• COVID-19 Resources
  • Administrative Law
  • Liquor Law – ABC – OLCC
  • Employment Law
  • GAMING: Internet & Casino
  • Land Use
  • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
Call Us Now: 800.405.4222
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson - SSJ Law
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Administrative Law
    • Alcohol and Liquor Law: ABC | OLCC
    • Employment Law
    • GAMING: Internet & Casino
    • Land Use
    • Personal Injury & Wrongful Death
  • Our Team
  • Articles
  • Community Service
  • Resources
  • Contact Us
    • The Firm
    • AV Rating
    • Client List
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

E-CIGARETTES: POISON OR PANACEA Are Local and State Governments’ Regulations Right-on or Overboard

in Administrative Law, Consumer, News

By Ralph Barat Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon

 Listen to Willie Nelson sing Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! That Cigarette (by Merle Travis and Tex Williams). Might Willie next try Vape! Vape! Vape! That E-cig?

While the new nicotine debate rages between health advocates and the suddenly visible E-cigarette industry, state and local legislators are adopting restrictions on E-cigs and prohibitions governing where E-cigs can be used. Governments are scrambling to keep E-cigs out of the hands of children under the age of 18.

Do we allow it? Do we ban it? Do we regulate it like Colorado regulates marijuana? After spending four decades educating the public on the effects of tobacco, do we allow smoking to be replaced by vaping?

Several municipalities, including Los Angeles, are contemplating adopting moratorium ordinances to disallow establishment of new E-cig stores pending comprehensive regulatory schemes. Some cities have their own temporary moratoriums already in place. From California to the Eastern seaboard, these local governments are adopting moratoriums in order to halt the free flowing proliferation of E-cig outlets while those cities figure out how to regulate the expanding industry. Perhaps “exploding” applies since there are reported cases of E-cigs literally exploding.

Since the FDA has not yet regulated E-cigarettes and since congressional legislation has not been enacted, municipalities are left to their own devices. State governments are wrestling with E-cig regulations as well with varying success. For example, in Oregon, two competing recent bills died in committee. One bill was designed to include E-cigs in Oregon’s Clean Air Act, the other bill was intended to only eliminate sales of E-cigs to minors. The bills apparently cancelled each other.

Reuters reports on February 20, 2014 the FDA, pursuant to a 2009 authorization law, is drafting a proposed rule which, after written, will be subject to a period of public comment. The process could take a year.

The problem with how to handle an industry that is heading for lift-off while many municipalities are trying to determine just what the product is and what effects it has is not just limited to big cities on both coasts. The Sleepy Eye Herald-Dispatch reported on February 12, 2014 that the Sleepy Eye (Minnesota) City Council tabled its Clean Air ordinance discussed at the February 11th Council meeting. Before the Council, the American Lung Association warned the product was poison, and the City Manager stated there are those who think the product is safe.

When the forerunner to today’s E-cigarette was first patented in the early 60’s, NFL Quarterbacks, movie stars and television “doctors” were endorsing their favorite brands of cigarettes. Despite early anti-smoking rumblings, smoking had no real stigma and little restriction as compared with the whirlwind of warnings and prohibitions awaiting the industry. It wasn’t until January 1964 that the Surgeon General released the study outlining the epidemic danger of cigarette smoking. The E-cigarette was not marketed, unnoticed and there was no need for regulation.

Fast forward to 2014. Following further engineering and additional patents for sophisticated mechanics leading to the development of what is today recognized as the E-cig paired with a new 21st Century market demand for nicotine delivery without cigarettes, Governments started to sit up and take notice. Suddenly here are E-cig advertising and E-cigarette stores. Surely legislation had to follow.

E-cigs operate as electronic systems that vaporize liquid nicotine which is inhaled by the consumer. Nicotine is the centerpiece; there is no tobacco. The mechanics consist of three main components: battery, chamber and cartridge. There is a rechargeable lithium battery: a chamber where the nicotine is injected then vaporized and a cartridge filled with liquid containing nicotine (and flavor). An atomizer vaporizes the liquid in the chamber. The process is initiated by the consumer inhaling, but there can be a manual option as well for those who wish to vaporize their nicotine by the push of a button. Manual vaporization can produce more nicotine vapor.

The call to include E-cigarettes in the tobacco regulatory schemes is being heard in local city halls and in Sacramento and other state capitals. For example Ordinance 182823 amending Los Angeles City Municipal Code Article 6.9 and 7 was passed by the City Council December 4, 2013 to be effective January 22, 2014. The tobacco product permitting and administrative processing law was amended to include E-cigarettes in the sweep of tobacco product regulation. Article 6.9, Section 46.90(c) provides, in relevant part:

“Tobacco Product” shall also include any product or formulation of matter containing nicotine derived from tobacco, or synthetic nicotine that is manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed with the expectation that the product or matter will be introduced into the human body.”

Presently, a panel for the Los Angeles City Council is drafting recommendations relative to comprehensive E-cig regulations. States, counties and cities across the United States are including E-cigarettes in their tobacco use restrictions as to means of sale, age of buyer, locations where use is prohibited and required sellers’ license or permit.

A number of states and local governments have simply folded E-cigarettes into general tobacco restrictions such as the mid-December 2013 action taken by New York City whose City Council voted to extend its public smoking law to the public use of E-cigarettes. New York now prohibits E-cigarette smoking where smoking was traditionally prohibited such as in restaurants, bars and office buildings. (New York Times December 19, 2013)

Effective September 2010, California Health and Safety Code §119405 states that it is unlawful “for a person to sell or otherwise furnish an electronic cigarette, as defined in subdivision (b), to a person under 18 years of age.” The statute defines E-cigarette as “a device that can provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution.”

Now that states and local governments are beginning to treat E-cigs the same as tobacco products, this begs the question: are E-cigarettes as harmful to the user and the nearby public as tobacco products?

E-cigs are marketed and reviewed by appearance and use including color, battery, style, physical comparison to tobacco cigarettes, length, vapor volume, and flavors. Among other flavors, e-cigs can deliver cherry, pina colada, coffee, vanilla or chocolate. Critics wonder how those flavors aren’t considered as targeting to minors. Advertisements have touted ubiquitous safe use such as on airplanes, because, they say, there is no second-hand smoke. Advertisers point out other tobacco hazards don’t exist with e-cigs because there is no smoke, therefore no smoke smell, no tar, no ash and no teeth stain. By the way, prices for “starter kits” range from under $25 to over $175.

Recognizing what may be a long term trend, Market Watch in the Wall Street Journal noted traditional cigarettes are experiencing a decline in demand while E-cigarette sales are on a significant rise. Wall Street Journal reports Lorillard enjoyed a 38% ($54 million) increase in E-cig sales compared with a 1.4% ($1.69 billion) increase for old fashioned tobacco cigarettes. (Wall Street Journal 2.12.14)

With no definitive guidance from the FDA governments are left scrambling for answers. It is noteworthy that in 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, upheld an injunction disallowing the FDA from regulating E-cigarettes under the drug/device provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F3d 891, 899 (2010). The Court concluded:

“As we have already noted, the FDA has authority to regulate customarily marketed tobacco products—including e-cigarettes—under the Tobacco Act. It has authority to regulate therapeutically marketed tobacco products under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions….. Of course, in the event that Congress prefers that the FDA regulate e-cigarettes under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions, it can always so decree.”

In its published report December 18, 2013, Consumer Reports concludes that E-cigarettes are “probably safer” for second hand contact compared to cigarette smoke, but there may still be some risk. Other health organizations warn of the toxicity of E-cigarettes and the danger directly to the consumer by vaping and inhaling the variety of toxins. Depending on to whom one speaks, e-cigs are either a great way to quit smoking (or smoke safer), or E-cigarettes are just a new way of ingesting poison and poisoning the person next to you. Meanwhile states, counties and cities are enacting restrictions and prohibitions. So while the jury of health professionals is still deliberating, legislatures are regulating.

 

Ralph B. Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon are partners in the Law Firm of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson in Los Angeles.  The authors practice in the area of land use, Indian Gaming, zoning, administrative, personal injury, and constitutional law. Saltsman and Solomon can be reached at (310) 822-9848; [email protected] and [email protected].

 

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2014-03-18 16:20:022014-03-18 16:20:02E-CIGARETTES: POISON OR PANACEA Are Local and State Governments’ Regulations Right-on or Overboard

ALERT to all Individuals serving Alcohol at Parties. Providing Alcohol to guests may make you liable when someone is injured or killed. Will insurance cover such a claim? Will you be prosecuted?

in Alcoholic Beverage Licensing

By Stephen Allen Jamieson

Over the holidays we warned readers about the possible liability for being a social host that knowingly serves alcohol to underage drinkers who then hurt themselves or others as a result of their intoxication. We also warned employers of possible liability for their drunk employees who attended company parties or otherwise acted in a way that made the employer responsible for the employees’ actions which injured others. See The Holidays and Alcohol: Potential Liability for Social Hosts and Employers, Dec. 24, 2013 SSJLaw newsletter.

This time we are reporting on a case, just decided by the California Supreme Court, that further clarifies the law on liability of a server of alcohol for the actions of a drunk minor. In Ennabe v. Manosa it is alleged that a 20 year old girl threw a party at a non-occupied house owned by her parents, advertised the party to friends and others, then charged a fee to attend the party. The fee was used to offset the cost of alcohol she provided to those attending. Her parents neither lived at the unoccupied house nor did they have any knowledge of the party. It is alleged that a 19 year old boy was then served while already obviously intoxicated, and when leaving the party struck and killed another intoxicated minor who was attending the party.

The Supreme Court decision just rendered holds that if the host of the party, the 20 year old girl who threw the party in the vacant house, is found by a jury or judge to fall within the definition of someone who sold alcohol, or caused the sale of alcohol, at the party, and if the minor that was served alcohol at the party was obviously intoxicated at the time he was served, then the host can be civilly liable to the family of the deceased minor for wrongful death.

This is an extension, some might say a change, to long standing existing law shielding “social hosts” from such civil liability. The public policy behind this law has for many years generally been that injuries or death caused by intoxicated persons are the fault of the intoxicated person, and not the fault of the person who served the alcohol to the intoxicated person.

While a “social host” is generally not civilly liable for injuries sustained by someone who was served alcohol by the host, or someone injured by the person who was drinking the alcohol, there is a narrow exception allowing such liability when a minor social host throws a party, and the parents or legal guardian of that minor knew or should have known alcohol was being served to minors at the party. See Civil Code 1714(b). Because in the Ennabe case the parents are alleged to have had no knowledge their daughter was throwing such a party at the unoccupied house the Court of Appeal held that the parents were not liable under this exception as “social hosts”.

The law has, however, been unclear whether or not a person like the host of this party, charging a cover charge, was a “social host” at all. It was argued in this case that one could consider the host of the party charging the cover charge to be a seller of alcohol just like a liquor store or nightclub or bar, etc. If the host is considered a seller of alcohol, or someone who caused the sale of alcohol, then, like all ABC licensees, she can also be potentially liable if she serves an “obviously intoxicated minor” who then injures or kills someone else as a result of his intoxication.

Business & Professions Code 25602.1 provides that a person who is licensed by the State to sell alcohol, as well as one who is required to be licensed by the State because they are selling alcohol, can be civilly liable for damages if that person serves or furnishes alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor, and then that obviously intoxicated minor injures or kills himself or someone else.

In the context of this law a “minor” is defined not as someone under the age of majority, 18 years old, but rather in this context a “minor” is anyone under the age of 21 years. In the Ennabe matter Supreme Court has decided that if the person served was a 19 year old “minor”, and if that person served was an “obviously intoxicated minor”, and the server/host was a person who sold or caused to be sold the alcohol, then that server/host may be civilly liable for damages to the family of the young man who was run over and killed by the obviously intoxicated minor. To determine these facts the Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the trial court.

This decision by the Supreme Court therefore now holds that if the factual circumstances prove that the “host” of the party at the vacant house was actually selling alcohol at the party, or causing the sale of alcohol at the party, by charging a cover charge that included alcohol, then that “host” may be civilly liable for monetary damages to the family of the deceased boy if it is also proven that the minor who was served the alcohol was “obviously intoxicated” at the time he was served.

The message of this Supreme Court decision to the general public is clear: By charging for the alcohol provided at the house party, even if done indirectly thru a “cover charge” or other label, it may be that the host now ventures into the sea of liability that must be navigated by a seller of alcohol. We will, however, have to wait and see what the trial court determines these facts to be in this particular case.

Among the issues not resolved by the Supreme Court in this decision, however, are the following: Whether or not the insurance carrier providing coverage to the vacant house and or to this “host” will accept or decline coverage under these circumstances? Will the homeowners coverage or rental home coverage apply if the person who threw the party is deemed to have been running a business, selling alcohol, or otherwise falls in to some exception or exemption from coverage that may be stated in the policy? Whether or not the obviously intoxicated minor who killed the decedent could in turn sue the server/host to indemnify him from the claims of the decedent’s family against him for that alleged wrongful death? And, finally can the 20 year old “host” be criminally liable for being a “seller” of alcohol and not being licensed by the State ABC to sell? That is a misdemeanor. Can she be prosecuted? The Supreme Court explicitly refused to decide if she is required to be licensed under such circumstances.

Further decisions will further clarify this area of the law. When they happen we will update you.

Stephen Allen Jamieson is a Partner at Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson. He can be reached at [email protected] or at 800/405-4222.

Copyright © 2014 Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson, All rights reserved. SSJLaw has written the California Licensee’s Alcohol Beverage Control Handbook, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission Handbook, and a Handbook on Alcohol Law related to Sovereign Tribal Nations. Downloadable copies are available at www.ssjlaw.com

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 jamieson https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png jamieson2014-03-07 03:07:072014-03-07 03:07:07ALERT to all Individuals serving Alcohol at Parties. Providing Alcohol to guests may make you liable when someone is injured or killed. Will insurance cover such a claim? Will you be prosecuted?

Employment Discrimination In California

in Discrimination, Employment Law, News

Did your employer discriminate against you, harass you, or wrongfully terminate you for any of the following reasons:

Your religion, race, color, national origin, or ancestry?
Your sex, sexual orientation, marital status, or pregnancy status?
Your age, physical or mental disability, or medical condition?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you may have suffered unlawful discrimination.
Fortunately, California protects you under its Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) law, as does the federal government under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). We typically sue employers under FEHA, as it affords more protections to our clients than does Title VII.

Call Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson for a free consultation to find out if you have a case at 855-552-2326.

Racial Discrimination
Racial discrimination usually takes two forms – 1) Disparate Treatment and 2) Disparate Impact.

1) Disparate Treatment occurs when the employer deliberately discriminates against an employee based upon his or her race, ethnicity, skin color, or racial characteristics. 2) Disparate Impact occurs when an employer’s policies have a discriminatory impact on employees due to their race, ethnicity, skin color, or racial characteristics. Disparate treatment is usually intentional discrimination, whereas disparate impact is usually inadvertent discrimination (although this is not always the case).

Racial discrimination may take many forms. Did your employer or co-worker:

Ask you racially-charged questions during your interview or questions which sought to determine your race?
Make offensive jokes, statements or slurs based upon your race such that your work environment is hostile?
Require you to work in a certain geographic area solely based upon your race?
Assign you to a certain type of position solely because of your race?
Retaliate against you for participating in or cooperating with an investigation or lawsuit based upon a racial discrimination allegation?
Before filing a lawsuit, one usually must file a complaint with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (for a federal complaint) or the applicable state or local agency (for a state complaint). In certain instances, the agency will prosecute your case for you.

Call Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson for a free consultation to find out if you have a case at 855-552-2326.

National Origin Discrimination
Are you being discriminated against because of where you are from, your ethnicity, with whom you associate, or your accent and mannerisms associated with where you are from? You are entitled to the same employment opportunities and workplace treatment as anyone else, irrespective of your place of origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which applies to employers with 15 or more employees) protects you from “national origin” discrimination, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is the federal agency designated to enforce this law.

National origin discrimination may arise in several contexts. Has:

Your employer based employment decisions, including hiring and firing you, on your national origin?
A potential employer bypassed you just because you had an accent, even though it would not have affected your job performance?
A potential employer required you to be fluent in English and/or only speak English, even though the use of English is unnecessary to perform your job?
Your employer permitted a work environment hostile to you because of your national origin to develop or continue?
You have every right to work in a non-discriminatory environment no matter where you are from. We can help. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:44:062014-03-03 09:44:06Employment Discrimination In California

Disability Discrimination

in Discrimination, Employment Law

Did your employer discriminate against, harass, or terminate you without cause just because you are disabled? Even if you are an at-will employee or you have not yet been terminated or otherwise punished, you may still have a valid claim.

Two laws protect victims of disability discrimination – the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Not only does the ADA prohibit such discrimination, it also requires that employers make the workplace accessible to disabled employees. In other words, they must make “reasonable accommodations” for you. The ADA applies to employers whose work affects commerce and employs 15 or more employees. FEHA applies to employers with 5 or more employees and offers more extensive protection than the ADA.

We can evaluate your claim under both of these laws and vigorously litigate on your behalf. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:43:212014-03-03 09:43:21Disability Discrimination

Age Discrimination

in Discrimination, Education, News

Did your employer use unfair terms and conditions to hire you just because of your age? If so, you may have suffered from age discrimination.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects employees and job applicants 40 years of age and older when their employers or potential employers have discriminated against them. Your employer may be a private company, the state or local government, a labor organization, or even an employment agency, as long as there are 20 or more people working there. Discrimination in this context can occur when the employer requires unfair terms, conditions, or privileges of employment such as those pertaining to hiring, firing, compensation, and benefits.

If you have wish to pursue a claim against your employer, you should either file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is an independent federal law enforcement agency, or sue under applicable discrimination laws. We can help you with this process. Click on one of the areas below to learn about your rights, or call our office for a free consultation with one of our employment attorneys to find out if you have a case. (855) 552-2326.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 09:42:152014-03-03 09:42:15Age Discrimination

Casino license opponents fold

in Alcoholic Beverage Licensing, Indian Gaming, News

David Schwartz, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun

SAN BERNARDINO – Opponents of a liquor license for the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino say they will not appeal a ruling that allows the gambling hall to serve alcohol in their residential neighborhood.

The decision from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control allows the casino to continue serving beer, wine and hard liquor from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., except when two nearby schools are in session. On those days, alcohol won’t be served until 5 p.m.

While the decision could still be appealed, many opponents said they would not.

“I’ve certainly thought about it, but I don’t have the money to do it,” said Rheba Hewitt, one of the most vocal detractors.

Opponents continue to believe the state should not allow the permanent license to be transferred from the old facility to the new one.

Alcohol, they say, contributes to the number of vagrants, drunk drivers and other people engaging in illicit behavior on their streets. But their opposition during a two-day trial in June was overruled.

Although Hewitt has received a copy of the decision, she hadn’t looked at it yet. “I’m so disgusted I didn’t read it. I knew what it’d say.”

During the hearing at Highland City Hall, residents faced off with a legal team hired by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and a legal team and staff from the Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Residents were without a lawyer.

“We were outgunned,” said Kirk Wilson, an opponent of the license.

“I don’t have the money or the time to fight it any further. I could tell when I went down to the hearing, whatever we said didn’t have much weight compared to the high-powered attorneys and government agencies that didn’t want to step on the tribe’s sovereignty,” he said. “It’s like, why bother fighting it?”

Stephen Solomon, one of the attorneys for the tribe, said, “It was a full and fair trial. The protestant had a right to have a lawyer or not have a lawyer. The judge heard the testimony, he took briefs afterward.”

Solomon, part of a Los Angeles-based firm, said there had been little evidence presented with accusations of prostitution, drug dealing and traffic associated with alcohol served at the casino.

“The tribe stood the test of reality,” he said.

San Bernardino Councilman Neil Derry, who represents the city areas around the casino, said he would not seek the City Council’s approval to fund an appeal.

“There’s certainly not the support to appeal it on the council or from most of the elected officials,” he said.

He put the cost at $50,000 to hire an attorney.

“We could appeal it to the Supreme Court, but none of my residents have that kind of money. Half are retired,” he said.

The protestants have 40 days from Sept. 15 to appeal the decision, said John Carr, spokesman for the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire permits, Entertainment law, and Gambling Law; as well as Business and Personal Injury litigation. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson can be reached at 800 405 4222.”

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:49:192014-03-03 08:49:19Casino license opponents fold

Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

in Criminal Law, Gaming, Indian Gaming, News

A client who wanted to purchase operation rights to a popular southland Casino, renowned for its gambling and entertainment offerings, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of “blood money” as those rights were sold multiple times in alleged back room deals.

These deals were alleged to be between the Casino operator and certain members of the local City Council and Redevelopment Agency.

Stephen Allen Jamieson, and his partners Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph B. Saltsman and R. Bruce Evans, alleged in the lawsuit that the client had been extorted, defrauded and was made the victim of a conspiracy between several individuals in and out of public office to commit illegal acts.

They based this allegation on their findings through massive efforts in discovery (written requests for information in the lawsuit, called interrogatories, request to produce documents, requests for admissions, and depositions [testimony obtained from witnesses under oath outside of court]) and investigation through the firm’s private investigators.

Jamieson and his partners successfully litigated this case under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) federal statutes in Los Angeles Superior Court, a Trial Court, for several years. During the course of litigation, the case went several times from the Trial Court to the Court of Appeal and back to the Trial Court.

Through the perseverance and innovative legal work by Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson we reached a valuable settlement in favor of our client shortly before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, as against some of the Defendants; and resulted in a Judgment against the remaining Defendants for over $2,200,000.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:47:112018-10-17 04:57:58Racketeering Case For Gambling Casino Judgment rendered for over $2,200,000

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson Win Major Victory before California Supreme Court

in Administrative Law, Alcoholic Beverage Licensing, News

In a sweeping opinion in cases brought by Ralph B. Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon of Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the practice of attorneys in administrative agency hearings submitting ex parte communications to decision-makers within their agency. The Supreme Court held such communication violated specific prohibitions stated in the Administrative Procedure Act, the statutory manifestation of Due Process of Law.

The Court’s ruling vindicated the rights of all ABC licensees in California and will change how all administrative agencies in California do business, and not just the ABC. There will no longer be secret communications from agency attorney to departmental decision-maker in any adversarial hearing. While the decision was issued in cases prosecuted by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the decision will impact governmental agencies across the state, including other state agencies as well as municipal and county governments.

The Court followed Saltsman’s argument before the court and held: “[A] prosecutor cannot communicate off the record with the agency decision maker or the decision maker’s advisors about the substance of the case. But the one contact that is forbidden is the one contact that occurred here.”

In the cases before the Court, Administrative Law Judges after hearing in written proposed decisions, dismissed disciplinary proceedings brought against ABC licensees. Those proposed decisions were rejected, and the Department imposed suspensions nevertheless. In each instance written ex parte documents were submitted following the hearing by the prosecutor to the Department’s Chief Counsel who acted as decision-maker. The lawfim argued and the Court determined that this and any secret communication from prosecutor to decision-maker was unlawful and unconstitutional.

To review the decision go to:
www.//ssjlaw.com/articles/Quintanar_Supreme_Court_Decision.pdf

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:43:002014-03-03 08:43:00Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson Win Major Victory before California Supreme Court

62-year-old Salesperson Fired for having Leukemia is awarded $582,000 by jury

in Employment Law, News

The jury found that the defendant employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, thus entitling him to punitive damages.

This was an employment discrimination case that also raised issues involving violations of the American Disabilities Act. It was tried by Stephen Allen Jamieson before a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court. The Honorable Ernest Williams presided over this case.

A 62-year-old gentleman was hired by a beverage company to be a route salesperson in the Los Angeles area. Three months after beginning his new job the plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic lymphatic leukemia. At that point in time, he had not yet satisfied his sales quota. He was subsequently fired.

No offer to settle was made prior to the trial. After 1 and ½ days of jury deliberation and after the judge told defendant to settle, the defendants finally made their first offer of $10,000.

The terminated employee rejected the offer. The jury returned with a verdict of $582,000. Based on the unconscionable acts of the employer shown to the jury by Mr. Jamieson throughout the trial, the jury also decided that the employer acted with malice, oppression and fraud, the necessary finding for punitive damages. The case settled the following morning in the courtroom just before the defendant was required to open up its books and records for a determination on the amount of punitive damages. The verdict was paid ten days later.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:41:302014-03-03 08:41:3062-year-old Salesperson Fired for having Leukemia is awarded $582,000 by jury

Court of Appeals Holds against ABC in finding that Rule 141 Must be applied in all cases.

in Administrative Law, Alcoholic Beverage Licensing, News

Court of Appeals holds that Rule 141 requires dismissal by the ABC in all decoy cases prosecuted without the required face-to-face identification.

Stephen Warren Solomon and Ralph Barat Saltsman succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal to construe Rule 141 to be applied precisely as it is written in Acapulco Restaurant, Inc, v. ABC Appeals board. The court found that in all police decoy cases, Rule 141 requires that the decoy subject to a face-to-face identification. Without such identification, the ABC has no choice but to dismiss the accusation. The ABC previously refused to dismiss such cases.

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson has won an extraordinary number of police decoy cases on this basis alone since this ruling.

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 partners https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png partners2014-03-03 08:40:262014-03-03 08:40:26Court of Appeals Holds against ABC in finding that Rule 141 Must be applied in all cases.
Page 1 of 6123›»

Current Affairs

  • Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.March 15, 2023 - 9:11 pm

    During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

  • Newsweek Legal Insight Team spotlight on Solomon Saltsman and JamiesonOctober 20, 2022 - 8:46 pm

    NEWSWEEK Premier Law Firms
    Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson
    in the spotlight…

  • Title 4. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Proposed RegulationsOctober 15, 2022 - 8:21 pm

    Following relaxed policy regulations during the COVID era, the Department has published a proposed rule change to codify Title 4, Rule 70 which will allow licensed premises to serve and allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in permanent non-contiguous areas separate from the main or primary by public area of the licensed premises. There are restrictions and requirements that licensees should be acquainted with if alcohol service is intended or is ongoing in these non-contiguous areas. Proposed Rule 70 is set out in full herein. There will be a public hearing before the Department on November 1, 2022.

  • ABC Launches New Online Licensing Services Portal for Over 90,000 California BusinessesAugust 4, 2022 - 9:18 pm

    The fee waivers became available in February 2021 when Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of immediate actions that provided relief to individuals, families and businesses suffering the most significant economic hardship from the COVID-19 Recession

  • abc alcohol beverage control attorneys los angels CaliforniaTHE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS JUST CHANGED ITS LAWSJuly 10, 2022 - 8:15 pm

    On March 31, 2022, the Restaurant Beverage Program (RBP) Ordinance, which expediates the permitting process and lowers costs for eligible sit-down restaurants permitted to sell alcohol went into effect in the City of Los Angeles. Under the new program, qualifying sit-down restaurants can apply to serve alcohol through a 4-week…

LOS ANGELES

426 Culver Boulevard
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Los Angeles: 310.822.9848
[email protected]



BAY AREA

315 Montgomery Street
10th Floor
San Francisco, CA  94104
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
[email protected]



PORTLAND

25 NW 23rd Place, Suite 6 #363
Portland, OR 97210
Toll Free: 800.405.4222
Portland: 503.236.8050
[email protected]



Do you have questions?

email or call us at 800.405.4222

Join Our Email List

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, 426 Culver Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90293. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Current Affairs & Latest News

Dozens of Californians cited for allegedly providing alcoholic beverages to minors Saturday.

During the weekend of March 11th and 12th, 2023 the ABC worked with nearly fifty local law enforcement agencies and departments across California to conduct “shoulder tap” minor decoy operations…

Read Full Article

DISCLAIMER

Articles posted on our website, were to the best of our knowledge correct at the time they were written, but laws change continuously so no one should rely on what is written in any article as the current state of the law. The reader should always consult a practicing lawyer for an evaluation of how the current law affects any particular factual situation at the time when it occurs. The badges for AVVO®, Million Dollars Advocates Forum®, Martindale Hubbel AV Preeminent®, SuperLawyers®, and BestLawyers®” have been awarded to various specific attorneys at Solomon Saltsman and Jamieson.  See each attorney’s profile for which badges are specifically assigned to him or her.
Full Site Disclaimer

Copyright © 2018 Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson.

Website design by: wwyou.com

Scroll to top