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.

Mattel v. MGA: Barbie and Bratz Duke it Out in the Court of Law

Mattel, Inc. and MGA Entertainment, Inc. have been in a legal battle over ownership rights to Bratz dolls since 2001.

Mattel, Inc., the world's largest toymaker, has been marketing Barbie dolls for nearly half a century. While still employed at Mattel, Carter Bryant came up with some designs that ultimately turned into Bratz dolls. Bryant showed his ideas to some MGA employees and ended up signing a consulting agreement with MGA before he left Mattel's employ. When Mattel learned about MGA's Bratz doll line, and about Bryant's involvement in designing them, Mattel filed suit against MGA. Mattel argued, Bryant had a duty to disclose and assign his sketches and designs to Mattel, under the terms of Bryant's employment agreement with Mattel. The jury found in favor of Mattel and awarded it $10 million in damages for copyright violations. The District Court imposed constructive trust over all trademarks including the terms "Bratz" and "Jade", and further enjoined MGA from producing and marketing most Bratz dolls. MGA appealed the lower court judgment.

On July 22, 2010, in MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 09-55673, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2008 lower court order which awarded Mattel, Inc. ownership rights to Bratz dolls. The appellate opinion, written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, reasoned that Bryant had not designed Bratz dolls at Mattel, but had come up with some sketches and ideas. Bryant's employment agreement with Mattel "could be interpreted to cover ideas, but the text doesn't compel that reading. The district court thus erred in holding that the agreement, by its terms, clearly covered ideas." The court further reasoned that even if MGA miappropriated the names "Bratz" and "Jade", the trademark owed much of its value to "MGA's own development efforts, marketing and investment." The court also vacated the copyright injunction based on a holding that the employment agreement assigned works created outside Bryant's scope of employment. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit stated "the entire case will probably need to be retried."

Having prevailed on their appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the "MGA parties" have now filed counterclaims against Mattel including trade secret misappropriation, Civil RICO, and wrongful injunction. Legal commentators are fascinated by this move, and wonder how the counterclaims will stack up against Mattel's causes of action.

MGA Entertainment (Micro-Games America Entertainment) is a privately-held "consumer entertainment products company". The company's founder and CEO, Isaac Larian, controls more than 80% of the company. MGA employs 1,500 employees and had revenues of $2 Billion in 2006. The company is headquartered at 16300 Roscoe Boulevard, in Lake Balboa area of Los Angeles, California. In the past, MGA contemplated an initial public offering of its shares, but did not go through with it due to the pending litigation with Mattel, Inc.

The materials for this blog were gathered from various sources including WSJ, Bloomberg articles, JOLT Digest, Law.com article, Wikipedia, MGA's web site, and Mattel's web site. For further 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.

Is China's Legal System Unfriendly Towards Foreigners?

The world was shocked last week at the news of a Beijing court sentencing a U.S. geologist to an eight-year jail sentence on charges of spying and collecting state secrets. Xue Feng, a Chinese-born U.S. citizen, had been working in China for IHS Energy, an American consultancy. Feng who was arrested in November 2007, had been tortured with lit cigarettes during his 30-months detention leading to his recent trial behind closed doors. Jon Huntsman, the U.S. Ambassador to China attended the sentencing hearing by the Intermediate People's Court, and afterwards issued a statement calling for Feng's release and return to the United States. Beijing has defended the sentencing saying the case was handled strictly based on law and Feng's legal rights were guaranteed. In March 2010, the Chinese-born Australian national Stern Hu was sentenced to a ten-year jail sentence on charges of bribery and trade secret violations. Both Feng and Hu were sentenced under "trade secret" laws, which secrets the Chinese courts will not clearly define.

In classical Chinese, the word for law is "fa" which means "fair" or "just." The classical Chinese legal system was based on the Confucian philosophy of promoting social control through enstilling virtues and moral standards. Later, under the imperial governments, the Chinese legal system changed and the laws focussed on citizens serving the state. In 1911, the nation underwent a revolution and formed the Republic of China, which adopted legal codes largely influenced by the West. After the communist victory in 1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) was establised and the Chinese legal system turned towards socialism; the laws and constituion were larged based on those of the Soviet Union.

PRC's current Constitution (Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xianfa) was enacted in 1982, which generally provides for a government by the working class under the leadership of the Communist Party. The preamble to this Constitution provides:

"Both the victory in China’s New-Democratic Revolution and the successes in its socialist cause have been achieved by the Chinese people of all nationalities, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, by upholding truth, correcting errors and surmounting numerous difficulties and hardships. The basic task of the nation in the years to come is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization ..."

PRC's executive branch is comprised of the State Council, the President and the Vice President. PRC's legislative branch is comprised of the National People's Congress. PRC's judicial branch consists of the Basic People's Court, the Intermediate People's Court, the Higher People's Court, and the Supreme People's Court. A litigant is generally allowed on appeal of the judgment, and the appellate court conducts a trial de novo on factual and legal matters. In response to growing demand, in 1992 the PRC issued provisional regulations allowing foreign law firms to establish offices in China; several foreign law firms including the U.S.-based Baker & McKenzie have since opened affiliated offices in China.

The materials for this blog were gathered from various sources including articles by The Associated Press, United Press International, lawinfochina.com, A Brief Introduction to the Legal System of China, CIA World Fact Book on China, and Wikiepedia. For more inforation, 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.