Silldorf and Levine Blog

The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act came into effect on December 19, 2008. The Act was passed to reduce the number of childhood deaths from drowning in pools. Associations must be aware of the Act because it requires every pool within a Common Interest Development (CID) to meet very specific standards outlined in the Act. The Act is a federal law, so this means CIDs in every state must comply with it regardless of the requirements set by the current laws in their state.

Although there are clearly good intentions behind the creation of the Act, compliance has been more difficult than anticipated. Confusion over the precise requirements of the Act and difficulty obtaining pool components which comply with the Act have led many Associations to miss the December 19, 2008 compliance deadline. If your Association believes it may have pools which still do not comply with the Act, prompt action should be taken.

It is essential for Associations to remain updated on important laws such as this one. Please contact Silldorf & Levine, LLP if you have questions about current laws which affect your CID.

On June 29th, the California Supreme Court gave employees an alternative route to challenging their employer’s violations of the Labor Code. For employees seeking civil penalties from their employers under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), there is no longer a need to obtain class certification. Class certification is needed when there is a large group of employees suing their employer for similar Labor Code violations in a lawsuit called a “class action.” Class certification had been a significant obstacle for plaintiffs in many lawsuits filed against employers. In an area of law where traditionally employers have the upper hand, this ruling is extremely helpful to employees seeking to recover lost wages and penalties from their employer. Examples of a few Labor Code violations include: unpaid overtime, withholding of meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay final paychecks in a timely manner after employee termination.
The Supreme Court simultaneously ruled, however, that employees attempting to bring Unfair Competition Lawsuits, another common claim against employers, must obtain class certification. This ruling is more advantageous to employers because the ruling allows employers to dismiss a lawsuit based on the lack of class action qualification.
In sum, employees were dealt a significant advantage against employers for Labor Code violations. Averting the class certification process may prevent an employee’s lawsuit from being dismissed. In our opinion, this ruling is a major victory for the employees we represent.

The Board of Directors of a homeowner’s association may hold both regular meetings and executive sessions. At a regular meeting, any member is permitted to attend and speak. Executive sessions, however, are usually limited to Board members and are called to discuss litigation, contract matters with third parties, member discipline, or upon a member’s request regarding the member’s payment of an assessment.
For a regular board meeting, an agenda of the topics and issues to be discussed must be provided to the members of the association. The Board cannot discuss, decide, or act on any issue that is not included in the agenda. An association member who is not on the Board may, however, raise an issue that is not on the agenda. If an association member does raise an issue not on the agenda, the Board has a few options: 1. briefly respond to statements or questions posited by the speaker; 2. ask a question for clarification; 3. make a brief announcement; or 4. draft a brief report on his or her own activities to respond to the speaker.
There is an exception to this rule that allows the Board to make a decision on an issue not included on the agenda. If a majority of the Board in attendance at the meeting (two-thirds is considered a majority) determines that the issue raised is: 1. an emergency, 2. the emergency was unforeseeable by the Board, and 3. that the emergency requires immediate action, the Board can make a decision or take action on the issue.
As for an executive session, the current statutory language is equivocal as to whether an agenda is required. To avoid possible litigation for violating the governing statute, a Board of Directors should err on the side of caution and create an agenda for an executive session. If an agenda is not drafted, the Board can also follow the emergency procedures listed above to ensure compliance with the governing statute.
If there are any questions or concerns involving Board of Director meetings and an association member’s right to be heard, feel free to contact Silldorf & Levine.