Squarespace soon to lose backup generator power for main data center

I just received word that Squarespace's backup generator has roughly 4 hours of fuel remaining.  The building housing the main data ceter is flooded and once current fuel stores are used by the generator, no more fuel can be pumped to the generator from the flooded fuel tanks.  Might be a while before The Complex Litigator is back online.

Best wishes to everyone in New York and elsewhere affected by the storm.

Update on 2012-10-31 17:07 by The Complex Litigator

The team at Squarespace is truly amazing.  For the last day they have been carrying buckets of fuel to a generator to keep backup power running.  So far, it is working, but the Peer1 data center needs a new solution to its power needs.  Good job, Squarespace.

Some people still have honor

While there are plenty of examples to the contrary, honor is not dead.  Via Instapundit.

Law firm cannot recover fees as prevailing party when represented by Of Counsel

This isn't really on topic, but it was interesting enough to note.  In Sands & Associates v. Martin Juknavorian (October 10, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Divsion One) held that the Of Counsel relationship is sufficiently "close, personal, continuous, and regular" that a firm represented by Of Counsel to the firm cannot recover fees as a prevailing party, even when a prevailing party clause applies to the dispute.

Second Appellate District, Division Eight, not interested in changing opinions post-Brinker

After the Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), a number of cases were remanded to Courts of Appeal for further consideration after Petition grant and hold Orders were issued in those cases.  The Second Appellate District, Division Eight, seems to have a disproportionate share of those cases.  And, generally speaking, Division Eight concluded that Brinker didn't require any change in its analyses:

• In re Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 209 Cal. App. 4th 35 (2012)
• Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1487 (2012), as modified (Sept. 25, 2012)
• Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (October 4, 2012)

In all fairness to Division Eight, the other Courts of Appeal didn't seem to think that, even though Brinker declared a somewhat different standard than that applied by many Courts of Appeal, the clarified standard, according to the Courts of Appeal, didn't require any material modification to their prior opinions.  Go figure.

Interestingly, the same Division Eight, which never met a meal period it liked, partially reversed a denial of class certification in an unpublished decision, Santos v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California, Case No. B222645, 2012 WL 4378175 (Sept. 26, 2012).  The Court relied heavily on Brinker for its discussion of an employer's obligation to pay employees when it knows, or has reason to know, that employees are working overtime or off-the-clock.  Hmmmm.

Statement of issues provided by California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation

The Statement of Issues for the Iskanian v. CLS Transportation matter is as follows:

This case presents the following issues: (1) Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? (2) Does the high court's decision permit arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, 2698 et seq.)? (3) Did defendant waive its right to compel arbitration?