He is a coward and his firm is a total clown show. What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction? In Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, the court discussed the standard for whether a statement concerned a matter of public interest. The court also found that the statements pertained to matters of public interest. He has employees calling in sick one day a week and (he hears from other employees) going to the mall together. Lets hope they still exist as they now ten years from now. Please read all the reviews. In that review, Doe 3 stated, Philip Layfleld, the managing partner, is the main con and the cause of all the firms problems; Layfield mocks and insults every person in the firm; Layfield screams during meetings because nothing is ever good enough; [t]his causes huge turnover and leads to cases just sitting and gathering dust; 90% of my coworkers were miserable and planning on leaving as soon as possible; and all the cases are a mess. (Complaint, 8. BAD BOSS. In that review, Doe 11 stated I worked for Layfield & Barrett (more than 10 years); that employees [l]earn how to lose cases; [i]f you last longer than six months you will need a PSTD (sic) evaluation; plaintiffs condone Sexual Harassment, Racism Bait and switch, Abuse; Layfield is a sociopath and c-c-c-crazy!!! Send your resume to.no wait sorry thats our recruitment ad Im reading. Are you any longer? A claim for false light invasion of privacy requires a showing of a false, unprivileged publication that exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure person in his occupation. Instead, they provided information as to plaintiffs business and were intended to warn other potential employees about employment with plaintiffs. in the meantime, employees are writing reviews on Google. http://lawandmore.typepad.com/law_and_more/2016/05/anonymous-posting-will-there-be-a-layfield-barrett-effect.html, http://speechwriting-ghostwriting.typepad.com/speechwriting_ghostwritin/2016/05/glassdoor-will-layfield-barrett-subpoena-scare-off-employees-from-ranting.html. We will not give any further comments until the case is over. I wish the reporter would have done more due diligence so Phil didnt manipulate him into thinking he was the victim. I would scrutinize any statement he makes verbally or on his website. The Court DENIES the motion as to the following statements: The motion is GRANTED as to the other alleged statements, and the Court strikes these statements from the complaint. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injury him in his occupation. [Citation.] (Wiseman & Reese, Cal.
Plaintiffs provide evidence suggesting that plaintiffs have suffered harm as a result of these statements. C.). And here at Techdirt. He constantly throws fits and yells for his puppets Rita! Todd! Andy! like the wimp that he is. In the opposition, plaintiffs raise the issue of the commercial speech exemption under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17. Therefore, plaintiffs fail to make a prima facie showing to support their second cause of action. . I am surprised the CA Bar has not monitored his website. The link is from a court website that might not be up too long. And why should the taxpayers pay to hear them blame the Internet and a free speech outlet for their hiring incompetence? the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative. Prac. There is no showing that plaintiffs cannot seek injunctive relief based on these claims. In addition to the demeaning nature with which Layfield addresses his former employees, the aggrandizing tone with which he describes his own firm, and his silly labeling of Glassdoor as a hate forum, he does us all a service by outlining his desire to have employers act every bit as vindictively towards former employees as he complains about in reverse. And doesnt the flagrant hypocrisy in their position tell you everything you need to know about the accuracy of the posts on glassdoor? Sign in now. The Court notes that the declarations suggest that both of these employees have worked for plaintiffs for less than a year. As stated above, plaintiffs provide evidence that they have suffered monetary injuries as a result of the statements. This is Phil Pesins way of starting fresh. In that review, Doe 12 stated that Layfield is incompetent and plaintiffs have people in place that are clearly not qualified for the job. (Complaint, 17.). We cannot verify who wrote these and if they were, in fact, employees and yet, somehow, only these reviews stay up. The motion to strike the second cause of action for false advertising is GRANTED as to all defendants. Typically you will hear complaints from companies being reviewed negatively about these anonymous reviews being unfair, untrue, or ginned up by a limited number of ex-employees. Do yourself a favor and dont work for this clown show. (See Complaint, Exh. The reviews also could have been helpful to consumers considering doing business with plaintiff.
The majority of these posts contain blatantly false information. How about Lay bat effect? But well, considering your rant, I wouldnt expect you to learn anything from this experience. Because he needs reliable coverage, he reduced their schedule. As an initial matter, the Court disregards plaintiffs argument that defendants may not proceed as Doe defendants. If not, the claim is stricken. Thats usually the end of it. As indicated above, plaintiffs fail to make a prima facie showing to support their cause of action for false advertising. (See Compl., 30-32.) For instance, the statement made by Doe 10 that You get to work for a guy who changed his name to outrun his past might appear to be an assertion of fact. I am also taken by the fact that Babs Streisand is taking this portion of her fame so equanimouslyI mean, she did freak out over her house being filmed and now is part of a meme of Internets proportions, and in a less than favorable way. In determining whether a statement is actionable opinion, we examine the totality of the circumstances, starting with the language of the allegedly defamatory statement itself. Maybe hes on to something when he talks about the younger generation being lazy and incompetent, The same way that Glassdoor operates as a hate forum for disgruntled employees, employers have a right to know information about job applicants. 2008), 779, p. 196 [citing Khoury, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. Plaintiffs alternatively argue that the predicate bad acts underlying the UCL cause of action are Does defamatory statements. [Citation.] Thats the difference between a human being and an entity and privacy being a human right, for starters. The dispositive question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the published statements imply a provably false factual assertion. (Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1048.) at p. [A] plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited. (Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539, 548.
Here is the entire judges preliminary ruling you dont need to post it. These declarations are not sufficient to support a reasonable determination that the allegations of abusive behavior are false.). We will never EVER pay or work with this SCAM company!. (Bus. Plaintiffs Objections to the Untimely Declaration of Robert A. Leonard, Ph.D is DENIED as MOOT, because the Court did not rely on this declaration in its decision. Just delegates work tasks and doesnt get his hands dirty. A publication must contain a false statement of fact to give rise to liability for defamation. [Citations.] See also Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 941, 950; Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, 41) Because the alleged statements were made on publicly accessible website, they were made in a public forum. Nope, no possible way they could be in any way, shape or form even remotely accurate, I mean come on, does he sound like the sort of person that might explode in your face if he had a bad day and/or was faced with criticism?
] [Citation.] . It must next be determined whether the alleged statements concerned an issue of public interest. Unfortunately, most employers are too busy to spend time posting negative information about former employees on job sites, although that would probably do a lot of good for society. People need to realize that just because you are sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, you cant break the law.
(See Wakefield Decl., 1; Mims Decl., 1.) I wonder what laws he thinks these people have broken by writing negatively about his firm. In context, this is clearly not a statement that Layfield has not passed the bar or that he is hiring, e.g., paralegals to pose as attorneys. The same way that Glassdoor operates as a hate forum for disgruntled employees, employers have a right to know information about job applicants. The court does not weigh credibility [nor] compare the weight of the evidence. ! (Complaint, 16 and Exh. As somebody in a jurisdiction who cannot be sued for defaming a company . greatly damaged employee morale [p]eople quit or get fired on a daily basis You get to work for a guy who changed his name to outrun his past Layfield stiff[s] young attorneys on pay and then leaves them with a crap resume and no job reference Employees [l]earn how to lose cases If you last longer than six months you will need a PSTD (sic) evaluation; Layfield is a sociopath and c-c-c-crazy!!! Maybe their customers should reconsider the price they are paying if these guys are such fuckups they cant even do new-hire due diligence right. 1146.) Plaintiffs first cause of action for violation of the UCL is premised on defendants alleged false advertising. If the court determines that relief is sought based on allegations arising from activity protected by the statute, the second step is reached. Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. One of the main traits of those factors is that they are subjective in their nature. Or scroll down this one about Phil Layfield he was the CEO and owner of a bio pharma company Auriga under the name Phil Pesin. They want a life outside of it too, and from what youre hinting, you want people working 35 hours a day, 10 days a week. Proc., 425.16(e)(3), (4).). Especially the latter, since the nebula resulting from a nova is reminiscent of the spreading of a really good Streisand. The critical consideration is what the cause of action is based on. (Id. (2) The intended audience is an actual or potential buyer or customer, or a person likely to repeat the statement to, or otherwise influence, an actual or potential buyer or customer, or the statement or conduct arose out of or within the context of a regulatory approval process, proceeding, or investigation, except where the statement or conduct was made by a telephone corporation in the course of a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission and is the subject of a lawsuit brought by a competitor, notwithstanding that the conduct or statement concerns an important public issue. (Code Civ. ), [A]n action may not be dismissed under this statute if the plaintiff has presented admissible evidence that, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a cause of action against the defendant. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 729.) He has a personal past that is very interesting. Years ago, there were a couple of high-visibility lawsuits involving this (where the comments the former employer made were part of an active effort to make sure the employees could never be hired by anybody for vindictive reasons. Then again, perhaps shrewdly earning 7+ figure income really does something to ones own common sense. ), Defendants argue that the statements were protected because they were made on the internet (a public forum) and concerned an issue of public interest. Companies: glassdoor, layfied & barrett, layfied & wallace. Proc., 425.17(c). (Compl., 1-2.) or those that are sick at least one day every week.
