• 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

Ryan Kroll is named a 2014 RISING STAR by Super Lawyers!

in News

ryan.kroll

Ryan Kroll 2014 RISING STAR in OREGON!

 

SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON is proud to announce that partner Ryan Kroll is named a 2014 Oregon Rising Star for general litigation as published in Portland Monthly.

In California, Oregon, and Washington, Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson offer services in many areas of law, including, among them, Personal Injury; Employment Law; Land Use Planning; Business Disputes; Constitutional Law; Alcohol Licensing Law; Indian Gaming and Sovereignty Law; Appellate Law; and Administrative Law.

With well over 100 years of combined experience, SSJ is a law firm of highly skilled, successful, and compassionate attorneys ready to help you to obtain the best possible result.

Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

 
PLEASE NOTE: The Portland Office has a new address, please update your records:

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson

3519 NE 15TH AVENUE, SUITE 202, PORTLAND, OR  97212
(503) 236-8050
(503) 296-2105 fax
(800) 405-4222
[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 ssjadmin2014-07-09 13:48:202014-07-09 13:48:20Ryan Kroll is named a 2014 RISING STAR by Super Lawyers!

BYOB: Bring it in – Pizza Today, June 2014

in Alcoholic Beverage Licensing, News

pizza_logo

winebottle-265x400

By Daniel P. Smith

BYOB creates an array of unique considerations

When Joe Burke Jr. opened TreVi Pizza three years ago in Glenside, Pennsylvania, he was excited by liquor sales’ robust profit margins and the food-and-beverage pairings he could promote with a curated selection of wine, cocktails and beer.

Unfortunately, Burke could not digest the expense of a $200,000-plus liquor license for his 90-seat, startup operation and embraced BYOB (bring your own bottle/booze/beer). Capitalizing on Pennsylvania’s forgiving BYOB laws, Burke has since created a marketplace niche for TreVi, one of the few establishments in its suburban Philadelphia community permitting BYOB.

“The wine flows freely here at TreVi and customers enjoy not having to pay four to five times markup on a bottle. It’s actually become a selling point for us,” Burke says.

BYOB, however, can be a tricky play for pizzerias given a dizzying array of regulations, liabilities and pinched profitability.

BYOB regulations vary from state to state and even municipality to municipality, a reality inspired by the federal government’s hands-off alcohol policy following the end of Prohibition in 1933.

Some states allow BYOB in restaurants already holding a liquor license; other states leave discretion to municipalities or even individual restaurants; still others explicitly prohibit BYOB.
In the State of New York, for instance, it is a criminal misdemeanor to permit BYOB in any commercial establishment without the appropriate licensing. In neighboring New Jersey, meanwhile, where a number of dry towns prohibit restaurants from holding liquor licenses, guests can bring in their own bottle and the restaurant can charge a corkage fee.

In Burke’s Pennsylvania, there is nothing in the state’s Liquor Control Board code that “prohibits an individual from bringing his or her own alcohol into any establishment, whether or not the establishment possesses a license issued by the Board.” Subsequently, each establishment is free to allow or disallow patrons from brining their own alcohol into the eatery, though municipalities retain the right to enact their own BYOB ordinances.

The regulatory patchwork can be confusing, particularly for concepts opening units in multiple jurisdictions.

Beyond the regulatory environment, BYOB brings a number of diverse challenges and liabilities.

Though Burke has established TreVi as his neighborhood’s premier BYOB destination, he nevertheless acknowledges that his customer counts drop after 10 p.m. on the weekends and during marquee sporting events.

“I don’t even bother opening for the Super Bowl,” he says. “Because I’m BYOB, there’s just a thinner window of time to make money.”

In addition to lost revenue, BYOB-permitting operators also face administrative, civil and even criminal concerns.

According to New York-based attorney Donald Bernstein, the most common mistake many operators make is simply allowing BYOB into their establishment when it is prohibited in their jurisdiction. “This is a black-and-white issue: it’s either permitted or it’s not,” he says.

Thereafter, issues abound regarding the BYOB operation’s inability to control the consumption of alcohol, over-serving, open-container laws and dram-shop acts.

In California, for example, sellers and servers of alcohol are generally not responsible in a civil suit to persons they have served, the primary exception being if they served an obviously intoxicated minor (under age 21). In other states, however, restaurant owners can be held responsible –– in a civil or even criminal case –– for over-serving patrons or allowing minors to consume alcohol on their premises.

Particularly with minors, restaurants must be vigilant and exercise the same precautions in a BYOB establishment that they would if they held a liquor license.

“You cannot just give glasses to anyone sitting at the table without ensuring everyone is of legal age,” Bernstein says.

Operators must also be mindful of the local open-container law. In New York, for instance, the law allows restaurant patrons to leave with an unfinished bottle provided the restaurant packages it in a specific way.

“Many operators don’t realize all the particulars and don’t make sure they have the necessary insurance for civil liability for service of alcohol or allowing BYOB, as there are often exclusions for alcohol-related instances,” says Stephen Jamieson, a Los Angeles-based attorney who practices hospitality-related law.

Legal experts Jamieson and Bernstein both urge BYOB operators to discover the regulatory specifics in their jurisdiction. If liquor laws are handled locally, city hall or the county seat will host the rules. If liquor regulations are addressed by the state, then the state’s department of alcohol beverage control defines policy.

“Don’t assume you know what the law is,” Jamieson says.

Jamieson counts the National Association of Licensing and Compliance Professionals as a particularly helpful resource for operators and suggests operators consult a lawyer or licensing professional familiar with their jurisdiction to gain a comprehensive understanding of their responsibilities.

Ultimately with BYOB, Jamieson urges operators to follow the sage wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

“It’s smart to understand everything you need ahead of time before you to get into a deeper investment and potential trouble,” Jamieson says.

The Corkage Conundrum

In BYOB restaurants, operators often install corkage fees to cover their overhead or lost profit. According to national beverage consultant Joseph DeLuca, corkage fees typically range from $5 to $25.

After initially opposing a corkage fee at TreVi, owner Joe Burke Jr. noted mounting overhead from accommodating guests’ BYOB ways, such as purchasing wine glasses, using his ice to chill white wine and staff clean up. Burke began researching local and national corkage fees and, in mid-2012, launched a modest $3 fee at his Pennsylvania eatery.

Guests were not happy.

Though Burke offered free corkage nights and a frequent corkage card, some customers called him greedy and others ceased visiting. After six months, Burke tabled the fee amid falling sales.
Beyond potential customer backlash, corkage fees also complicate employee compensation. As corkage fees typically go to the house, staff might not get tipped for their efforts in opening, pouring and cleaning a BYOB table.

“Corkage fees are a delicate balance,” DeLuca says. “Operators need to make sure their servers are not being disenfranchised and that the fee is one guests will tolerate.”

Chicago-based writer Daniel P. Smith has covered business issues and best practices for a variety of trade publications, newspapers, and magazines.

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2014-06-03 08:52:282014-06-03 08:52:28BYOB: Bring it in – Pizza Today, June 2014

2014 ABC & CITY LAND USE SEMINAR

in News

NEW PORTRAIT STYLE CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSES

 

CITY APPROVALS & REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS

 

WHERE:         The Westin Los Angeles Airport

                        5400 W. Century Blvd; Los Angeles, California 90045

                        Telephone: (310) 216-5858 hotel only

      Reservations: (800) 405-4222

                        WHEN:           June 19, 2014; 1:00 – 3:00pm

 

Everyone in attendance will get the “ABC Emergency Pamphlet.”  Topics include:

        YOU HAVE 2 STRIKES, NOW WHAT DO YOU DO?

       REMOVING ABC CONDITIONS;

                                           NEW ABC RULES;                

            Serving minors; DECOY RULES; NON-DECOY: NO RULES;

            Serving obviously-intoxicated individuals (and minors: is there civil liability?

                                           After hours sales/consumption;

            Narcotics busts and the Automatic Revocation Status;

            Fatality Cases; ABC TRACE UNIT

                                           The Disorderly House nightmare and THE ABC TASK FORCE;

                                           ABC – Indian Reservation;

                                           Rule 144: Penalty Guidelines;

                                           Application Rules and Procedures;

                                           Conditional Use Permits/Variances; what happens when you apply for                                              City CUP & Variances;

 

                   Speakers at this seminar are:

Stephen Warren Solomon, Ralph Barat Saltsman, Stephen Jamieson, R. Bruce Evans and Ryan Kroll, partners in Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, attorneys with over 100 years combined experience in litigation with the ABC and Land Use. They can be seen hosting Legal Help Live on Television, cable station 36 in Los Angeles, channel 16 in Santa Monica.

 The charge for attending the seminar is $10 per person. You may also bring one employee at no charge.  Any additional employees need pay only $ 5 each.  Please write a check to Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson for the proper amount.  Space is limited.

Questions or to make a reservation, please call Marianne Rolin at (310) 822-9848.

 For dates of upcoming seminars, view our website at www.ssjlaw.com.

 Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 2 hours. 

          ATTORNEYS OFFER FREE PRIVATE CONSULTATIONS ON THE DAY OF THE SEMINAR

           OR ANYTIME BY PHONE OR IN THE OFFICE. PLEASE CALL FOR AN APPOINTMENT.

 

https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png 0 0 ssjadmin https://ssjlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/SSJLaw-Attorneys-Logo530.png ssjadmin2014-05-13 14:45:452014-05-13 14:45:452014 ABC & CITY LAND USE SEMINAR

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

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

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
Page 3 of 11‹12345›»

Current Affairs

  • The 21st Century Cures Act – Retrieval of Patient’s Medical Records at No CostApril 22, 2023 - 1:21 am

    The Cures Act, also known as the 21st Century Cures Act, is a federal law enacted in 2016 that aims to improve healthcare in the United States. Under the Cures Act, patients have the right to access and obtain copies of their medical records…

  • Selling Alcohol to a Minor is Not Worth the RiskApril 13, 2023 - 1:01 am

    It can take only one ABC violation to effectively lose your license. In two recent cases, The ABC conditionally revoked and indefinitely suspended liquor licenses…

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

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

The 21st Century Cures Act – Retrieval of Patient’s Medical Records at No Cost

The Cures Act, also known as the 21st Century Cures Act, is a federal law enacted in 2016 that aims to improve healthcare in the United States. Under the Cures Act, patients have the right to access and obtain copies of their medical records…

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