Commercial vehicle history reports like Carfax™ and Autocheck™ have grown in popularity in the last several years and are commonly given to customers who purchase used vehicles at dealerships. These reports, however, are also a source of problems for dealers. In fact, consumer attorneys attempt to admit vehicle history reports and the information contained in them into evidence in consumer lawsuits claiming the dealer failed to disclose prior damage and accident history. To help defend against such allegations, dealers should consider adopting a policy and setting internal procedures to effectively and provably disclose information to customers.
A relatively new trend in automotive marketing is “Ringless Voicemail” or “Direct to Voicemail” technology: instead of calling a potential customer and leaving a voicemail, a software system deposits a message directly onto the voicemail server of a recipient’s cell phone carrier. Vendors offering this service approach dealers with claims like “Voice Messages Sent Directly to Customer’s Smartphone: FCC Compliant; Do Not Call Compliant, Customer phone never rings!” However, regulators like the FCC or state attorney generals may not see this new technology as a legal method for contacting consumers who have not agreed to receive prerecorded messages.
Dealership asset sales commonly involve the termination by the seller of its employees at closing and the rehiring of the employees by the buyer. Depending on the number of affected employees, both federal and California law may impose prior notification requirements on the seller, failing which the seller could be hit with substantial financial damages and penalties.
With multiple allegations of sexual harassment against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein dominating headlines, employers may be wondering whether they are doing enough to protect themselves against liability for harassment—and their employees may be wondering whether they have valid claims to bring against them.
Every dealership is different, and every market is different. This truth has now also become a rallying cry for dealerships across the country as dealerships push back against sales effectiveness measures. These efforts are picking up steam, and now can serve as a strong argument against termination based exclusively or mostly on measures of sales effectiveness. In a new twist, though, three dealerships in New York have successfully challenged the use of sales effectiveness measures in incentive programs. This may signal a new battleground to fight overbearing factory demands.
Zealous advocacy may foreclose your ability to file a malicious prosecution action after successfully defending a lawsuit
Published on Fri, 10/20/2017 - 12:31am
You’ve successfully defended a lawsuit and obtained a jury verdict in your favor. You lean back, contemplate all of plaintiffs’ actions in the prior case, and think you’ve got a slam dunk malicious prosecution case, right? Not so fast.
Get an update on the current status of the CFPB arbitration rule. We explore several recent cases—all from California–that highlight various issues facing reliance on arbitration agreements. Dealers and their attorneys will face difficult decisions about how to move forward within the new CFPB rules and case guidance; this article highlights additional considerations that should be kept in mind over the next several months.
The Scali Law Firm is proud to participate as a Platinum Sponsor of this year's ADOMA mini conference. This full day of education and resource gathering is a great opportunity for dealers to connect with new and seasoned industry veterans, and be rejuvenated with new ideas, resources and peer support insight.
A split shift is a work schedule set by the employer that includes a block of unpaid time of more than one hour (other than a bona fide meal period) that occurs between two work periods. For example, a split shift would occur for a day in which the employer schedules an employee to work from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. and then again at 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.
We previously reported on the Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro case, in which federal courts have grappled with the issue of whether dealership service advisors fall within a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that exempts from overtime employees in certain dealership sales positions. The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will once again review the case, which will hopefully resolve the conflicting court rulings.