CALSPro - California Association of Legal Support Professionals

California Supreme Court Ruling And How It Impacts Our Industry

Posted May 22, 2018 in Legislation

By Chad Barger

In case you haven’t heard, there is big news in the California Supreme Court regarding their decision on April 30th, 2018, in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court regarding independent contractors. The court issued a ruling that makes it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors. The previous standard used for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors had been in place since the 1980’s and was based upon a multifactor test that considered, among other factors, the worker’s abilities, the method of payment, and the level of control exercised over the worker.

The new standard adopted by the Supreme Court requires businesses to establish three factors to properly classify a worker as an independent contractor, otherwise known as “the ABC test.”This decision greatly expands the definition of “employee” under California law:

1. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under contract for the performance of such work and in fact; and
2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed by the hiring entity.

So, what was the change that affected us?

Section “B” was changed to read:

B. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. Meaning, that to be deemed an independent contractor, the “IC” cannot perform the same services the hiring entity does. So, if you’re a process serving company and you use independent contractors to serve your process, you must now classify them as employees.

Per the Court’s ruling, workers in California are presumed to be employees and, therefore, are accorded the myriad of protections they enjoy, and it’s the employer’s burden to satisfy the three “ABC” factors to lawfully classify the worker as an independent contractor instead of an employee. The court’s example stated that a plumber hired by a retail store to repair a bathroom leak is not performing work that is part of the store’s usual business and would, therefore, be considered an independent contractor of that store. However, seamstresses sewing at home using materials provided by a clothing manufacturer would probably be considered employees of the manufacturer. If a worker should properly be classified as an employee, the employer bears the responsibility for paying federal Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurances taxes and state employment taxes, providing workers’ compensation insurance, and complying with federal and California regulations governing the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees.

If you haven’t already done so, I would recommend all businesses consult with legal counsel to determine your path forward. These are new and crazy times in California, but you can always rely on CALSPro to provide you with the issues that matter to you. To borrow a phrase from my local news channel, “We report, you decide.”

SEE RULING

Legislative Committee Update

Posted February 1, 2018 in Legislation

By Chad Barger, Chairman

Since my last update, things have started to move on the legislative landscape.

Amended Hours

The committee has submitted a request to amend the hours of service on CCP 1011(b) services.  The proposed amendment is to expand the hours for service on a pro se party by leaving a copy with anyone, other than the party, at his or her residence between the hours of 7 AM and 9 PM.  Our logic is, if all adult residents work during normal business hours, they are often out the door before 8 AM and do not return from work until after 6 PM.  The proposed amendment simply widens the window to effect serving notice to the pro se party by leaving the documents with someone else if he or she is not present.

Obstruction of Justice Language

We are also beginning the work of crafting language on the obstruction of justice front.  Over 18 states have laws that prohibit anyone from interfering with a process server while performing his/her duties.  We’re reviewing each state’s laws and will begin the task of finding a place in an existing law or the creation of a new law, where we can submit language that will assist process servers throughout the state.

Photocopy Improvements

On the photocopy front, Tom Alkema and the committee are making headway in the endeavor to bring existing evidence and civil codes into the 21^st century. Keep an eye out for future updates.

I speak for the entire committee when I say, that we are proud to be a part of this process and look forward to the continued effort to make the process serving, photocopy and court filing professions better, through smart, helpful and useful legislative avenues.

Two Ideas To Resolve The Issue Of The ROI

Posted January 23, 2018 in Photocopy

By Tom Alkema, Ronsin 

The Troubling Existence Of The ROI

Over the past couple of years much has been discussed in the halls of CALSPro about the increase in the number of third party companies that are being hired to manage and release the records we seek to obtain for our clients.  These hired companies are called by a few different names with release of information being the most common, or ROI.

We all have varying opinions about the place and role these ROI entities have taken as we are forced to deal with them while in the process of getting records. Within this spectrum of experiences some are finding the existence of the ROI company a nuisance while others are feeling that the existence of their very own business is being placed in jeopardy.

What I think most of us see as troubling is that, when hired by an attorney to obtain records, either by signed authorization or by subpoena, the existing laws appoint us as the one who should copy the records. When using a signed authorization, the point is clearly made in Evidence Code 1158 (b), (c) and when a subpoena has been issued in Code of Civil Procedures 2020.430 (e), and then over to Evidence Code 1560 (e).

So what is a photocopy company to do in the wake of this ongoing development and the growing presence of the ROI industry?

I personally see a couple of options and approaches to the issue, both of which I hope all of us can unite around and enact so as to remain viable and to better serve our clients.

Hold Them To The Law

First, regardless of how records exist or how your client wants them produced, study up on the code sections above and hold the custodian and or ROI entity to the law, or as close to as possible. Demand an itemized receipt and do not pay for things that are not permitted by law. Educate your clients that these nickels and dimes they are paying are only increasing their bottom line costs.  You and they are in the right — so hold your ground.

This first point is so crucial. Too many clients just authorize us to pay the illegal and excessive costs for expediency and are not understanding that paying a nickel more today becomes a dime tomorrow, then a quarter, and then a dollar.  Lets all work to get our clients to say no to any more over charges.

Add Value For Your Client

Second, regardless of how you obtained the records, strive to add value to what you produce for your client.  Here are some ways:

• Improve the packaging
• Perk up the way the records are organized
• Add features to an electronic record that enables the client to do things that they cannot do with paper or that were not there when handed to you from the custodian
• Store them in an easily retrievable platform with repeat access at a fair cost

The quality and uniqueness of your product validates your existence and creates a reason for your client to use your services.

Be more than just a fulfillment center, be a resource that fights for your client and one that adds value to the delivered product.

May we all approach this issue in the same way and experience great successes this year.

Legislative Committee Report

Posted December 21, 2017 in Legislation

by Chad Barger, Chairman

At the beginning of November, the Legislative committee began meeting to discuss a potential legislative agenda for 2018. After lengthy discussions, we narrowed our focus to the following items that were approved by the Board of Directors at the December 2^nd board meeting in San Jose, California:

• Obstruction of Justice ‐ Review existing statutes and/or begin to draft language to make it a crime for interfering or obstructing civil process — along with potential penalties.
• CRC 2.257(a) ‐ Develop language to allow eSignatures and how to affix an eSignature — along with the requirement to store the original signed document.
• Limited Liability Company ‐ Codifying a manner of service into the CCP 416 section for service of an LLC, perhaps grafting or cross‐referencing Corp. Code sec. 17701.16.
• CCP 1011(b) ‐ Expanding the hours of service on a person, other than a pro se party, at the litigant’s home, currently from 8 AM to 6 PM, and lengthening the hours from 7 AM to 9 PM

The Board also approved CALSPro’s membership for 2018 in the Coalition for Improving Court Access (CICA).  The coalition has been instrumental in addressing the issues with eFiling and eService since 2015 and we’re happy to have a seat at the table.

The committee is excited about the agenda and has already started working on several of the items.  I look forward to updating you on our progress in the months to come.

SB863: How It Affected The Copy Service…

Posted November 7, 2017 in Photocopy

By James Williams, CEO of Devoted Attorney Services

SB863, although it was drafted in 2011, there were several key parts of the bill that changed the Copy Services industry.  Independent Bill Review (IBR), Lien Filing Fees, and the Copy Service Fee Schedule.  These three components of the bill will drastically change the way an Applicant Copy Service gets paid for Copy Related Services and how they operate.

Reading the proposed language, going to public meetings prior to these changes was a daunting battle.

The DWC website states the fee schedule will help copy services get paid faster. 

From the start of the fee schedule my company experienced a financial hardship from the reduction in billing.  The timeliness of payments did not improve, we experienced an increase in objections for copy related services.  The effect was not only a loss in income, but a loss in profits due to the increased cost of doing business.

The Copy Service Fee Schedule, Sections 9980, 9981, 9982, 9983, 9984, 9990, 9992, 9994, and 10208.7.  took effect July 1, 2015.

The fee schedule now puts a flat rate fee to copy related services.

Although 9983 (a) states and lists what is included in the flat rate, there are some minor exceptions that allow a Copy Service to bill for additional items.  The fee schedule regulates how much to charge for additional sets of records based on when they were requested.  There is also a flat fee for Certificate of No Records.  The biggest strain the fee schedule put on copy services is the Request of Information Services (ROI) be included as part of the flat rate.

9981, Bills for Copy Services, explains the information that must be presented on every invoice.  Bills for copy services must specify services provided and include a very specific list of items.  Software vendors, programmers, over the counter programs, whichever you use to generate your invoice, will now need to be modified to include these items.  New line item Billing Codes for services were created and listed in this section and must be incorporated into the invoices as well.

Each invoice must include a statement that there was no violation of Labor Code section 139.32 with respect to the services described.  If the invoice is missing any of these items, it allows the claims administrator to object or subject your invoice to Bill Review, prolonging invoices from getting paid in a timely manner.

Another key part of the Fee Schedule is what is defined as Allowable Services (9982).  9982 defines what your allowed to order and when.  This section allows the claims administrator 30 days to provide records in their possession.  Request must be in writing by the injured worker or his or her authorized representative prior to sending a copy service to subpoena the records.  This doesn’t mean that the injured worker cannot order the records, but it’s clear that “There will be no payment for copy related services” if you don’t follow these guidelines.

9982(e) states what the claims administrator is not liable for payment of certain invoices.  This section is key because they define what they consider duplicative.  It does not mean the attorney cannot reorder that same location of records, but they will be required to set forth “good cause for seeking duplicate records.”  They also define good cause to be new counsel or loss or destruction of the records due to natural disaster.  These are issues that would open the door for objections to invoices and invoices not getting paid in a timely manner.

Independent Bill Review (IBR), described in SB863 defines what Medical Legal expenses qualify and what disputes fall into this category.  It is costly to go through the IBR process and only billing disputes can be resolved through this process.  9792.5.5. will explain what forms and documents will be needed as part of your packet for filing the review.

For Non IBR issues you can file a Petition for Medical Legal Disputes under section 14051.1. which there is no fee for, but you must meet all the criteria to qualify.  Although filing liens is optional after SB863, these options to me are better ways to resolve the billing disputes.  Again, following the new regulations, having all the items under 9981, follow the fee schedule and you shouldn’t have any billing disputes.

In conclusion SB863 changed the way we operate, bill and collect as a copy service.

Recent Judicial Assignment Changes – LA County

Posted September 24, 2014 in Conference, Education, Membership

Los Angeles Superior Court Notices To Attorneys
Public Information Office
Website: www.lasuperiorcourt.org
E-mail Address: PublicInfo@LASuperiorcourt.org

Please see attached Details regarding the recent judicial assignment changes at several branch and divisions in the Los Angeles county court system.

 Probate Division Judicial Changes In Effect Sept. 15 At Mosk Courthouse

 Central Civil West Courthouse Announces Complex Litigation Judicial Changes

Family Law Judicial Assignment Change At Mosk

Probate Division Makes Bench Officer  Changes At Mosk Courthouse

Downey Courthouse Reassigns Felony, Traffic, Misdemeanor & Infraction Cases Probate Division Makes Bench Officer  Changes At Mosk Courthouse

STATEMENT FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Posted June 24, 2014 in Conference, Education, Membership

Los Angeles Superior Court News Release
Public Information Office
Website: www.lasuperiorcourt.org
E-mail Address: PublicInfo@LASuperiorcourt.org

STATEMENT FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
PRESIDING JUDGE DAVID S. WESLEY
REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 TRIAL COURT BUDGET 

Over the past weeks, courts across the state have made clear to the legislature that the level of court funding proposed in the Governor’s May Revision will result in further declines in access to justice across the state. Yet that is the level of funding that is in the budget that Governor Jerry Brown signed today.

United States Bankruptcy Court – Public Notices

Posted June 3, 2014 in Education, Legislation, Membership

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – PUBLIC NOTICES

• RE: REVISED RELIEF FROM STAY FORMS EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 2014
• RE: CHANGES TO FEDERAL COURT MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2014

Bank of America – Notice of Change of Designated Centeralized Location

Posted May 9, 2014 in Education, Legislation, Membership

Bank of America, N.A.’s Notice of Change of Designated Centralized Location for Valid Service of Civil Levies and Other Legal Process (AB 2364)

Download Notice:

UPDATE ON AB 2286

Posted April 29, 2014 in Legislation

UPDATE ON AB 2286

AB 2286 – This is a bill introduced by Assembly Member Wagner and sponsored by CALSPro. To quote the bill, “This law would remove oversight of the registration of process servers from the counties and place it within the State Bar of California.”

The bill was moving through the Assembly Judiciary Committee, with the first hearing scheduled for April 26, 2014. Unexpected and unanticipated opposition has recently been expressed by the California Supreme Court. After discussions with the court, CALSPro will be asking Assembly Member Wagner to withdraw the bill.

Discussions will continue within CALSPro regarding our registration with the possibility of new legislation being submitted in 2015.

More information will be available at the next CALSPro Board of Directors meeting, scheduled for June 21, 2014 in Sacramento.

Steven C. Janney
For the Legislative Committee