AttorneyAtLawMagWebSite(1)

In May 2012, Mitchell (“Mitch”) Resnick and Lena M. Louis left a well-respected, mid-size law firm with three other attorneys, two paralegals and one legal secretary to embark on the monumental task of opening their own firm: Resnick & Louis, P.C. Just eight months later, the firm has grown to sixteen attorneys and associated support staff, practicing civil litigation in six different states in the Southwest, West Coast and Mountain West in a variety of practice areas, including construction, insurance defense litigation, environmental, first party property analysis, business and corporate law, commercial litigation and transactional, real estate, gaming, general liability, domestic relations, and labor and employment. Offices are located in Scottsdale, Orange County, Riverside, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Denver and Albuquerque. “When I look back on the past year I could not be more amazed by what we have accomplished,” says Jennifer Boldi, an associate in the firm’s Scottsdale and Irvine offices who came with Resnick and Louis from their prior firm. “We’ve been incredibly fortunate to have had many of our clients rally to our side, and the success we’ve accomplished in such a short time was really made possible through the blood, sweat and tears of the incredible team we have.” Resnick adds, “It’s nice to also have great new insurance companies and clients who trust us to get the job done in many places.”

Experience and Diversity

Resnick and Louis have almost 40 years of experience as attorneys. Resnick is a recognized leader in the insurance defense and construction communities and has been designated as panel counsel for more than a dozen insurance companies for general liability, construction, and environmental matters; being lead counsel on large exposure cases in different jurisdictions; has handled more than

There’s a discordant, significant difference between a motor carrier’s liability and insurance policy’s coverage for damaged or lost freight. There are a number of reasons you should not accept a claim denial so quickly. Investigate, hire a marine surveyor to document and appraise damage and then consider a Transportation Attorney to work through the denial. Every driver has a cellphone capable of taking pictures to prove the condition of cargo at the pick-up and delivery points. It can’t always be done – sometimes drivers are kept off the dock by the shipper, but the smart driver can manage to inspect and that’s the best proof for exoneration. If the cargo has been pre-loaded and sealed, the driver must note the seal number with counter-signatures on his papers, which significantly limits the driver’s responsibility, often but not always.   Reason: Inadequate Documentation to the Motor Carrier or Its Insurer You need to supply the POD, initial billing document from seller to buyer and other relevant documents such as dispatch or order confirmation.   Reason: Failure to Mitigate Damages Motor Carrier liability under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, which controls interstate cargo and pre-empts just about every potential state claim for cargo loss, is limited to the actual measure of damage (often wholesale price). You, if you are the beneficial cargo owner (“BCO”) might have the responsibility of having the cargo repaired, or selling it at a discount for salvage value, or returning it to the supplier for inspection and credit. If the cargo moved under a contract that itself pre-empted Carmack limitations on damages, the cargo may be subject to additional damages of lost profit, or consequential damages. For a Carmack-type claim, you’ll need a copy of the original purchase invoice, the itemized repair bill or new sales

Will the number of cases appearing before probate judges increase dramatically in the next several years – specifically estate and trust disputes as well as fiduciary cases?  The answer is “yes” according to Kenneth J. Peace, head of the litigation group at Braun Siler Kruzel, PC in Scottsdale, Arizona. In an article titled “A Call to Mediate,” (Trusts & Estates, July 2007), Mr. Peace makes this assertion based upon the aging of baby boomers, the rising number of millionaire households, a generation of children born from 1979 to 1994 labeled as the “Entitlement Generation,” and a plethora of new litigators eager to profit from family disputes.  Mr. Pease posits that the effect of this trend will be to overwhelm the court system, leading to even longer settlement times than currently seen and overburdened and possibly less attentive judges. An Alternative to Litigation Litigation is often long, all-consuming, divisive, and potentially very expensive.  Mr. Peace, through his article, suggests an alternative to the litigation process – mediation.  Mediation offers family members an opportunity for conflict resolution without the negatives of the litigation process. It is a process in which a neutral third party acts as a facilitator to assist in dispute resolution.  According to Ray D. Madoff, (“Mediating Probate Disputes: A Study of Court Sponsored Programs,” Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, Winter 2004) “Attorneys and judges operating within jurisdictions in which mediation of probate disputes regularly occurs are quite enthusiastic about it.” Mediation is not the same thing as arbitration. Arbitration involves submitting a dispute to one (sometimes more) impartial persons, who then render a final binding decision, often in the form of an “award” to one side or the other.  In essence, the arbitrator takes on the role of the judge. Who Can Mediate? Mr. Peace states in

With all due respect to Ed Bruce, who wrote that song and to Willie for singing it with Waylon, the title of this message is meant as a reminder to all drivers and trucking companies that now is the time we can contest all DOT violations cited in a civil traffic or criminal complaint

As we all know, the FMCSA proposes to adopt regulations that prohibit motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries from coercing drivers from operating commercial motor vehicles in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)—including drivers’ HOS limits, CDL regulations, ill and fatigued driving, inclement weather, drug and alcohol testing and Haz-Mat regulations (HMRs).[1] But what we are already seeing – and which has vastly increased the liability exposure of motor carriers and other entities in interstate commerce – is the sudden increase in driver (and “employee”) claims of retaliation under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. Claim filings are up about 30% in the last few years. Transportation intermediaries and motor carriers – the entire spectrum of entities involved in interstate cargo movement, such as third-party logistics firms, leasing agents, forwarders and freight brokers – are exposed to liability under the STAA – the “anti-retaliatory” provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, based on perceived or actual “control” over “employees.” Under the STAA, the definition of employee is broadly interpreted to include a driver of a commercial motor vehicle, including an independent contractor, or a mechanic, a freight handler, or an individual who is not an employer who directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety or security in the course of employment by a commercial motor carrier.  The term includes any individual formerly performing the work or an applicant for such work. Any such entity can be an employer because of the apparent degree of control the company has over the “employee.” Even the appearance that you can influence the disciplining of another company’s employee has become sufficient evidence of the requisite degree of control – think of a freight broker pushing a motor carrier’s driver to meet an appointment – and that’s enough for