Association, where he is Chair of the Information and Technology Section and is a member of Business and Litigation Section. He is also a member of the American Bar Association and Judge Consuelo M. Callahan American Inn of Court.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Reynolds was employed as an associate with the Law Offices of Donald M. “Steve” Stevenson.  

Kroloff Partner to Participate in Panel Presenting Legal Education Master Series

Kroloff's Managing Partner, Kathleen Abdallah, is serving on a panel of legal professionals who are presenting a legal education "Master Series" class entitled, "Are You Properly Engaged? - What You Don't Know About Attorney Fee Agreements Can Hurt You" for the San Joaquin County Bar Association. This continues Kroloff's long-standing involvement in presenting legal education classes in the community.

Kroloff Law Firm Successfully Defends Disability Discrimination Lawsuit 

A former employee of our client, a construction company, sued claiming he was wrongfully fired because of a disability. He had been injured on the job, and was receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Although most construction work is strenuous, the employer was able to accommodate the employee by providing light-duty work. The employee worked satisfactorily for a time under this arrangement. When the employer suffered a downturn in business, it began laying off workers, including the plaintiff. He filed a lawsuit, alleging disability discrimination.

Thomas O. Perry and Kerry L. Krueger of our firm represented the employer. After a five day jury trial, the court granted our motion for a directed verdict, ending the case.

During the trial, the plaintiff presented very little evidence of actual damages. The driving force behind suits of this nature is often the plaintiff attorney’s hope to receive a generous award of attorney fees from the court. So, even if a successful employee receives only a small award from the jury, the court will be obligated by statute to award attorney fees. In some cases, this is significantly greater than the award to the successful employee!

Employers cannot assume that the workers’ compensation carrier is “taking care of everything.” Under state and federal law, employers have a separate duty to accommodate workers with a disability if reasonably possible. Particularly in cases where an injured worker seeks to return to work on light duty, legal advice may be helpful to avoid a claim of violation of disability laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California version: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  

Kroloff Joins San Joaquin County Superior Court Mediation Program 

Two Kroloff partners, Kathleen Abdallah and Velma Lim, have been selected to serve as mediators in the San Joaquin County Superior Court's Mediation Program. Mediation training is provided by the renowned Strauss Mediation Institute at Pepperdine University. The court's Mediation Program is anticipated to commence in March 2009. Pre-trial mediations assist the court and the public by seeking to bring cases to settlement, to avoid consuming court time and courtrooms for trials. Ms. Abdallah will focus her mediation practice in business and real estate matters, which are two of her practice areas. Ms. Lim will concentrate on employment and business cases as a mediator, which are her focus areas of practice.

Kroloff Firm Names New Managing Partner

Kathleen M. Abdallah has become the firm's new Managing Partner. She takes over from Christopher Engh, who held the position for over 10 years. Ms. Abdallah joined the firm in 1990 and became a partner in 1997. She specializes in Business Litigation, Business Transactions, Real Estate, Creditor's Rights and Appellate Work. "I am honored that my partners have selected me to take on this responsibility," notes Ms. Abdallah, "and look forward to the challenges it will present."

Partner Velma Lim Appointed Discovery Referee

Velma Lim is available in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties to be appointed as a Discovery Referee to assist attorneys with burdensome and convoluted discovery issues. "I will review the materials and render a fair, straight forward and prompt decision," notes Ms. Lim, allowing cases to move forward in the litigation process.