Jacobs and Dodds is a business/labor law firm with offices in Orange County and Los Angeles County. Each partner has over 35 years of experience. The firm handles employment issues on behalf of employers, business litigation and business transactional matters for over 300 companies.
In Orange County call us at (949) 645-7300. In Los Angeles County call us at (424) 247-1195.
Business Law Firm of Jacobs & Dodds - Commercial Collections
The business law firm of Jacobs & Dodds specializes in handling the
collection needs of businesses seeking a commercial collection law firm with
time proven debt collection methods that are cost effective and efficient.
Using the latest technology in skip tracing and asset location, and backed by
in-house attorneys with over 30 years of commercial collection experience, our
firm is capable of handling claims from inception to post judgment.
The amount owed on each debt must exceed $50,000.
Call us today. (949) 645-7300.
Jacobs & Dodds performs the following services
for its Orange County business clients:
Did you know, that the older a delinquent commercial
account becomes, the more difficult it is to collect? Statistically, once
a delinquent account reaches 90 days, on average you can expect to collect only
about .75 on the dollar. At six months, you can expect to collect only
about .50 on the dollar. At nine months, typically the best you can
expect to collect is about .25 on the dollar. Don't wait any longer on
your commercial collections. Call us today.
Unless told otherwise, we assume you wish to maintain
a professional relationship with your customers or clients. We never
forget that how we pursue your overdue accounts can, and often does, reflect on
your reputation in your industry and in your community.
Employees who primarily work and reside in California cannot be required by employers to enter agreements that would put their claims in a non-California forum or generally litigate claims under law of another jurisdiction. Effective Jan. 1.
What it means: In a legal dispute between employee and employer, what happens in California has to stay in California. The bill forbids adjudication outside of California, including arbitration, for a claim arising in California.
With SB1241, a Texas-based company, for example, can no longer hold a California employee to the noncompetition rule or law in an employment contract that is based on Texas law.
The City of Los Angeles has a mandatory paid
sick leave (PSL) law which is part of its minimum wage ordinance and which
has been in effect since July 1, 2016 for employers with 26 or more
employees. The Los Angeles PSL ordinance will begin to apply to employers
with 25 or fewer employees on July 1, 2017. From an employer perspective, one of the
toughest challenges of these local PSL ordinances is that the rules can change
at any time. That is precisely what happened with Los Angeles’s ordinance when
the city recently revised the rules and regulations relating
to this ordinance. The city also revised its answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ). Some of these changes or clarifications are
important, providing information on topics such as: ·How to determine business size; ·How to pay employees for sick time; ·When an existing paid leave or paid time off
policy can satisfy the requirements of the ordinance; ·How to use the frontloading method during the
first year that the law applies to …
The case of Brown v. American Airlines, Inc., No. CV 10-8431-AG (PJWx), 2015 WL 6735217 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) concerns the dismissal of PAGA claims where the claims are based on numerous individualized issues that may render the case unmanageable.
PAGA allows “aggrieved employees” to bring representative actions against employers for civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other employees for violations of the Labor Code. To recover penalties, a PAGA plaintiff must prove an underlying Labor Code violation as to each allegedly aggrieved employee for each pay period for which the plaintiff seeks penalties. But to determine liability on the underlying Labor Code provisions, the court may need to adjudicate issues specific to each pay period for each allegedly aggrieved employee — which raises potentially significant manageability problems.
A plaintiff may be able to meet the burden of proof where the employee alleges an employer violated Labor Code section 226(a) by providi…