Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
A motion for a new trial in California is found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 656 through 663.2. Section 656 of the Code of Civil Procedures states, “a new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” A motion for a new trial in California may be made in an civil case, such as, unlawful detainer eviction case. It is important to keep in mind that California procedures for new trial motions can be especially tricky and complicated. Courts have construed many of their requirements to be “mandatory and jurisdictional.” That is, if a party including the trial judge, makes a mistake, it often cannot be excused or repaired, even on remand.
The advantages of filing a motion for new trial is that it permits the Court to reexamine an issue of fact or law with respects to the case. The trial court has broad discretion to reweigh the evidence, reassess credibility, disbelieve witnesses, and act as a thirteenth juror as stated by several decisions of the California Courts of Appeal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 657 covers seven (7) grounds for filing a motion for a new trial including:
The deadline for filing a motion for new trial in California have strict deadlines. A party seeking to request a new trial, should first file a notice of intention to move for a new trial. The motion should be filed in timely manner or the motion will be denied. Per Code of Civil Procedure § 659a: Within ten (10) calendar days after filing the notice of intention to move for new trial the party must file and serve any supporting affidavits unless a stipulation or court order has been obtained extending the time period. Furthermore, while a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority is not technically required it is strongly recommended and should be filed and served at the same time as the supporting affidavits.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 659(a) The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of his or her intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either: (1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment. (2) Within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon him or her by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; provided, that upon the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial by a party, each other party shall have 15 days after the service of that notice upon him or her to file and serve a notice of intention to move for a new trial. (b) That notice of intention to move for a new trial shall be deemed to be a motion for a new trial on all the grounds stated in the notice. The times specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) shall not be extended by order or stipulation or by those provisions of Section 1013 that extend the time for exercising a right or doing an act where service is by mail.” Note that the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 60 days from and after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 60 days from and after service on the moving party by any party of written notice of the entry of the judgment, whichever is earlier, or if such notice has not theretofore been given, then 60 days after filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial. If such motion is not determined within said period of 60 days, or within said period as thus extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office.
If one cannot duplicate a phone number or street address, then why should one have the power to duplicate a domain name? Domain names, similar to words and symbols, can be used to identify a seller’s products and distinguish them from the products of another, and are thus viewed as trademarks. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that a business must use its domain name to sell goods or services in order to protect the name — even if a competitor starts to use the name after you registered the domain. In other words, merely reserving a domain name isn't enough. Thus, its important to register your domain name, because if your domain name has a trademark, the URL has protection under the USPTO.
The Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act”) prohibits uses of trademarks that are likely to cause confusion about the source of a product or service. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a). Moreover, to establish a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must establish that defendant’s use of a mark is confusing similar to plaintiff’s. Id. The main area of inquiry in trademark infringement cases is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of a product or service. ., 174 F.3d 1036, 1062 (1999).
Judgement or settlement which exceeds policy limits after denying a settlement offer within policy limits and the excess settlement rule. California Court of Appeals ruled that primary insurance companies are responsible for paying all losses in excess of policy limits after denying a within-limits settlement offer, regardless of whether the excess loss arises out of a verdict, judgment or a settlement.
The Second District California Court of Appeal’s August 5, 2016 opinion in Ace American Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. found that “where the insured or excess insurer has actually contributed to an excess settlement, [the insured or excess insurer] may allege that the primary insurer’s breach of the duty to accept reasonable settlement offers resulted in damages in the form of the excess settlement.” The lack of a final judgment was immaterial, as there was “no persuasive reason to hold that the [policyholder] or its assignee, [the excess insurance company], must suffer that loss with no remedy simply because the case reached an eventual settlement instead of being litigated through trial.”
The impact a motorcycle accident can have on a rider or passenger often times inflict damage, ranging from a road rash, broken elbows, hairline fracture, brain hemorrhaging, or a crushed pelvic girdle. It is important to treat your injury and to take immediate action to protect both your legal rights and compensation.
There are many types of injuries involving broken bones caused by a motorcycle accident. Its important to remember that there are different classifications of "broken bones", such as the following:
Motorcycles are more likely to get into accidents than any other motor vehicle. According to the Insurance Information Institute, in 2015, there were 88,000 motorcycle accidents injuries. In motorcycle accidents, knowing your options as a passenger on a motorcycle involved in an accident is important. It is critical for the rider of a motorcycle to have proper motorcycle insurance. Most biker clubs have discounts for motorcycle insurance to avoid being denied damages under California Proposition 213.
Under California law, riders of motorcycles must have insurance with liability coverage. This means that the passengers in a motorcycle accident would have coverage for property damage and bodily injury caused by the rider. This coverage does not cover the damages of the rider unless it has comprehensive coverage, usually coverage for property damages only. Thus, if a rider is at-fault and has liability and comprehensive insurance coverage, then the rider's insurance will cover passengers' personal injuries and rider's property damages only. Coverage. This coverage applies when the rider is not-at-fault and the at-fault opposing driver's coverage is nonexistent or insufficient. In this scenario, the rider and the passenger can make a claim for injuries towards the rider's (in case of no coverage) or (in case of insufficient coverage) motorist coverage. Are you wondering about ? The rider's insurance company will cover for medical expenses irrespective of fault up to the Medical Payments coverage limit, which is usually anywhere from $1000-$10,000.
Starting from January 29, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) gives priority to most recent affirmative asylum applications when scheduling asylum interviews. This interview scheduling approach is known as “last in, first out” interview scheduling.
The “last in, first out” interview scheduling approach was introduced in 1995 and was in place until 2014 when USCIS switched to the “first in, first out” approach. Pursuant to the “first in, first out” approach, USCIS was giving priority to oldest asylum applications. This approach turned out to be not very efficient and resulted in an unprecedented backlog of asylum cases. In the majority of asylum offices new asylum applicants had to wait for years for their asylum interviews. As a result, many frivolous asylum applications were filed because the applicants were able to obtain employment authorization within six (6) months from filing their applications and to legally work for years until the scheduling of their asylum interviews.
Multiple vehicle auto accidents are fairly common on California’s congested freeways, which begins with one driver rear ending another driver, resulting in a chain reaction that involves 3 or more vehicles. Alternatively, an accident may occur when a driver runs a red light and hits another car broadside, setting the stage for a multiple car pileup accident. Multi-vehicle car accidents create an added challenge for determining liability for injuries that vehicle occupants suffer. If you are involved in a multi car accident, it is vital you exchange insurance information with all the drivers involved, obtain witness contact information and contact the police to come to the scene and create a police report. It is also absolutely vital you take photographs of the scene, including skid marks, vehicle debris and property damage from multiple angles. If you suffer injury due to pile up accident in our area, you can contact our experienced Glendale auto accident attorney soon after the accident in order to ensure that all pertinent evidence is immediately identified and documented. If you or a loved one has been involved in a multi-car accident, we invite you to contact a car accident attorney in Glendale, CA for a and . Our office will handle your car accident claim, set you up with health care professionals for any needed treatment. We don't charge you any upfront legal fees, as we charge a contingency fee, meaning you don't pay, unless we are able to recover money damages from the responsible parties.
When a loved one passes away due to the negligence of another party, California law allows for two different types of lawsuits that can be against the negligent party. A California wrongful death lawsuit may be filed by the representative of the deceased’s estate, or by the decedent’s surviving spouse, children or other dependent family members. While, a survival cause of action can be filed by the estate’s personal representative, or if none has been appointed, by the decedent’s successor-in-interest. A survival cause of action can only be brought if the decedent did not immediately die from his injuries. The survival statute allows one to “step into the shoes” of the deceased and recover the damages the had they lived, including and , such as:
A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. Recovering damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
If you entered into a contract and you fail to abide by the terms of the agreement. Consequently, you may face the likelihood of having a lawsuit against you. If a party contracts with you and does not fulfill the terms of the agreement. In return you may also have the right to seek legal remedy and likewise file suit against the breaching party.
Regardless of whether you own an business with a family member, a friend, or hold a position on the board of a large corporation, you know that business and contract disputes can often times cause major problems. Specifically, business owners that face contract disputes with other companies and even more so, between their own ownership structure. For instance, a business contract dispute may arise between two or more partners, when one partner fails to fulfill his responsibilities. Often times business owners do not anticipate disputes until they arise. As a result, income might be lost due to contract breaches; ownership might be in the limbo due to outside lawsuits and claims; and tensions amongst business owners may rise. Lastly, a California business that is facing a lawsuit must be represented by an attorney. As such, a business owner cannot represent themselves in pro per.
As a matter of course, each general partner has an equal right to take part in the . Disputes in the ordinary course of business are decided by a of the . While, disputes or disagreements of or any to the . Be that as it may, in an partnership of any size the will provide for certain electees to manage the partnership along the lines of a company board. Generally, unless otherwise provided in the , no one can become a partner of the However, an existing partner may transfer partnership interests and assign his share of the profits and losses and right to receive distributions.
To protect your business or brand from infringement, you may want to trademark your domain name in addition to a logo, slogan, or design. Merely, registering a domain name does not give you trademark rights, rather it identifies your website and generally will not prevent others from using the name. If you trademark your domain name, you have legal protection if a third party uses your trademarked name. You can file a trademark infringement action against the infringing party and recover money damages, financial losses, and other damages you might have incurred.
The domain should function as a "source indicator." It must convey to whoever sees the URL what products or services are behind the name. A domain qualifies as a trademark when it is a "source indicator." Your domain must convey the products or services associated with the name to whoever sees the URL. Not all domain names can be registered as trademarks. The PTO is particular about what can be registered as a domain name.
Consumer confusion occurs when another company has a domain name close in spelling to your domain. The other company's name might different by one letter. Generally, consumer confusion matters only if a domain name that's similar to the one you want to use is a protected trademark. To be protected, a trademark must be distinctive. If the trademark owner has been able to register a name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it is probably distinctive. The dispositive question in trademark infringement cases is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of a product or service. Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. V. Epix, Inc., 304 F. 3d 936, 941 (2002).
Initial interest confusion occurs when the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademark sways consumers towards their own product or service by capturing “initial consumer attention.” Brookfield at 1045. In the context of website domain, the defendant’s unauthorized use of the trademark confuses consumers who expect to find the plaintiff’s product or service at that web address. Interstellar at 942. Although actual confusion is not required, plaintiff must prove a probability of confusion, as the mere possibility is not enough. Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1176.
To evaluate the likelihood of confusion, including initial interest confusion, the Sleekcraft factors considered are:
(1) the similarity of the marks;
(2) the relatedness or proximity of the two companies' products or services;
(3) the strength of the registered mark;
(4) the marketing channels used;
(5) the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser in selecting goods;
(6) the accused infringers' intent in selecting its mark;
(7) evidence of actual confusion; and
(8) the likelihood of expansion in product lines.
Courts consider these factors within the totality of the circumstances through the eyes of the “reasonably prudent consumer” in the marketplace, not a person with a legally trained mind. Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (1998).
In the context of website domain, courts have held that the three most important Sleekcraft factors in evaluating a likelihood of confusion are (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services, and (3) the parties’ simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing channel. Interstellar at 942.
No one factor is to be considered conclusive and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case-specific. Compare Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1061 (holding that use of the domain name “moviebuff.com” violated plaintiff’s trademark rights in the mark “MovieBuff,” as consumer confusion is likely to result from the relatedness of the products and the companies’ simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing and advertising tool) with Interstellar at 943 (finding that domain name “epix.com” for website showcasing creator’s electronic pictures did not infringe the trademark “EPIX,” used in connection with printed circuit boards and computer programs, because there was a lack of relation between the products and both parties marketed to a different consumer base through the web).
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FDTA) allows a trademark owner to obtain an injunction against another’s “commercial use in commerce” of a mark or trade name” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). “Commercial use in commerce” has been generally interpreted to mean use of mark in relation to any goods or services. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 903 (2002).
If you believe someone is infringing on your trademark or have questions regarding trademark registration, copyright, or any other intellectual property related question, we invite you to contact our office and speak to an experienced Los Angeles trademark lawyer at (310) 943-1171.
In order words, in the event that a policyholder(s) do not have excess insurance, policyholders should argue that their first party insurance company or primary insurer who rejected a within-limits settlement offer is obligated to pay the full amount of any subsequent settlement which exceeds that insured's policy limits. There is no reason why the first party insured should be forced to contribute or pay a settlement of which first party insured could recover by filing at first party bad faith action against their primary insurance company.
California insurance bad faith actions arise when insurance company breaches the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing. Insurance companies must, unreasonably or without proper cause, act or fail to act in a manner that deprives the insured of the benefits of the policy. It is not a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. However, it is not necessary for the insurer to intend to deprive the insured of the benefits of the policy. Generally, the term bad faith for insurance purposes means an insurance company:
The court found that when an insurer's failure to reasonably settle a claim within policy limits, after primary or "first party" insurance rejected a within-limits settlement offer and there is a judgement against their insured/policyholder, whether by settlement or verdict, the first party insurance company must pay any excess monies, whether through jury verdict, settlement, or judgment. Policy limits demands can be a powerful tool for plaintiffs' insurance lawyers and can cause headaches for claims adjusters. While, it all depends on the circumstances surrounding the claim or issue, an insurer that misses an opportunity for a reasonable settlement of a claim against its insured can now be liable for the full amount of a later judgment, regardless of the policy limits. If you believe that your primary insurance company rejected a within-limits settlement offer and an later there was a subsequent settlement or judgement which exceeds your policy limits or you believe that your insurance company may be acting in bad faith, speak to one of our Los Angeles insurance lawyers for a free consultation and case review. Call our office at (310) 943-1171, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
It is highly recommend that you speak to a Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorney before doing or speaking to anyone., including insurance companies. If you or a loved one was suffered a motorcycle accident injury, then you have a limited time to take action. Please contact us online or call our 24/7 motorcycle accident attorney help line directly at (310) 943-1171 to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW criminal defense attorneys help clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, San Bernardino, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
The motorcycle passenger, or urban for "b&tch seat" or "riding b&tch" can claim for compensation for injuries sustained as a result of the motorcycle crash from any and all responsible parties by proving fault. This is why riders have a requirement to have an insurance policy that will cover the passengers' injuries. Although claiming injuries against someone you know, possibly a BFF or sweetheart, may or may not be ideal, it is important to understand that you are not going after their piggy bank, as their insurance company will "indemnify" and pay for the injuries up to the coverage limit and save the day! And hopefully, you never have to find out, but if you are reading this, we highly recommend speaking to a motorcycle accident attorney before speaking to anyone else. Whatever you say or do will be used against you and your sweetheart no matter what seat you're riding.
Would you like a free consultation from our personal injury lawyers at KAASS Law? Give us a call now (310) 943-1171 for more information on motorcycle accidents. You will not have to pay us upfront or out of pocket for our services! We get paid when you get paid. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmYyFUF-XQg[/embed]
The major reason for returning to the “last in, first out” approach is to deter the filing of frivolous asylum applications just for obtaining employment authorization. According to the new policy, USCIS will give priority to the most recently filed affirmative asylum applications. This approach will allow USCIS to identify non-meritorious asylum applicants and to place them in removal proceedings. The risk of being placed in removal proceeding might discourage people from filing a frivolous asylum application.
According to the website of USCIS affirmative asylum interviews will be scheduled in the following order of priority:
If you or someone you know has questions with respects to seeking for asylum or filing for an asylum application, please feel free to give our office a call. Our Los Angeles immigration attorney provide a free no obligation immigration consultation. speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
Recently arrived foreigners with fear to return to their home countries shall definitely be happy with the “last in, first out” policy as they will not have to wait for years in order to have their cases heard by an immigration officer. On the other side, applicants with already filed cases might have to wait for several years until their asylum interviews. Only time will show the effectiveness of the new policy for scheduling affirmative asylum interviews.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Determining fault in a multi-car accident is the biggest barrier to overcome in these types of accidents. From a factual perspective, determining causation can be tricky. In a case where a driver admits to being distracted and being the first car to rear-end another car in a line of cars, it may be appropriate to assign that driver 100% liability. Often times however, there are other factors at play including, bad weather conditions, driving to close to another vehicle, road construction, drunk driving, or aggressive driving. Thus, it is vital to speak with a car accident attorney that has experience with handling multi-car accident insurance claims.
When tailgating contributes to a multiple vehicle auto accident, all drivers who tailgated potentially shares some liability for causing injuries of occupants in vehicles that are ahead of the tailgating driver. The driver of the vehicle that collides with the car at the end of the chain likely has the greatest fault. On the other hand, if the driver of the car at the end had followed the next car at a greater distance, perhaps that driver’s car would not have been pushed into the car that he or she was following. Chain reaction accidents or multi car accident in a “stop and go” traffic scenario also create issues of comparative negligence. Generally, drivers are not held responsible for following another vehicle too closely when the vehicles in traffic are stopped, but if the chain reaction collision occurs while the cars are in motion, the legal notion of "comparative negligence"comes into play. If some cars are in motion but others are not, sorting out responsibility becomes a difficult task. If you were involved in an chain reaction or multi-auto accident call or contact our Glendale personal injury attorneys for a free consultation. We will fully review your case, answer any questions you may have, and explain the process as you move forward.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/output_HD72018.mp4"][/video]
In wrongful death cases, plaintiffs are the surviving family members of the decedent and can seek to recover economic damages. This includes financial support the decedent would have contributed to the family during the lifetime of the decedent or plaintiff. Also, loss of gifts or benefits that plaintiff would have expected to receive from decedent. Lastly, funeral/burial expenses reasonable value of household services that decedent would have provided to his or her loved ones. Additionally, the surviving family members may also seek non-economic damages. This includes loss of decedent’s love, companionship, loss of services, loss of support, comfort, care, assistance, protection, and moral support. Loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations and loss of decedent’s training and guidance are also real factors.
A survival cause of action in California can only be brought if the decedent did not pass from the injuries. If the deceased lived for a period between the accident and death, considering to file under survival cause of action. The representative of decedent's estate may seek to recover damages. This includes, “the loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived, and do not include damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement". If you and your family are considering filing either a wrongful death or survival action lawsuit, or both if the circumstances permit, we invite you to contact one of our Los Angeles personal injury attorneys today for a free consultation and case review. KAASS LAW has successfully represented victims in wrongful death and survival cause of actions.
This content is intended for educational purposes only. KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information, which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda, San Diego, La Jolla, El Cajon, Chula Vista, Del Mar
It is important to remember that a California business owner cannot represent themselves in a lawsuit as pro per, this is because in California, a California business that is facing a suit or wish to file a lawsuit against another must be represented by an attorney. Please review all the provisions in the contract to ensure you don't file a frivolous lawsuit against the other party. Often times contracts can be confusing and thus require the assistance of a business law or contract attorney. Breach of contract can occur in many different ways, such in business service contracts, employment contracts, or business partnership contracts. If you believe that another party did a breach in their terms or didn't fulfill the terms under a contract it is important to speak to a experienced business lawyer, to ensure you rights and remedies are protected.
Businesses can dissolve the entire or part of a company by engaging in the "winding up" or "dissolution" process. The winding up process is subject to a strict legal rights of its partners, as well as creditors and claimants. Terminating a California business, often times involves a "liquidation process", where the company begins to wind-up affairs, pay debts, and dissolve. Furthermore, there are special procedures for dissolving corporations that are undergoing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or have disposed of all assets, and not conducted any business for the last five years.
During the winding-up process is subject to strict legal rights of the shareholders, thus must be both "just and equitable" Thus, to ensure that all issues are considered and addressed appropriately, its is recommend to that you consult with California corporate attorney prior to submitting termination documents to the California Secretary of State. If you wish to dissolve or terminate your corporation, we invite you to contact our Glendale business corporate lawyers and discuss the proper legal steps you must take in order to property terminate your California corporation. Under California’s General Corporation law (“GCL”) shareholders holding shares with at least 50 percent of the voting power can voluntary elect to dissolve the corporation. It is important that you review your articles of incorporation and bylaws, and speak to a experienced Glendale business lawyer, to ensure that you are following the proper dissolution procedures specifically for your corporation. If a all members have approved that dissolution, your corporation continues to exist only for the purpose of taking care of final matters. As such, all board members have full power to wind up and settle the affairs of the corporation, including paying all known corporation debts and liabilities, and then distributing remaining assets, if any, to persons entitled to those assets.