Hart | King Legal Blog

Many manufactured home communities have clubhouses for park and social events. Some events are sponsored by the Park, but some are sponsored by individuals or groups that reside within a given manufactured home community. An ongoing issue in many parks is whether to allow the service of alcoholic beverages at events held in a park's clubhouse. My firm, as a generality, always encourages any park owner that allows the use of a common area facility for an event where alcohol will be served, to require some form of additional adequate insurance.

California, over the past forty-five years, has been subject to a statutory scheme where a "social host" is generally immune from civil liability for serving or providing alcohol. That statutory scheme was addressed by a decision by the California Supreme Court entitled Ennabe v. Manosa.

In the past month, Hart | King has received rulings in 3 separate rent control applications/hearings.

First, we received a ruling arising out of an application in the city of Lancaster. The city of Lancaster has a fairly expedited process for submitting discretionary rent increase applications. This park had exceptionally low rent and was literally losing money after all park operations were paid. The city hired its own independent expert to review the application and the economic basis of the application. After a half day hearing where oral testimony was presented by the park owner and the residents, the city issued its ruling. The park owner received a substantial rent increase to be implemented over 3 years. The rent increase will bring the park's rents to the average rent of comparable rent controlled parks in the city of Lancaster. The city's ruling was fairly prompt and, as noted, the entire hearing process was completed in one day of hearing. Chalk one up for rational decision making.

In May, President Obama signed into law new legislation known as the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (or "DTSA") which is intended to provide enhanced means of protecting the confidential information that many companies rely upon as the basis for their competitive advantage. More specifically, the DTSA amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to provide a federal cause of action to private companies for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA became effective immediately, but only applies to misappropriation occurring on or after the law's effective date and only protects trade secrets that are "related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b).

Those of us who have been to law school know (or should know) that the three main types of intellectual property (or "IP") are patents, trademarks, and copyrights. But, we also know that trade secrets are often considered as IP, too. Generally speaking, trade secrets include lists of suppliers and clients, sales and distribution practices, advertising strategies, manufacturing methods, and even product formulas or recipes. So, when it comes to intellectual property, why are trade secrets so often looked upon as an afterthought?

Throughout his many incarnations, Batman, the fictional crime fighter and protector of the peace in Gotham City, has faced a wide range of very odd foes. Names like The Joker, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze and Penguin are familiar to fans of the Batman comic books, television series, and, of course, movies. But, any true fan of the Caped Crusader will have a hard time recalling any episode or story arc that pitted him against a small group of highly intelligent men and women clad in imposing black robes and wielding the power to decide the fate of something as important to Batman as his beloved Batmobile. That is, until now.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court (aka "SCOTUS") denied certiorari to a lower court ruling in favor of DC Comics and Warner Bros. and declined to hear the appeal of that ruling by Mark Towle, an Orange County, California auto mechanic who had been making custom builds of iconic Batmobiles for paying customers. By denying cert (as lawyers like to say), the Supreme Court left in place the lower court ruling against Towle.