Tsunami and the Law

When great disasters such as Tsunamis hit, they tend to dominate the news on every channel such as been the case with the recent Japanese tsunami. This large tsunami which was caused by an earthquake in the Pacific Ocean near Japanese shores, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, drove large waves inland, causing people, vehicles and buildings to be washed away, and causing substantial damage to the Japanese nuclear facilties.

Tsunami is a Japanese phrase which literally means "ocean waves." In English literature, this phenomenon is sometimes referred to as a "seismic sea wave" or a "tidal wave." It is often caused by submarine earthquakes which occur less than 30 miles (50 kilometers) beneath the ocean floor, although it may also be caused by submarine volcanic eruptions or submarine landslides.
This article focusses on the legal ramifications of a tsunami. Although there may not be a per se body of law on tsunamis, the law can perhaps be guided from the related elements--earthquakes and water waves--around which a developed body of law exists.

California is an earthquake prone state and California's west coast borders the Pacific Ocean. However, earthquake insurance is not automatically included in homeowners' insurance policies. There are porperty owners who take the risk of not purchasing the earthquake coverage. In 1994, when the great Northridge earthquake occured, a large number of properties suffered structural damages. Those who did not have insurance coverage were forced to pay for the damages out of their own pockets, or simply abandon their properties. The Japanese 9.0 magnitue "megathrust" was many times larger that the Northridge 6.8 magnitude earthquake. What if (God forbid) that magnitude tsunami were to hit the California coasts? What would the uninsured do? Better yet, is tsunami damage even covered under earthquake policies? Would it be covered under flood insurance policies?

Tsunami's often exert such a large force that fundamentally affect the structure of the Earth. Due to the recent tsunami, the axis of the Earth has shifted, and the main island of Japan has moved approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) closer to the United States' west coast. The question is, who lost those 8 feet of land? Altough I don't believe this question has ever been legally addressed, a similar issue received substantial attention in early American law. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, many relied on waterways as a transportation source and water source. Land that bordered on water was substantially more valuable, and hence, land was often subdivided in way that each parcel would receive water rights (so-called "riperian rights"). However, water tends to change course over a period of time, resulting in phonomena referred to as accession and avulsion. "Accession" is when the water leaves deposits on a shore, and "avulsion" is when water washes away soil from a shore. As a result, water may move outside the borders of one land and move further inside another land. American courts addressing such disputes often ruled to readjust the property lines to the center of the current waterway, therefore allowing all lands to maintain water access.

The recent tsunami caused large damages to the Japanese nuclear power plants. Fear of nuclear leakage not only caused several Japanese cities to turn into ghost towns, they also raised panic amongst people living as far away as California. People wondered whether such debris can truly travel so far away, and if they do, can they truly pose a danger to California residents? If these fears are confirmed, would there be any legal recourse? I am not aware of any case law on point, although existing cases may lead the way by analogy. Traditionally, the cause of action for "trespass" dealt with visible objects travelling from one boundary to another. An example would have been on person's cattle crossing over to a neighbor's farm without permission. By contrast, a cause of action for "nuisance" traditionally dealt with invisible matters, such as excessive noise from a neighboring land. In Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamaid Co., 916 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1990), Judge Posner set a new standard by allowing a neighboring landowner to sue freight carrier for trespass concerning invisible gas fumes that travelled to his land as a result of derailment. By analogy, California residents may have a cause of action against the Japanese government for trespass, should sufficient nuclear particles reach their lands from the Japanese reactors.

An interesting question may arise if a tsunami moves a part of the shore under water, or washes additional soil ashore causing a distance between the shore and what used to be beachfront properties. Would the courts extend the old case law to such cases?

For additional information refer to articles by CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Associatged Press, MyDesert.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Wikipedia. For additional information run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney. He can be reached at (310) 286-2000.

Robin Mashal is named to the 2011 Rising Stars List of Southern California Super Lawyers

I am honored to be named on the 2011 Rising Stars list of the Southern California Super Lawyers magazine. Less than 2.5 percent of attorneys receive this distinction each year.

I have been a member of the California State Bar since December 1999. During my 11 years as a licensed attorney, I have fought zealously to represent the interests of my clients. I received my bachelor of science degree in Accounting from the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business in 1994. I went on to earn a J.D. from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, where I was a Production Editor of the Loyola Entertainment Law Journal and was selected to the Dean's Honor List.

"Rising Stars" and "Super Lawyers" are registered marks of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is an international information company, which was formed when Thomson Corporation purchased Reuters in 2008. The company's shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). One of Thomson Reuters' subsidiaries is West (formerly, West Publishing) which publishes a broad range of legal, business and regulatory materials. Many legal professionals rely on West's materials, including its federal and state court reporter systems, and the online research materials on Westlaw. For additional information visit the web sites of Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers, West, and Wikipedia.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

Your Cell Phone, Your Text Messages, and the California Law

The use of cellular phones and PDA's is becoming more and more prevalent, and the amount information stored in them is expanding exponentially. This articles discusses some recent legal developments in this area.

In a recent decision in the case of The People vs. Gregory Diaz, the California Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction based on a warrantless search of the suspect's cellular phone incident to his arrest. The Ventura County police had been surveilling a drug deal though a wire worn by a police informant. After the drug deal went through, police officers pulled over the drug dealer and arrested him. At the time of the custodial arrest, police found some drugs and a cell phone on the dealer's person. When the officers interviewed the dealer at the precinct he first denied the drug deal. But when the officers showed him the text message on his cell phone indicating the drug price, he admitted to the deal. Later, the dealer moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of illegal search and seizure under Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the California High Court upheld the search and the evidence found.

During the past few years, the California legislature has enacted several laws to respond to the growing use of wireless communication devices (text message) and wireless telephones (cell phone). Effective July 1, 2008, California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 prohibits all drivers from text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. Effective January 1, 2009, California Vehicle Code Section 23123 prohibits all drivers from using a cellular phone while operating a motor vehicle, although drivers 18 years or older may use hands free devices. Finally, California Vehicle Code Section 23124 prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from text messaging or using cell phones while driving, even if they have a "hands free" device, with the exception of some emergency uses. For additional information, visit the web site of the California DMV.

Most people know that their cell phone has a global positioning system (GPS) that would allow the phone company to track where the cell phone is located at any point in time. Many do not realize, however, that the photographs taken by the cell phone will embed on them the GPS coordinates of the location. Therefore, this so-called "geo-tag" information may inadvertently give away a person's private information such as their residence address. Some commenators have raised concerns about these hidden codes embedded on photographs, and their effect on privacy laws.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

Chief Justice Ronald George Steps Down from the California Supreme Court

Ronald M. George has announced that he will step down as the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, effective midnight January 2, 2011, after spending 38 years on the bench. "Reflection convinced me now is the right time--while I am at the top of my game--to leave while the proverbial music still plays," Justice George announced.

Justice Ronald Marc George is a native of Beverly Hills. He was born March 11, 1940. After graduating from Beverly Hills High School in 1957, he attended Princeton University where he earned a B.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. In 1964, he earned a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School.

Justice George started his judicial career as he was appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1972. In 1977, he was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. In 1987, he was appointed to the California Court of Appeals by Governor George Deukmejian. In 1991, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the State of California by Governor Pete Wilson. On March 28, 1996, he was appointed as the Twenty-Seventh Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, which position he holds to date.

Justice George is well-known for authoring California Supreme Court's 2008 opinion the case of In re Marriage Cases, case number S147999. In this controversial opinion, the Court struck down existing California law which limited marriage as to one between a man and a woman. This decision provided authority for gay marriages, but it was shortly overturned by Proposition 8.

As the head of the California Judiciary, Justice George consolidated the Municipal Courts and Superior Courts. As well, he created self-help services for people who could not afford to hire attorneys. He also urged that courts provide language interpreters for those who do not speak English.

Justice George is a prolific writer. He has been the author of West Publishing Co.'s California Criminal Trial Judge's Benchbook in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. As well, he has authored several law review articles, including Access to Justice in Times of Fiscal Crisis, 40 Golden Gate L. Rev. 1 (2009), Achieving Impartiality in State Courts, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1853 (2009), and Challenges Facing an Independent Judiciary, 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1345 (2005).

Justice George is married, and has three sons. He enjoys hiking, which has taken him to the Sierras, the Himalayas and the Swiss Alps.

The materials for this weblog were gathered from various sources including articles on San Francisco Chronicle, LA Weekly, USA Today, Metropolitan News Enterprise, Judicial Council of California, Wikipedia, and The Miami Herald. Photograph courtesy of E. Patrick Morris and EPM Photographics. For additional information you may conduct a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

The Los Angeles Superior Court, Then and Now

The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (sometimes referred to as the "Los Angeles Superior Court," the "L.A. Superior Court," or "L.A.S.C.") is the largest unified trial court in the United States of America.

California's judicial history has taken a long time to shape. At the time California was a province of Mexico, the Los Angeles pueblo was governed by the "Alcalde" judicial system. California became a U.S. state in 1849. In 1851 the California legislators enacted the Judiciary Act, which legislation divided California into "districts." One such district encompassed the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego. As California's population grew (partially due to the influx created by the California Gold Rush), the state government and judicial system proved inadequate.

A Constitutional Convention was called in 1877 which led to the adoption of a new state Constitution in 1879. The new Constitution revamped California's judicial system, by creating a Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts. A Superior Court was established for each state County, and hence, the L.A. Superior Court was born in 1879. In 1880, the County of Los Angeles had a population of 33,381 people; that year, 633 actions were filed in the L.A. Superior Court.

Initially, the Los Angeles Superior Court was housed in a humble adobe structure on Main Street, but due to space shortage many proceedings were held in nearby office buildings, hotel rooms and private residences in Downtown Los Angeles. The "Clock Tower Courthouse", was the first permanent courthouse, which came into use in 1861.

In 1887, the Los Angeles Superior Court started construction of the "Red Sandstone Courthouse" which building was completed in 1891 at a total cost of $518,810. The Red Sandstone Courthouse (sometime referred to as the Los Angeles County Courthouse no. 3) is depicted in the old color postcard shown on this page. Due to the earthquake structural damage this building suffered, it was condemned in 1933. The Red Sandstone Courthouse was demolished in 1936, and currently the Criminal Courts building occupies that site.

Los Angeles Superior Court has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Today, the L.A. Superior Court operates 50 courthouses, which contain nearly 600 courtrooms. It has some 5,400 employees, and operates at a budget of $850 Million annually. The technolgically advanced facilities allow online access to case summaries and images of filed documents, and attorneys can appear in many hearings telephonically through CourtCall.

Today, the County of Los Angeles holds a population of 9.8 million, which is nearly one-fourth the total population of the State of California. The City of Los Angeles with a population of 3.8 million is the most populous city in the State of California, and the most populous city in the United States.

The materials for this blog were gathered from various sources including the Los Angeles Superior Court, Loyola Marymount University Library, Pacific Coast Architecture Database, United States Census Bureau, Wikipedia, and the book Lawyers of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Bar Association, 1959). For additional information run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

Elena Kagan: U.S. Supreme Court's 112th Justice

The United States Supreme Court began its fall session last week, with Elena Kagan as its newest associate justice. For the first time in its history, the High Court has three sitting female justices.

Elena Kagan is the High Court's 112th justice, its fourth female justice, and its eighth Jewish justice. She is the second justice nominated by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan is the first justice in nearly 40 years to have no prior judicial experience.

Prior to being nominated to her current position, Justice Kagan spent 14 months acting as the United States' 45th Solicitor General. In that position, she had contacts with several federal cases, based on which Justice Kagan has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the High Court has taken on for the current term. The High Court has no system of replacing a recused justice on a case, hence, these 25 cases will be heard by only 8 justices. The last justice who needed to recuse himself from hearing cases was Thurgood Marshall in 1967, because he had served as the 32nd U.S. Solicitor General from 1965 to 1967.

Justice Kagan was born in New York City, on the Upper West Side. She attended Princeton University where in 1981 she earned a Bachelor of Arts in history summa cum laude, and was editorial chair of the Daily Princetonian. In 1983, she earned a master of philosophy from Oxford University, and in 1986 she received a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After graduating from law school, she clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the D.C. Circuit, and for Justice Thurgood Marshall at the U.S. Supreme Court. After working in private law practice, Kagan taught at the Chicago Law School, then served as Associate White House Counsel during the Clinton presidency. She then took a teaching position at Harvard Law School and went on to become the school's Dean.

On January 5, 2009, President Obama nominated Kagan to become the United States Solicitor General, and on March 19, 2009, the Senate approved her by a 61-31 vote, making her the first female to hold this position. On May 9, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, to fill in the vacancy created by Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement. On July 20, 2010, the Senate Judicial Committee recommended Kagan's confirmation to the full Senate, by a 13-6 vote. On August 5, 2010, members of the Senate confirmed Kagan as an associate justice by a 63-37 vote; a handful of Republicans voted in support of this confirmation. In the past five years, four new justices have been appointed to the High Court.

The materials for this blog were gathered from CBS News, Bloomberg, Afro, Wikipedia, Politics Daily, and VOA News. For additional information run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

$1.59 Million Court Judgment in Business Fraud Lawsuit

Hong & Mashal, LLP is pleased to announce obtaining a $1.59 Million court judgment in favor of our client in the case of Yu Chung Koo v. Huang Cho Hong, et al., in the Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Judicial District, Case no. BC 414375.

Attorneys Robin Mashal, Peter Y. Hong, and associated attorney Carlos Lloreda, Jr., took the case through an eight-day jury trial. After three days of deliberations, on August 13, 2010, the jury returned a verdict for compensatory damages of $1,500,000, as well as punitive damages for fraud and breach of director’s fiduciary duties against various defendants in the sum of $90,000. On August 30, 2010, the honorable judge Mark V. Mooney, sitting in Department 68 of the Los Angeles Superior Court signed a judgment based on the verdict in the jury trial.

Hong & Mashal LLP initiated this lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff on May 22, 2009. Defendants were very uncooperative in the action and Plaintiff's attorneys had to bring several motions to compel proper responses to discovery requests. The parties attended a mediation session per the court's orders, which mediation session was unfruitful. Prior the completion of trial, defendants made a $23,000 settlement offer to Plaintiff.

The law firm of Hong & Mashal, LLP represents a broad range of clients, including entrepreneurs, real estate investors, startup businesses and international companies. Hong & Mashal, LLP’s attorneys strive to provide their clients with best possible legal services in the areas of civil litigation, business and commercial law, employment law, real estate law, estate planning, probate, copyright, trademark, and tax controversies. For further information you may contact attorney Robin Mashal by phone at (310) 286-2000, or visit our web site www.hmfirm.com.