Jump To Navigation



[07/09] Lumber Liquidators Provides Second Quarter 2014 Business Update And Revises Outlook For Full Year 2014
[07/09] Brookfield Residential Wins Multiple Gold Nugget Awards
[07/09] BCA Architects' Top Ranking in Silicon Valley Business Journal Adds to Successes in 25th Year of the Architectural Firm
[07/09] Hunter Douglas Receives Product of the Year Award


Employment Practices

[07/10] Pelosi backs gay-rights bill despite concerns
[07/10] US unemployment aid applications fall to 304,000
[07/10] How states fared on unemployment benefit claims
[07/10] Ex-minor leaguers sue MLB over low salaries



[07/09] Allstate to Discuss Second Quarter 2014 Earnings With Investors
[07/09] National Black Chamber of Commerce Endorses MassMutual as Preferred Provider of Retirement Plans
[07/09] Atradius Publishes Advice on Business Success in the Czech Republic
[07/08] Solstice Benefits Wins Web Health Award for Medical Education



[06/11] Lawyers for Sterlings face off on LA Clippers sale
[06/11] Judge strikes down California teacher tenure



[09/23] Police: High school coach left son home alone
[09/23] California wildfire crews brace for weather shift
[09/23] Owner: 'No misinformation' by Ravens on Rice
[09/19] NFL to partner with violence hotline


Case Summaries


[07/30] Collin v. CalPortland Co.
Summary judgment in favor of certain defendants in plaintiff's action alleging that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from the defendants' products or activities when he worked in various construction trades, is: 1) affirmed in part, with regard to defendants CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum, because they met their initial burdens on summary judgment and the evidence and reasonable inferences would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that plaintiff was exposed to one of their asbestos-containing products; but 2) reversed in part, with regard to defendants J-MM and Formosa, where he evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, demonstrates a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a J-MM product, and said defendants have not established that they are entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense.

[07/28] New Jersey Carpenters and Trustrees Thereof v. Tishman Construction Corp of N.J.
Dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint seeking unpaid prevailing wages, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), which provides that laborers on certain public works projects are to be paid the prevailing wage, is not completely preempted by either the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), or the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA); and therefore, 2) the district court was without jurisdiction to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.

[07/23] Golden State Boring and Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Eastern Municipal Water District
In an action brought by plaintiff-subcontractor against defendants, a general contractor, an owner, and the surety, summary judgment in favor of defendant-suretyis affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not err in overruling plaintiffs' objections to evidentiary matters presented in support of defendant-insurer's summary judgment; and 2) the court did not err in finding the action on the payment bond was untimely.

[06/30] Decon Group, Inc. v. Prudential Mortgage Capital Co. LLC
Judgment in favor of plaintiff in a suit brought to foreclose its mechanic's lien, after the property at issue had been foreclosed upon and sold to a third party is reversed and remanded, where: 1) under well-established California law, the senior beneficiary's lien and title ordinarily do not merge when a deed in lieu of foreclosure is given if there are junior lienholders of record; 2) the foreclosure after acceptance of the deed from the property owner was therefore valid and eliminated all junior liens, including plaintiff's mechanic’s lien; and 3) the third party now owns the property free of all such junior encumbrances.


Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Please note:

E-mail communication by you through this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship with Kleiman Lawrence Baskind Fitzgerald, LLP. We cannot agree to maintain the confidentiality of information and communications sent through this website. Please do not send us any information about your legal problem. If you are seeking legal representation, please fill out a questionnaire from the website. Our professional obligations require that before accepting any new client or new matter, we must determine whether there are any actual or potential conflicts with any of our existing or former clients. If you wish to inquire into becoming a client of the firm, please request a personal interview with one of our attorneys. We will not consider any e-mail or other communication regarding new client representation other than a request for a personal interview. This email is not confidential and is not protected by the attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is created by sending this e-mail. You do not become a client of Kleiman Lawrence Baskind Fitzgerald, LLP by sending this email.

To contact an attorney via email, please use this link, or close notice.

Texas Super Lawyer

Kleiman Lawrence Baskind Fitzgerald LLP | 8350 North Central Expressway, Suite 650, Dallas, Texas 75206 | Directions and Map