Kerry L. Duffy

American Heart Association Retained Bartko Pavia To Represent It For Charity Family Trust

American Heart Association retained BartkoZankel to represent it in connection with a Trust which provided gifts to family members and three charities.  The family members claimed they should be entitled to the entire Trust, valued at $13.5 million.  In December 2011, Ben Riley and Kerry Duffy obtained an Order from the court granting the charities’ petition for distribution of approximately $8.5 million to the Charities, and $5 million to the relatives.  Thereafter, during the relatives’ appeal, the parties resolved the case to provide for immediate distributions to the Charities.

Bartko Pavia Secures Major Victory In Kalamas v. John Muir Health

Luzann Fernandez, Patrick Ryan, Chad DeVeaux, Kerry Duffy, and Lisa Ferguson secured a major victory in Kalamas v. John Muir Health. The Bartko Pavia team filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike substantial portions of the plaintiff-doctor’s 800-plus-page Complaint against our clients John Muir Health and Calvin Knight, and two other defendants.  The Complaint seeks significant damages for employment retaliation, infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract.  In support of these claims, the Complaint targeted statements made during medical peer-review proceedings and academic critiques of medical protocols and scientific theories proposed by the plaintiff.  Finding that these allegations targeted core speech and petition activities protected by the First Amendment, the California Constitution, and Civil Code § 47(b)’s litigation privilege, the Court granted Bartko’s motion, striking the plaintiff’s emotional distress and contract claims in their entirety, dramatically limiting the scope of her retaliation claims, and dismissing all the claims against the three remaining defendants.  Please see the attached November 9, 2022 Order here. This sets up a motion for attorneys’ fees against a wealthy individual. This victory comes on the heals of a win in the Peterson v. Sutter Med. Found., No. 3:21-cv-04908-WHO, 2022 WL 2869531 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2022)—an important anti-SLAPP decision decided last July in a case handled by Michael Abraham, Steve Steinberg, and Chad DeVeaux, leveraging Chad’s and Patrick’s prior anti-SLAPP work in numerous other cases.  Patrick and Chad are leading practitioners in anti-SLAPP jurisprudence, having collectively prevailed in over 25 such motions across their career and working on some of the most important cases, including at the California Supreme Court level.  In fact, this recent victory marked a “hat trick” for Bartko, as this was the third anti-SLAPP victory of the year.

COVID-19 Laws and Regulations Update For 2021

In a surprising turn of events this week, Congress did not extend the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) past December 31, 2020.  This means that employers will not be required to provide FFCRA leave in 2021.  Rather, employers have the option of voluntarily providing FFCRA leave past the expiration date, in which case they may continue to take advantage of FFCRA tax credits through March 31, 2021 for qualifying FFCRA leave.  There is no change to the amount of leave available to employees – meaning, if an employer chooses to offer FFCRA leave into 2021, but an employee has already exhausted their FFCRA leave in 2020, that employee is not eligible for any additional FFCRA leave.  Please also be aware that California’s Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Act (“CSPSL”) is also set to expire on December 31, 2020 because its deadline is tied to that of the FFCRA.  However, any employee who is on CSPSL leave as of December 31 is permitted to take their full leave, even if this would cause the CSPSL leave to extend past the expiration date.  Employers who elect not to extend FFCRA leave into 2021 should remove any employee notice posters regarding that leave (or if applicable, the notice poster for CSPSL leave), update any written policies, and communicate these policy changes to employees.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction against ABD Insurance and Financial Services denied again

On August 28, 2014, United States District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton again denied the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Wells Fargo against BartkoZankel client ABD Insurance and Financial Services (the “ABD Team”). Wells Fargo alleges that the ABD Team is infringing the ABD trademark that Wells Fargo acquired when it merged the former ABD Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. into its Wells Fargo Insurance Services subsidiary. In March 2013, the ABD Team defeated Wells Fargo’s first motion for preliminary injunction based on arguments that Wells Fargo abandoned the ABD trademark in 2009, when it failed to renew its federal trademarks to the term ABD, instructed its employees to no longer use the ABD name, and thereafter stopped using the name. The ABD Team started using the ABD name in July 2012. The Ninth Circuit reversed on the abandonment issue and remanded the case back to the trial court. 

Court Denies Wells Fargo’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Case

On March 8, 2013, United States District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton entered an Order Denying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Wells Fargo Bank against BartkoZankel client, The ABD Team.  The case concerns Wells Fargo’s claim that the ABD Team is infringing the ABD trademark that Wells Fargo acquired when it merged the former ABD Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. into its Wells Fargo Insurance Services subsidiary.  The ABD Team asserts that Wells Fargo abandoned the ABD trademark in 2009, when it failed to renew its federal trademarks to the term ABD, instructed its employees to no longer use the ABD name, and thereafter stopped using the name.  The ABD Team started using the ABD name in July 2012.