For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email firstname.lastname@example.org for prices or call 949-702-5390.
To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email email@example.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright.
It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes
and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission.
Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial
marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Glenn focuses on appeals and major motions, and has substantial experience litigating consumer and employment class actions. Mr. Danas was named one of the Top 100 Attorneys in California in 2017 by the Daily Journal, and received a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) award in 2015 for his work on Iskanian
Bryan is a member of the firm's Land Use Department. His practice centers on land use and local government law, with a particular focus on obtaining and defending land use entitlements for a wide range of development projects, including in-fill, mixed-use, residential, retail/commercial, and industrial.
This week's show looks at a long-awaited ruling from the California Supreme Court, in which the court unanimously held for a plaintiff seeking the contact information of his fellow employees, as part of a meal- and rest-break PAGA action. Glenn Danas, who argued the case before the state's high court, joins us to chat about the various arguments involved, over the disputed burden to the defendant, the privacy rights of the fellow employees, and how the foundational principles of both discovery rules generally and the Private Attorney General Act specifically helped carry the day for his client.
Then, Brian Wenter will discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's latest take on the Takings Doctrine, in Murr v. Wisconsin, decided this past term. He says the Court had an ideal chance to clarify a fairly abstruse doctrine, but ended up making it even more complicated.
Don't forget listeners can get CLE credit for tuning in; find a link to the affiliated CLE test below.