June - July 2011

News from Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman Newsletter
June / July 2011

We hope you enjoy this edition of our newsletter. If there are specific items you would like us to include, please send us an email.




The Staff At
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman
Is Your Name Accurate?

As you may or may not be aware, it is very important to make sure that the name style of your business is exactly as it appears in the CSLB's records.


In order to best protect yourself, please make sure to only utilize the name as it appears in the CSLB records. You can check how the CSLB has your name listed by going to their website at www.cslb.ca.gov and clicking on "Instant License Check" on the left of the screen. If you do not want to utilize that name, you should change your business name with the CSLB.


If you are an individual or partnership, you can change the name by using an Application to Change Business Name or Address, which can be found on their website at www.cslb.ca.gov by clicking on "General Information", then "Library", then "Forms and Applications" and then scroll down until you get to "Application to Change Business Name or Address." If you are a corporation, you can either do a fictitious name filing and add a "dba" or you must change your corporate name with the Secretary of State and then file the appropriate paperwork with the CSLB.


Please note that failure to notify the CSLB of a change of name within 90 days is grounds for disciplinary action. For this violation, the minimum penalty if an accusation is issued is a 60 day stayed suspension with one year probation, and even if only a citation is issued, this information will stay on your license and your customers will see it. Worst case scenario, your license could be revoked.


As always, we are looking out for your best interests. If you need any help with respect to this matter or anything else in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The Legal Difference


A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriff's Deputy. He thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy and decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the Deputy's expense.


The Deputy says, "License and registration, please."


"What for?" says the lawyer.


The deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign."


Then the lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."


"You still didn't come to a complete stop," says the deputy. "License and registration, please."


The lawyer says, "What's the difference?"


"The difference is you have to come to complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!" the Deputy repeats.


The lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration; and you give me the ticket. If not, you let me go and don't give me the ticket."


"That sounds fair. Please exit your vehicle, sir." the deputy says.


At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the living daylights out of the lawyer and says, "Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?"

Intervention in Construction Defect Litigation?

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court's denial of an intervention filed by University Gardens Condominium Owners Association in the construction defect case of Siena Court Homeowners Associationv. Green Valley Corporation.

Siena Court HOA filed a construction defect case against the developer,Green Valley Corporation, which built and sold the complex. The various defect issues included, but were not limited to, cracks, leaks, mold growth, electrical and general integrity of the buildings. The defects were in both common areas and individual units.

University Gardens Condominium Owners Association had a joint use and maintenance agreement with Siena Court HOA sharing the use and maintenance responsibility of certain common facilities. Because the financial responsibility for some of the common areas was split between both University and Siena, University sought to intervene in the lawsuit for construction defects in order to protect its financial interest in the common areas.

Intervention is proper in cases if the person or entity seeking intervention claims the following: (1) an interest in the property that is subject to litigation; (2) is an indispensable party; (3) as long as the intervention of the matter is practical and will not slow down or make the litigation larger than it is; and (4) not having another means within which to protect itself.

In this instance, the trial court found that it was not necessary for the University to intervene into the construction defect case because it had another course to protect itself by bringing a new action against Siena, if Siena should prevail in the construction defect case, to determine their respective obligations with respect to the joint use and maintenance agreement.

After reviewing the merits of the case, the Court of Appealagreed with the trial court. The order denying the motion for leave to intervene was affirmed. The appeal costs were also awarded to Siena andGreen Valley, in that they were objecting to the University's appeal.


Three old guys are out walking.


First one says, "Windy, isn't it?"


Second one says, "No, it's Thursday!"


Third one says, "So am I. Let's go get a beer."

Class Action Procedures In Arbitration Agreements Now Enforceable In California


In California's quest to protect the consumer, there have been prior legal decisions that have struck down arbitration agreements that did not allow class action procedures. In other words, if an arbitration agreement stated that there were to be no class action procedures, the courts of California would still allow class action procedures.


This issue recently came before the U.S. Supreme Court in the AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception case. In this case, AT&T made a motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis rather than a class action. This was because the arbitration agreement disallowed class action procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court saw fit to hear this case.


Although California has not upheld arbitration agreements that did not allow class action procedures, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, just as they would with any other contract.


This U.S. Supreme Court decision, a Federal decision, overrules the legal decisions that California had in place that interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act. In other words, California courts must now uphold any arbitration agreements that may bar class action proceedings when governed by Federal law.


As always, carefully review all contracts, whether they include arbitration agreements or not, prior to entering into them. If you don't, you may be surprised by the terms later on.




Do you recall the time that you examined the body?


The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.


And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?


No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him?

Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman

provides this information as a service to its friends and clients. This Newsletter is of a general nature and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. This Newsletter does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the reader. Since laws are ever changing, please contact an attorney before using any of the information contained within this Newsletter.


Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman

P.O. Box 15458, North Hollywood, California 91606

(818) 760-2000; (818) 760-3908 (fax)


In This Issue
Is Your Name Accurate?
The Legal Difference...haha
Intervention in Construction Defect Litigation
Class Action Procedures in Arbitration Agreements Now Enforceable in California
Join Our Mailing List