Welcome to the Valensi Rose PLC Blog
To contact one of our attorneys please visit VRMLAW.COM

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

PRESS RELEASE: Gary Torrell Wins La Toya Jackson Royalty Dispute

Valensi Rose, PLC partner Gary F. Torrell prevailed on behalf of his client La Toya Jackson by successfully opposing a trustee's motion to obtain additional royalties due to the internationally renowned entertainer.

Mr. Torrell said, "This was a very challenging case, to convince a judge in New York that Ms. Jackson's creditors should not obtain additional royalties, even though they had not received any payment. Luckily, the judge agreed with my arguments and issued a well-reasoned opinion in favor of our valued client."

A written trust agreement allowed the trustee to collect Ms. Jackson's royalties for a specified time period, pay the priority claims of the trustee and his lawyers, and then distribute the balance to certain creditors. Because the priority claims exceeded $780,000, they were expected to consume nearly all of the royalties collected during the term of the creditor trust. As a result, the trustee filed a motion seeking to extend the term for an additional five years and thereby obtain additional royalties for the benefit of creditors.

On August 5, 2010, the Honorable James M. Peck issued a published opinion denying the motion. The court agreed with Mr. Torrell's argument that it would be unfair and inequitable to Ms. Jackson to grant the motion, despite no distributions to creditors, because Ms. Jackson had honored the trust agreement and was not responsible for the trustee's high fees, which had consumed the allocated royalties.

The judge also interpreted the trust agreement to not permit an extension of the term to allow creditors to obtain additional royalties otherwise due to Ms. Jackson.

Contact Gary Torrell...

Warning to California Employers


Posted By
Laurie Murphy

The federal courts have long held that "stray remarks which are defined as isolated discriminatory comments unrelated to the decision-making process were not admissible to prove employment discrimination. The California Supreme Court recently (in ruling against Google in an age discrimination case) held that stray remarks can be considered in the totality of the circumstances of the case. Bottom line, this will make it even harder for employers to defend employment discrimination cases prior to trial.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Attorneys Beware

By
Laurie Murphy

A recent California appellate decision holds that an attorney who entrusted a filing with a paralegal who did not get the papers filed timely did not adequately supervise his employee and was therefore not saved when the trial court found for the defendant because the opposition to the motion for summary judgment was not timely filed. The trial court did not buy plaintiff's counsel's argument that the late filing was the result of surprise, mistake or excusable neglect. The court of appeals agreed and found that it was inexcusable neglect for the attorney to entrust the preparing and filing of the opposition to a summary judgment motion to his paralegal who took the file on vacation with her and did not file it timely.