The Fresno California Law Offices of Lang, Richert and Patch
Traditional Values, Innovative Solutions
By Matthew W. Quall and Ana de Alba
Any developer, owner, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, or design professional should be aware of the changes that have been made to California Mechanic’s Lien Law which have taken effect as of January 1, 2011. Failure to properly implement these changes will have drastic consequences as it will render a Mechanic’s Lien unenforceable as a matter of law.
I. Nature of the Lien
The Producer’s Lien is a California statutory lien. The lien is upon “any farm product” and upon all processed or manufactured forms of such farm product securing the producer’s labor, care and expense in growing and harvesting the product.2 “Farm products” are essentially all agricultural products of the soil and includes honey and beeswax, oil seeds, poultry, poultry product, livestock product and livestock for immediate slaughter.3 Timber, timber products, milk, milk products and aquacultural products are excluded.4
The lien is in favor of every producer of farm products that sells the product grown by the producer
to any processor under either an express or implied contract.5 A “producer” is a person engaged in the business of growing or producing farm products.6 An Illinois Bankruptcy Court construing California law, In re S.N.A. Nut Co. 197 B.R. 642, 652(B.CT.N.D. Illinois, 1996) has held that a California processor could assert a Producer’s Lien as to products it may grow. In SNA Nut Co., supra the Debtor attempted to defeat the California Producer’s Lien by arguing that since the party asserting the lien (in that case Tulare Nut Company) was also a processor, it was precluded from asserting the lien. The Court denied summary judgment on that issue finding an issue of fact as to the extent of product delivered by Tulare Nut Company to the Debtor that was actually grown byTulare Nut Company. Id.
I. Introduction
The Dairy Cattle Supply Lien law in California provides for a statutory lien know as a “Dairy Cattle Supply Lien” in favor of those who provide feed or material (a defined term) to aid in the raising or maintaining dairy cattle.2 The Dairy Cattle Supply Lien was added to the Food and Agricultural Code in 1987. Other than very minor amendments to conform with certain provisions the Commercial Code, the law remains as originally drafted. While there are no reported cases construing the law, certain issues have arisen in various bankruptcy cases dealing with enforcement of the lien law. Generally, two of the primary financing constituencies in a dairy bankruptcy case are a traditional lender and grain suppliers. In addition to the substantial defaults facing the traditional lender, grain suppliers often have large balances owed at the time of the petition is filed. Most grain suppliers are sophisticated enough to have filed Dairy Cattle Supply Liens with the Secretary of State.
It started with a simple decision to switch from buying bottled water to installing a filtered water system. Today Lang, Richert and Patch has adopted a series of environmentally friendly policies that led it to become the first private law firm based in the Central Valley to be recognized by the ABA as a Partner in their Climate Challenge program.
“We have learned that going green today can mean saving green” said partner, Robert Patch II. Lang, Richert and Patch has shown that you can reduce your carbon footprint without installing costly solar roofing shingles and wind turbines. Implementing greener paper management protocols and reducing energy-use are two economical ways to go-green.
[Read more...]
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al.: A Trend Toward Harmonizing Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process Claims Under the FEHA and ADA?
The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al. (Sept. 10, 2008, Cal. Ct. App. 1st) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2008 DJDAR14314] held the federal definition of “reasonable accommodation” applies to disability-based discrimination claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940 et seq. (the “FEHA”), perpetuating a split among California Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of protections available under the FEHA to qualified disabled workers. The following holdings are of particular significance.
Update: The Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Ruling Employers Must Only Provide Meal and Rest Breaks
On October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25. The Court of Appeal found, among other things, that employers need only provide, not ensure, that meal and rest periods are taken. Because the Supreme Court has granted review, the findings by the Court of Appeal are no longer good law and should not be followed.
Original Article Posted Below:
(July 23, 2008) In a decision that will have an impact on the laws governing meal and rest breaks, the 4th District Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that California law requires that employers need only provide meal periods, and, as a result, as with the rest period claims, the plaintiffs’ meal period claims are not amenable to class treatment.
The issue before the court in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation et al., v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, is did the trial court err in certifying this matter as a class action without first determining the elements of plaintiffs and real parties in interest against the defendants? [Read more...]
In an effort to “help even more Californians keep the American Dream of homeownership alive,” Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1137 into law on July 8, 2008. Taking full effect on September 6, 2008, the new laws have implications for lenders and borrowers alike.
Katheryn Hayes Tucker
Fulton County Daily Report
E-discovery rules have caused in-house counsel to take a harder line with some of the e-mails that workers think are private
“Don’t put this in writing, but … ” Those are the opening words of an e-mail that got the writer’s company in legal hot water. And there are plenty more where that came from.
“This is off the record,” started the e-mail that in fact put it all on the record.
How about this one? “We may be in breach of contract, and here’s why.”
These examples of troublesome e-mails general counsel say they’ve run across don’t include the countless off color so-called jokes forwarded to contact lists of colleagues, interested or not, or links to Web sites that are definitely not part of a corporate job description.
© Copyright 2011 Lang, Richert and Patch · All Rights Reserved.
The Law Offices of Lang, Richert and Patch provide legal advice and representation for companies and individuals in Fresno, California, and communities throughout the California Central Valley including Avenal, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Bakersfield, Bass Lake, Cambria, California Valley, Cayucos, Clovis, Coalinga, Grover Beach, Hanford, Heritage Ranch, Kingsburg, Los Osos, Madera, Merced, Millerton Lake, Modesto, Morro Bay, Nipomo, Oakhurst, Oceano, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, Porterville, Sanger, San Luis Obispo, San Miguel, Selma, Shaver Lake, Tulare, Turlock, Templeton, and Visalia, California. In addition, we represent companies and individuals with federal complaints on Lemoore Naval Station and while visiting Kings Canyon National Park, Sequoia National Park, Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park.