As part of our continued growth, Lewis & Llewellyn is pleased to welcome Daniel Jordan to the firm as an Associate. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Daniel practiced at the San Francisco office of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, representing many leading technology, startup, and Fortune 500 companies in state and federal court. He has broad experience in numerous areas of complex litigation, including breach of contract, trade secret, trademark, copyright, false advertising, and unfair competition disputes.
Author: chayward@lewisllewellyn.com
Lewis & Llewellyn is delighted to welcome Becca Furman to the partnership.
A proud graduate of the University of California system, having attended both UC Santa Barbara and UC Hastings, Becca joined the firm in 2015 after practicing at Winston & Strawn LLP. Becca’s practice focuses on complex breach of contract, trade secret, and privacy disputes.
Since joining the firm, Becca has spent over 15 weeks in state and federal jury trials. In one, a five-week federal jury trial, Becca represented a software consulting company, and helped achieve a complete defense jury verdict on the plaintiff’s CFAA and CDAFA claims. In the same trial, the jury awarded the firm’s client over $4 million on its contract-related claims. While Becca always develops an aggressive trial strategy, she also understands the importance of pragmatic, business-focused solutions.
Becca also regularly represents survivors of sexual abuse in civil lawsuits against individuals and institutions. Her representation has led to numerous successful results, including a $2.75 million settlement.
Within the local community, Becca serves on the Bar Association of San Francisco Barristers Board of Directors.
All civil claims are subject to a statute of limitations, meaning if they are not pursued within a certain time period a lawsuit cannot be brought. The length of the statute depends on the specific claim, but most claims have a limitations period of between two and six years.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, followed by significant court closures, the California Judicial Council responded with Emergency Rule 9. The rule “tolled” (or “paused”) the statutes of limitation for civil actions from March 6, 2020 until 90 days after Governor Newsom lifted the state of emergency. “Tolling” stops or suspends the running of statutes of limitations; when the tolling period ends, the clock starts again.
The Judicial Council has now amended Rule 9 to provide an end date for the tolling period. Specifically, Amended Emergency Rule 9 creates two tolling periods depending on the length of the pertinent statute of limitation. Under Rule 9(a), statutes of limitations that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020 until October 1, 2020. Under Rule 9(b), statutes of limitations of up to 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until August 3, 2020.
Because most statutes of limitation are over 180 days, the practical effect of the Amended Rule appears to be that most civil statutes of limitation have been extended by 178 days, i.e. the period between April 6, 2020 and October 1, 2020. The new rule may therefore revive claims that were otherwise time barred, or provide litigants with more time to file their claims.
That said, the Judicial Council provided no guidance or illustration on the application of the amended rule, and some commentators have noted that its effect is not altogether clear, particularly as it relates to claims with a shorter limitations period.
Since statutes of limitation are critical in litigation, the practitioner would be well-advised to acquaint himself or herself with the new rule and its effect.
Benchmark Litigation, the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys, recently released its 2021 rankings. Lewis & Llewellyn is pleased to have once again been recognized as one of the few “Recommended Firms” in both San Francisco and California—meaning Benchmark deems the firm a “leader” in both markets. Marc Lewis was named as a Labor & Employment Star, with an emphasis on his burgeoning employee mobility practice. And Paul Llewellyn was named as a Benchmark California Litigation Star, a category which Benchmark identifies as the preeminent litigation practitioners in the State. Additionally, partners Ryan Erickson and Evangeline Burbidge were named to Benchmark’s 40 and Under Hotlist—the best and the brightest litigators under the age of 40.
Lewis & Llewellyn is pleased to announce that Paul Llewellyn has been elected a Door Tenant of 3 Hare Court barristers’ chambers in London. Located in Temple—the heart of England’s legal community—3 Hare Court is one of the country’s leading sets of Chambers, specializing, among other things, in commercial litigation, employment disputes, civil fraud, and international arbitration. We are delighted and honored to be associated with 3 Hare Court, an association which will further enhance our ability to handle litigation of any size and complexity throughout the world.
As part of our continued growth, Lewis & Llewellyn is pleased to welcome Kenneth Walczak to the firm as Of Counsel. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Kenneth has practiced civil rights law, constitutional law, and complex civil litigation for fourteen years. Before joining the firm, Kenneth worked in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, representing the City and County of San Francisco in labor and employment matters, affirmative litigation, and appeals. He has won victories at every phase of state and federal court proceedings, securing recoveries of millions of dollars on the plaintiffs’ side, as well as significant defense victories.
At Lewis & Llewellyn we handle litigation throughout the country and the world. Partner Evan Burbidge recently worked alongside Zimmerman Booher, Utah’s premiere appellate boutique, to file an amicus brief regarding a unique and far-reaching constitutional issue in Utah. The underlying case is currently before the Utah Supreme Court and the outcome will have significant ramifications for all cities and towns in Utah, and perhaps beyond.
The amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief was filed in support of Salt Lake City’s effort to regain control over one-fifth of its land and associated taxes in connection with the creation of an “inland port.” This port was created by the Utah Legislature and gives an unelected board effective control over the development of a large swath of Salt Lake City’s land and incremental tax revenues—with the ultimate goal to build and operate a transportation hub linking rail, truck, and air transportation in Utah.
In the brief, we argue that the Utah Constitution prohibits this transfer of municipal power to an unelected board. Lewis & Llewellyn is proud to contribute to this significant effort.
Earlier this year, the California legislature adopted multiple changes to the Code of Civil Procedure. Given COVID-related Court shutdowns and delays, many of these new rules may have gone overlooked.
Here is a refresher on the most impactful changes:
- CCP section 2031.280(a): Now requires that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” The rule used to require that “[a]ny documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.” Counsel receiving a voluminous document production now has firm footing to request that opposing counsel clearly identify what documents correspond to each request for production.
- CCP section 2030.210(d) and (e): Now requires counsel to provide electronic versions of interrogatories and requests for admission to the opposing party upon request. The responding party also must provide the responses in electronic format upon request. Note that this can save both parties significant time in preparing discovery “shells” and separate statements, especially for lengthy discovery requests.
- CCP section 2023.050: Sanctions are required if a party, person, or attorney produces the requested documents within 7 days of a scheduled hearing on a motion to compel. The sanctions also apply to nonparty discovery.
- CCP section 2016.090: Authorizes the court, upon stipulation of all parties, to order the exchange of initial disclosures prior to serving written discovery. The initial disclosure requirements are similar to those in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
Counsel would be well-advised to conduct a comprehensive review of these new rules to ensure compliance. The new rules may also provide an effective sword when dealing with opposing counsel.
At Lewis & Llewellyn we have chosen to devote our litigation expertise to a social cause we feel passionately about—representing survivors of sexual violence in civil actions against their perpetrators and those institutions that enable the abuse. By providing the same exhaustive and aggressive representation that we provide to our business clients, we have successfully recovered millions of dollars on behalf of victims nationwide.
In furtherance of the firm’s groundbreaking work in this area, we are pleased to announce that Paul Llewellyn has been appointed to the National Leadership Council of RAINN, the country’s largest anti-sexual violence organization. The National Leadership Council is a leadership group of individuals who have been recognized based on their commitment to RAINN’s mission of supporting survivors of sexual assault and bringing perpetrators to justice. As part of the Leadership Council, Paul joins luminaries such as Tori Amos, Ashley Judd and Kesha, who have demonstrated a similar commitment to sexual abuse survivors. More information about RAINN can be found here.
As part of our continued growth, and to meet client demand, Lewis & Llewellyn is pleased to welcome Amy Kashiwabara and Erin Reding to the firm as Of Counsel.
After graduating from Stanford Law School, Amy has practiced complex commercial litigation for almost twenty years. She has represented clients ranging from Fortune 100 clients to startups, and in addition to first chair jury trial experience, she has also acted as a mediator. Erin received her law degree from UC Berkeley School of Law, and before joining the firm practiced at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and as Deputy County Counsel for the County of Alameda.
The addition of these highly talented and experienced litigators to the firm further enhances our ability to handle litigation of any size and complexity.
