Norman H. Pine

SHERMAN OAKS - Norman H. Pine's three-attorney appellate shop with his wife Beverly T. Pine and stepson Scott L. Tillett focuses chiefly on employment law cases. Norman Pine has been counsel or co-counsel of record in nine defining state Supreme Court cases involving employment or civil rights law.

That streak of important outcomes includes a major ruling on the comparative fault doctrine. It came when the high court reversed a Court of Appeal panel and held that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department had to pay an $8 million jury award over excessive force and restraint in the death of a handcuffed Black man, Darren Burley.

The Burley case won a 2021 Daily Journal CLAY award for Pine and his appellate team. B.B. v. County of Los Angeles, 10 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. S. Ct., op. filed Aug. 10, 2020).

"We're busy, and there's another eight-figure case newly in the works," Pine said in late August.

In May, Pine obtained affirmance of a $58 million judgment, including $50 million in punitive damages, against Los Angeles businessman Alkiviades David for sexual battery against a female assistant. David, who began the trial serving as his own attorney, challenged trial court rulings that prevented him from presenting evidence not produced in discovery, revoking his self-representation, allowing expert testimony and allowing plaintiff's counsel to make certain unfavorable closing arguments. The appellate panel found that most of his claims were forfeited by

David's failure to object at trial and that none were meritorious. Kahn v. David, B305849, B308727 (2d DCA, unpub. op. filed May 27, 2022).

"It was a satisfactory outcome because it shows that a seemingly powerless female can take on a powerful boss," Pine said.

In a case regarding the current hot topic of mandatory arbitration in employment contracts, Pine and a noted labor lawyer, Cliff M. Palefsky of McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky APC, wrote a July letter to the state Supreme Court urging that the justices grant review. The justices agreed and voted unanimously to hear the matter. Quach v. California Commerce Club Inc., S275121 (Cal. S. Ct., rev. granted Aug. 24, 2022).

Representing the California Employment Lawyers Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California, Pine and Palefsky argued that Quach is an ideal vehicle for the high court to repudiate what they call "misguided" language in a 2003 case holding that California has "a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close scrutiny of waiver claims."

They pointed out that the Federal Arbitration Act's policy favoring arbitration has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. to mean that arbitration is "as enforceable as other contracts, but not more so."

The same must be true in the state law context, Pine and Palefsky concluded.