1500 First Street, Suite 200, Napa, CA, United States of America, 94559
Feeds
DP&F Announces Newest Partner Owen Dallmeyer
Owen Dallmeyer, photo by Emma K Creative Napa, CA (March 3, 2025) – Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty (DP&F) is pleased to announce the election of Owen Dallmeyer in DP&F’s Business Law group to the firm’s partnership.
Carol Kingery Ritter, who leads the Business Group notes, “Owen has been a member of the Business Law group for 8 years and is an anchor in our transactional practice. I look forward to Owen’s partnership in providing excellent service to our wide range of local and wine industry business clients.”
Owen joined DP&F in April 2016. Prior to joining the firm, Owen was a litigator specializing in wage and hour and traditional labor law in San Francisco for a national law firm. Owen received his law degree from the UC Davis School of Law and his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley. He has also earned his Wine & Spirit Education Trust Level 3 Award in Wine.
About DP&F
Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty PC (DP&F) is a full-service law firm serving clients in wine country and worldwide with individualized and sophisticated counsel, delivering pragmatic solutions to advance our clients’ business goals. We advise businesses throughout their lifecycle—from formation to transition—in key areas of law: business transactions, intellectual property, labor and employment, land use, litigation, real property, alcohol beverage regulation and compliance, and wine law.
For more information, please visit our website at www.dpf-law.com.
What Employers Should Know About Recent Changes to California’s PAGA Law
What is PAGA?
Since 2004, California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) has allowed an individual employee to “stand in the shoes of” the State to recover civil penalties from an employer for Labor Code violations—not only for violations against the single employee bringing suit, but for violations against all aggrieved employees.
In this way, a PAGA lawsuit is a representative action like a class action. However, PAGA actions do not play by the same rules as class actions.
How is PAGA different from a Class Action?
Because an employee bringing a PAGA action is (in theory) acting as a private attorneys general to enforce State laws, PAGA actions are not treated like traditional civil lawsuits. Instead, they are treated as administrative enforcement actions brought by the State.
For this reason, many of the limitations on class action lawsuits do not apply to PAGA actions. For example, PAGA actions cannot be waived, worker class certification and manageability requirements do not apply (meaning PAGA actions can claim to represent innumerable, largely unrelated workers), and even if the individual employee must arbitrate their individual claims due to arbitration agreements, they can still simultaneously pursue the representative PAGA action.
In addition to these differences, PAGA penalties accrue for each employee for each pay period that the employee worked within the one-year statutory period, allowing minor infractions to snowball quickly into oppressive claims for recovery. In practice, these compounded penalties can have devastating financial consequences for employers. For instance, a simple rounding error penalty of $100 per pay period can amount to $2,600 for a single employee in a one-year period; for a group of 100 employees, that same rounding error can rack up penalties of $260,000—and that is only one potential penalty.
At face value, PAGA actions appear to benefit employees, but PAGA actions actually tend to result in lower payouts for employees than class action suits. This is because in PAGA actions the majority of any recovered penalties go to the State, not the employees. In a class action, by contrast, the State does not take a cut of any award.
Because PAGA actions have become easier to file and litigate than traditional class actions, PAGA actions have been filed in greater numbers in recent years. Not only have there been more PAGA actions, but these actions have increasingly claimed to represent larger groups of workers, no matter how unrelated, to maximize penalties. This has resulted in lawsuits involving so many distant and unconnected issues that employers’ resources are unfairly stretched to the breaking point simply to respond. In short, employees (guided by their attorneys) have been using the kitchen sink approach to overwhelm employers. However, recent changes to PAGA legislation are meant to change this lopsided landscape.
What are the New Changes to PAGA?
Following significant concerns regarding the lack of safeguards applicable to PAGA actions, legislation was enacted by the California legislature to modify PAGA.
The modifications signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in July of 2024 apply to all PAGA actions filed on or after June 19, 2024.
The following are key changes made by the new legislation:
Only Violations Experienced by the Employee Can be Included.
An employee can now only bring a representative PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees that suffered the same Labor Code violation as the employee bringing the PAGA action. Prior to the June 2024 changes, an employee could purport to represent any aggrieved employee that suffered any Labor Code violation, even if the employee bringing the action did not experience the same violations. This modification significantly alters the scope of PAGA actions in light of concerns regarding manageability and broad standing to bring claims unrelated to the representative employee’s own claims. While the employees still do not need to meet the stringent class certification requirements, this modification limits the scope of investigation and discovery.
Related or Derivative Penalties Cannot be Stacked.
If an employee recovers a civil penalty for an underlying wage violation, they cannot stack additional related or derivative claims for additional penalties (which was permitted prior to the June 2024 changes). For instance, an employer cannot be separately penalized for failure to timely pay wages upon separation and failure to pay those same wages during employment. The exception to this rule is if the employer acted willfully or intentionally.
Weekly Payroll Will No Longer Be Double Penalized.
Prior to the June 2024 changes, employers that paid employees weekly faced double penalties because PAGA penalties were based solely on the number of pay periods in which a violation occurred—essentially, because employees were paid 52 weeks a year rather than the 26 weeks common in biweekly or 24 weeks in semi-monthly payment schemes, employers utilizing a weekly payroll were getting hit for twice as many penalties. Many employers switched to a bi-weekly payroll to avoid the risk of such penalties, to the detriment of employees relying on more immediate pay periods. Now, penalties will not double merely because employers pay on a weekly basis.
Wage Statement Violation Penalties Are Reduced to $25.
Wage statement violations regarding missing required information on employee paystubs, which previously where penalized at a rate of $100 per employee per pay period, have been reduced to $25 per employee per pay period as long as the employees can promptly and easily determine the required information.
Increased Penalties for “Subsequent Violations” Are Limited.
Under PAGA, where a penalty was not provided for, the default for initial violations for each aggrieved employee is $100 per pay period, with subsequent violations of $200 per aggrieved employee per pay period. The June 2024 changes clarify that the subsequent violation amount of $200 only applies where either: (1) the court or the Labor Commissioner finds that the employer’s practice or policy violated the law within the last five years, or (2) a court determines that the employer acted “maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively.”
Employers Can Take Reasonable Steps to Cap Penalties.
The new PAGA statute provides for a 15% cap on penalties where reasonable steps were taken by the employer before receiving a PAGA notice, and a 30% cap on penalties where reasonable steps were taken within 60 days of receiving a PAGA notice. Reasonable steps may include actions such as conducting regular payroll audits and taking responsive action, disseminating lawful written policies, training supervisor on Labor Code compliance, and taking corrective action with supervisors.
More Opportunities for Employers to Reduce Penalties.
An employer can cure violations on a much broader scale under the new law than under the previous law. Depending on the extent of an employer’s remedial efforts and steps taken to cure certain violations, penalties can be reduced anywhere from 70% to 100%.
Employees Will Get A Larger Share of Penalties.
While the State will still take the majority share of any awarded penalties under the new law, the employees’ share will increase from 25% to 35%.
The Takeaway
The 2024 changes to PAGA have introduced some guardrails to limit the extent of PAGA claims and to reduce the number of potential penalties employers face. Even more meaningfully, employers can now take remedial action to reduce penalties or cure violations when a PAGA action is filed.
Employers can take proactive steps to protect themselves by ensuring that supervisors are adequately trained, by conducting regular payroll audits and taking appropriate corrective measures, and by working with legal counsel. The Labor Code is nuanced, and violations can occur unintentionally.
For questions around PAGA changes and employment law, reach out to DP&F Employment Law partners Jennifer E. Douglas and Marissa E. Buck, or to attorney Angela A. Nelson, Litigation.
What California Businesses Need to Know About the New Price Transparency Law Going Into Effect July 1st
Beginning July 1, 2024, SB 478 will go into effect, which means businesses will no longer be allowed to add a service fee, or any other hidden fees, to a customer’s bill, except for government taxes and fees and reasonable shipping costs. The “Honest Pricing Law” or “Hidden Fees Statute” is intended to allow the customer to see the true price of an item or service they are purchasing and aims to prevent “drip pricing,” which is when businesses advertise a lower price than what customers actually pay.
The Attorney General (“AG”) issued a FAQ statement clarifying many of the issues facing businesses attempting to comply with the new Honest Pricing Law. Below are the key items from the FAQ that businesses may find helpful. The full FAQ can be found here.
- The law will apply to all businesses selling or advertising to a consumer, not just online ticket sellers, including restaurants, tasting rooms, event centers and hotels.
- All mandatory and automatic fees, including service charges, fees for employee healthcare, or any other such add on fee must be included in the advertised or stated price to the customer.
– Businesses can explain that extra fees are included, and they can specify what they represent, but this should be listed under the total price or as an aside explaining the total price.
– The fees cannot be stated separate from the price on a receipt or at the bottom of a menu, for example, as usually handled currently. - Sales taxes and government fees, as well as reasonable shipping costs, do not need to be displayed in the total price and can still be listed separately on a receipt or invoice.
- Fees for optional services or things contingent on an event, like a cancellation fee, do not need to be included (only mandatory, automatic fees must be included in the price).
- Fees for delivery of food directly from a restaurant do not need to be included in advertised or stated price for the food because the delivery fee is for the delivery service and not for the food.
Initially, automatic gratuities (like 18% for parties of 6 or more) added to a restaurant bill are allowed if all the automatic gratuity goes to the employees. The AG does not initially expect to enforce SB 478 as to an automatic gratuity as long as all money goes to employees, however, the guidance is not clear whether this will remain the case or whether the business would be safe from prosecution in a private action for such charges. Mandatory gratuities have been treated as service fees for wage and hour purposes, so this may raise unintended consequences, which you should be discussed with counsel.
What does this mean for California businesses? Businesses can no longer charge a service fee, or any other mandatory, automatic fee, unless that fee is included in the advertised or stated price to the customer.
For more information reach out to the DP&F Employment Law partners Jennifer E. Douglas, Marissa E. Buck and HR Consultant, Kristina Kiessig.
Southern Glazer’s Class Action Settlement a Reminder to Comply with Maximum Late Payment Penalties on Retailers
A recent $5.5 million settlement payment from one of the country’s largest alcoholic beverage wholesalers serves as a good reminder that California law restricts the amount of late fees and interest that can be charged in connection with the purchase and sale of alcoholic beverages to retailers.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25509 provides that various alcoholic beverage manufacturers and wholesalers who sell and deliver alcoholic beverages to a retailer and who did not receive payment for such alcoholic beverages within 42 days of delivery shall charge the retailer 1% of the unpaid balance on the 43rd day and an additional 1% for each 30 days thereafter.
In 2014, a Los Angeles-based retailer, Wiseman Park, LLC (“Wiseman”), brought an action against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits, LLC (“Southern”) in connection with Southern’s attempt to collect not only the Section 25509 statutory late payment penalty, but also a 1% per month “carrying charge” included in the parties’ written agreement. Wiseman alleged that Southern’s imposition of the separate carrying charge violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
In 2021, the action was changed to a class action lawsuit so that other retailers subject to Southern’s carrying charge could join the lawsuit. In early 2024, the court preliminarily approved the parties’ proposed settlement agreement whereby Southern would make a $5.5 million payment to resolve the class action lawsuit, write off $44.1 million carrying charges yet to be paid by the retailers, and agree not to impose the carrying charge going forward. The deadline for retailers to opt out of, or object to, the class action was March 1, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 16, 2024.
Industry members should take this opportunity to review their agreements with retailers, and ensure any interest or penalties imposed on retailers do not exceed the statutory limits imposed by the ABC Act.
For assistance with this or any other Alcohol Beverage Law & Compliance or Wine Law matters, email Bahaneh Hobel, John Trinidad, or Alexander Mau.
Key Legal Updates All California Employers Should Know for 2024
Employment laws in California are always changing, and it is important for employers in California to keep up with these changes to ensure their policies and practices are compliant. This blog post provides key updates to the California employment laws that all employers should know for this year.
Minimum Wage Increase
Beginning January 1, 2024, the state minimum wage for all employers has been increased to $16.00 per hour. This rate reflects a 3.5% increase from this year’s minimum wage based on the law’s provision that allows this increase if the national Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) is over 7%. All employers must post the current minimum wage rate in a common area where employees can easily view it.
With this new rate of $16.00/hour, the minimum salary for exempt employees in 2024 has also increased to $66,560.00/year. Note that the minimum salary is tied to the state minimum wage rate, not individual municipalities.
Employers should also check if there is a higher minimum wage in any city or municipality where they have employees working (typically 2 hours/week is the minimum). For example, the minimum wage in Santa Rosa has increased to $17.45/hour.
Increase in Paid Sick Leave Amount to 5 Days
As of January 1, 2024, the amount of paid sick leave that must be provided to employees under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act increased to five (5) days, or 40 hours, per year. Employers can still choose to either provide paid sick leave in a lump sum each year or allow employees to accrue paid sick leave based on hours worked.
The minimum accrual rate is still one (1) hour for every 30 hours worked. If paid sick leave is accrued, employees must now be allowed to accrue up to a cap of at least ten (10) days, or 80 hours. However, employers can limit employees’ actual use of accrued sick leave to five (5) days, or 40 hours per year.
Reproductive Loss Leave Required for All Employers with 5 or More Employees
Beginning January 1, 2024, private employers with five (5) or more employees are required to provide all employees who have worked for the employer for at least 30 days with five (5) days of unpaid, protected leave following a reproductive loss event, which includes a failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.
The five days of leave do not have to be taken consecutively but must be completed within three months of the reproductive loss event. This new leave is available for each qualifying reproductive loss event; however, employers have the right to limit the maximum amount of leave under the policy to no more than 20 days in a 12-month period.
Off-Duty Cannabis Use Added as a Protected Class Under FEHA
Starting January 1, 2024, off-duty cannabis use was added as a protected class under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act law (“FEHA”). The law specifically prohibits any adverse employment actions taken against an employee for off-duty cannabis use and prohibits an employer from drug screening for cannabis. Employers may still prohibit on-duty possession, impairment, or use. Additionally, the law does not apply to employees in the building or construction trades, or employees that work in positions that require federal background investigations or security clearance under federal law.
Non-Compete Agreements With Employees Still Prohibited in California
Under existing law in California, non-compete agreements with employees are and have been void and unenforceable. Nonetheless, the state has passed two new laws regarding post-employment non-compete agreements that both went into effect on January 1, 2024.
The first law confirms existing case law and voids all unlawful noncompete agreements contained in employment contracts. Under this law, employers are required to individually notify all current employees, and former employees who were hired after January 1, 2022, whose employment contracts include a noncompete clause or who were required to sign a noncompete agreement that such clauses or agreements are void. The notice must be given in writing by no later than February 14, 2024. The notice can be by email, but it must be an individualized communication to each employee or former employee.
The second law confirms that all noncompete agreements are void and unenforceable regardless of where and when the contract was signed. Even if the contract was signed in another state with an employee who was working outside of California, it cannot be enforced in California. The law also makes it a civil violation for employers to enter into or try to enforce unlawful noncompete agreements. Further, the law gives employees the right to bring a civil action against an employer that attempts to enforce an unlawful noncompete agreement, which allows the employee to seek damages and attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to injunctive relief.
New Presumption of Retaliation for Adverse Actions Taken Within 90 Days of Protected Activity
Starting January 1, 2024, if an employer takes any adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee engaging in so called “protected activity,” it will create a rebuttable presumption of retaliation under the law. An employer who violates this provision will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee to be awarded to the employee(s) that was retaliated against. “Protected activity” is defined broadly and includes, among other things, employees who make an internal complaint about working conditions, wages, harassment, etc., an employee who files a suit or complaint with an agency against the company and an employee who testifies in a proceeding against the employer.
NLRB Decision in Stericyle Requires Employers to Review Their Handbook Policies
In 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628 regarding workplace policies and the effect they have on employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”). The decision states that workplace policies cannot infringe on employees’ rights under the NLRA, either directly or indirectly. This includes policies that could discourage employees from engaging in protected activities under the NLRA. Employees’ rights under the NLRA, which are protected, include: the right to form or join unions, the right to engage in protected, concerted activities to address or improve working conditions and the right to refrain from engaging in these activities.
Employers should review their handbook policies and make sure they are drafted so that their policies do not “chill” employees’ exercise of their rights under the NLRA.
Additional Updates and Reminders
Updated Wage Theft Notice (Required for all Non-Exempt Employees Upon Hire)
The Notice to Employee required under Labor Code Section 2810.5 – also referred to as a “Wage Theft Notice” – has been updated for 2024. All employers are required to use the new form. You can access the revised Wage Theft Notice here.
Updated Harassment Poster
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has updated their “California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment” poster. Employers are required to display this poster in a common area where employees can easily view it. You can access the new updated poster here.
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rate Increase
Starting January 1, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased the standard mileage rate by 1.5 cents per mile for 2024 to 67 cents per mile.
Overtime Change for Small Agricultural Employers
For employers with 25 or fewer employees, the phase in for overtime rules for agricultural workers continues in 2024 with daily overtime for any hours worked in excess of 8.5 hours in a day and 45 hours in a week.
Workplace Violence Prevention Plan Required by July 1, 2024
Starting July 1, 2024, all employers are required to establish and maintain a workplace violence prevention plan as part of their Illness Injury Prevention Plan (“IIPP”), which will include maintaining a violence incident log and providing effective training on the workplace violence prevention plan. We will be doing a more detailed blog post on the requirements for the new plan in the Spring.
Employers should reach out to their workers’ compensation carrier for assistance with updating their IIPP accordingly.
For more information reach out to the DP&F Employment Law partners Jennifer E. Douglas and Marissa E. Buck.
CalRecycle To Host Webinar for Small Wineries (Limited to 1,000 Attendees)
As mentioned in our recent blog post, Compliance With Bottle Bill Just One Month Away for Wine and Spirits, California law changed on January 1, 2024, to include wine and distilled spirits in California’s Beverage Container Recycling Program. California wineries and distilleries will now need to register with CalRecycle, submit monthly reports, pay certain fees, and make sure their labels include an appropriate recyclability message from July 1, 2025.
CalRecycle will host a 2-hour webinar on February 23, 2024 aimed at small wineries to explain how the changes will affect them. The webinar will also include a demonstration on how to use the Division of Recycling Integrated Information System (DORIIS) for monthly reporting and payment of fees. The webinar is limited to 1,000 attendees, so register as soon as possible at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYkd-6upj4tEtCVEASeUimnDkRGDsY7glXV. The webinar will conclude with a Q&A session.
For questions about the webinar, please contact the CalRecycle Registration Units via email at reg.crvlabeling@calrecycle.ca.gov or via phone at 916-323-1835.
wine alcohol beverage law alcohol labeling distilleries Environment wine and spirits Wine Labeling
COVID-19 Updates for California Employers
On January 9, 2024, the California Department of Health (CDPH) issued an order changing COVID-19 related definitions. These revisions apply to the Cal/OSHA Non-Emergency Regulations, which are still in place until February 3, 2025 and must be followed by all employers in California.
The questions and answers below reflect the updated rules and definitions that currently apply in the workplace. You can read more about the changes on Cal/OSHA’s FAQ page here, which is updated regularly.
COVID-19 Updates for California Employers as of January 2024
What is the current definition of the “infectious period” for employees who test positive for COVID-19?
For COVID-19 cases with symptoms, the “infectious period” is a minimum of 24 hours from the day of symptom onset. Under the current regulations, there is no infectious period for COVID-19 cases with no symptoms.
If an employee tests positive, are they required to be excluded from the workplace?
If an employee tests positive for COVID-19 and has symptoms, they must be excluded from the workplace for a minimum of 24 hours from the day of symptom onset.
Symptomatic COVID-19 cases may return to work after 24 hours if:
- 24 hours have passed with no fever, without the use of fever-reducing medications and;
- Symptoms are mild and improving.
If an employee tests positive for COVID-19 and is asymptomatic, there is no infectious period for the purpose of isolation or exclusion, which means they are not required to be excluded from the workplace. If symptoms develop, the above criteria will apply.
All employees who test positive for COVID-19 must wear a mask around others for 10 days from the date of the positive test or symptom onset.
Are employees allowed to come to the workplace if they had a “close contact” with someone with COVID-19?
Yes – employees do not have to be excluded from the workplace unless they test positive.
If employees have had a “close contact,” they are no longer required to test; however, the CDPH still recommends testing for:
- All people with new COVID-19 symptoms; and
- Close contacts who are at higher risk of severe disease or who have contact with people who are at higher risk of severe disease.
Are masks still required in the workplace?
Masks are only required in the workplace in the following situations:
- Employees who test positive for COVID-19 must wear a mask while around others for 10 days from the positive test or symptom onset;
- In an outbreak or major outbreak all employees in the exposed group must wear a mask; and
- If a local ordinance requires it, such as places like healthcare facilities and skilled nursing facilities.
Close contacts are no longer required to wear masks; however, it is still recommended that close contacts wear masks around others for 10 days following the last contact.
What is a “close contact”?
The regulation defines a “close contact” as sharing the same indoor airspace as a COVID-19 case for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period during a COVID-19 case's infectious period. Spaces that are separated by floor-to-ceiling walls (e.g., offices, suites, rooms, waiting areas, bathrooms, or break or eating areas that are separated by floor-to-ceiling walls) are considered distinct indoor airspaces.
What is the current definition of an “outbreak”?
The new outbreak definition requires at least three COVID-19 cases within an exposed group during a 7-day period (previously it was a 14-day period).
Is an employee paid if they test positive and are unable to work?
Possibly. The COVID supplemental paid sick leave program has expired. However, an employee may be eligible for compensation if they have accrued sick time and/or vacation time, or through disability insurance.
Note that the Workers’ Compensation Presumption expired on January 1, 2024, which means the presumption that an employee’s work-related COVID-19 illness is an occupational injury and eligible for workers’ compensation is no longer available.
Does an employer still need to send a notification to employees when there is a workplace exposure?
If an employer becomes aware of a potential COVID-19 exposure in the workplace, they are still obligated to notify all employees who may have had close contact with a COVID-19 case in the workplace. The notice must be in writing and must be provided within one business day of discovering the potential exposure.
Is an Employer still required to maintain a COVID Prevention Plan (CPP)?
Yes. To comply with the Non-Emergency Regulations, an employer must either develop a written COVID-19 Prevention Program or ensure its elements are included in an existing Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP).
Does an employer still need to provide COVID-19 testing to employees?
Regardless of CDPH recommendations, employers must continue to make COVID-19 testing available at no cost and during paid time to all employees who had a close contact at work with a person with COVID-19 during their infectious period, except for asymptomatic employees who recently recovered from COVID-19.
In workplace outbreaks or major outbreaks, the COVID-19 regulations still require testing of all close contacts in outbreaks, and everyone in the exposed group in major outbreaks. Employees who refuse to test and have symptoms must be excluded for at least 24 hours from symptom onset and can return to work only when they have been fever-free for at least 24 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications, and symptoms are mild and improving.
For more information reach out to the DP&F Employment Law partners Jennifer E. Douglas and Marissa E. Buck.
Employment Law Labor & Employment COVID-19 California Employers
Deadline to Comment on Napa County’s New Draft Groundwater Sustainability Workplans is January 30, 2024
ATTENTION: The following proposed measures will impact existing groundwater pumpers in the Napa Valley Subbasin.
Napa County’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was approved by the California Department of Water Resources on January 26, 2023. The approved GSP identified the need to develop a Water Conservation Workplan and Groundwater Pumping Reduction Workplan. The GSP also identified data gaps in evaluating the depletion of interconnected surface waters and groundwater dependent ecosystems, and proposed the preparation of a workplan to address such data gaps. These three plans have now been prepared by Napa County’s Groundwater Sustainability Agency and are available for public review and comment. All public comments on these three plans are due by January 30, 2024.
General information on the scope of the three workplans is below:
- Groundwater Pumping Reduction Workplan:
- This plan identifies a goal to achieve a 10 percent reduction (about 15,000 acre feet) in pumping relative to the average annual historical pumping (as measured in the years 2005-2014).
- This plan also presents voluntary programs that will purportedly result in Subbasin sustainability benefits, and in addition, presents mandatory measures to reduce groundwater pumping (which could be implemented if the voluntary measures are insufficient).
- Water Conservation Workplan:
- This plan is a resource for stakeholders to learn about, consider, and adopt new or additional water conservation measures.
- Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Workplan:
- This plan addresses the data gaps that were identified in the originally adopted GSP and provides a structured approach to evaluating the effect of groundwater conditions on interconnected surface waters and groundwater-dependent ecosystems.
Public comments on these plans can be submitted using the Excel Comment Form on the County’s website (link below), submitted via email to: GSPWorkplanComments@countyofnapa.org.
For more information, visit the County’s website here: https://www.countyofnapa.org/3219/County-of-Napa-Plans-Reports-Documents.
For more information about Napa County Groundwater Sustainability planning, email Joshua S. Devore, Thomas S. Adams or Elena Neigher.
Compliance With Bottle Bill Just One Month Away for Wine and Spirits
COMPLIANCE WITH BOTTLE BILL JUST ONE MONTH AWAY FOR WINE AND SPIRITS
On January 1, 2024, California’s container recycling deposit system (referred to often as the “Bottle Bill”) will expand to include wine, spirits, and wine and spirits coolers (regardless of ABV). Below is a brief overview of what wineries, distilleries, importers and wholesalers of wine and spirits need to do to comply!
Register with CalRecycle as a Beverage Manufacturer and/or Distributor
Register with CalRecycle as soon as possible to prepare for monthly payment and reporting requirements beginning January 1, 2024.
- California-Based: California wineries and distilleries, and importers of wine or spirits into California, will need to register as a “beverage manufacturer.” They will also need to register as a “distributor” if they sell to retailers (whether on-sale or off-sale), restaurants, bars, or directly to consumers.
- Out-of-State: Out-of-state wineries and distilleries with a California Wine Direct Shippers Permit, and that sell directly to California consumers, will need to register as a “beverage manufacturer” and a “distributor.”
Processing Fees and California Redemption Value (CRV)
- Beverage Manufacturers Pay Processing Fees: Beverage manufacturers will need to pay CalRecycle processing fees for each wine or spirits beverage they sell to wholesalers or retailers (whether on-sale or off-sale) in California from January 1, 2024. These fees depend on the type of container material. The fee per glass bottle is $0.00452. Beverage manufacturers can keep 1.5% of the processing fees, which CalRecycle will automatically calculate. Their first report for January 2024 will be due on February 29, 2024.
- Distributors Pay CRV: Distributors (as defined by CalRecycle) will need to pay CalRecycle a CRV for each wine or spirits beverage they sell to consumers, restaurants, or bars from January 1, 2024. There is an exemption for bottles opened at the winery or distillery for tasting purposes. These fees depend on the size of the container. For bottles smaller than 750 mL (less than 24 fluid ounces), the CRV is 5 cents/bottle. For bottles 750 mL or larger (24 fluid ounces or more), the CRV is 10 cents/bottle. For boxes, bladders, pouches, or similar containers (regardless of size), the CRV is 25 cents/container. Distributors’ first report for January 2024 will be due on March 10, 2024.
CRV Statements on Bottles
- CRV Statement: From July 1, 2025, all wines and spirits containers sold in California (except those containers filled and labeled before January 1, 2024) must be labeled with one of five CRV statements: “CA Redemption Value,” “California Redemption Value,” “CA Cash Refund,” “California Cash Refund,” or “CA CRV.”
- Exempt Containers: All wines and spirits containers sold in California that were filled and labeled before January 1, 2024 are exempt from and not subject to the labeling requirements of the Bottle Bill. No new labels or statements will have to be added to these products.
- Appearance of Statement: The CRV statement must be clearly, prominently, and indelibly marked and can be added on the actual label or by sticker (but not on aluminum cans), stamp, embossment, or other similar method. The Bottle Bill also has other, very prescriptive rules about the appearance of the CRV statement.
For more information about the Bottle Bill, see our previous blog posts or email Bahaneh Hobel, Alexander Mau, or Theresa Barton Cray.
wine alcohol beverage law alcohol labeling distilleries Environment wine and spirits Wine Labeling Bottle Bill
Canadian Court Gives 👍 to Contract Accepted by Emoji
Harvest is underway in wine country. During this season there is increased demand for skilled labor, transportation, and crush facilities. Buyers and sellers of fruit have a short window to make deals. A busy harvest season also lends itself to casual communication about crops, like this:
Now, did you just tell your friend you are happy for him, or did you just commit to buying $30K worth of fruit?
According to at least one Canadian court, the thumbs-up 👍 emoji could qualify as acceptance of a contract. A recent decision from the Court of King’s Bench in Canada discussed the “new reality in Canadian society” facing courts as the forms of communication broaden.
The Canadian court examined a dispute between a farmer and grain buyer over an alleged contract for 87 metric tons of flax, to be delivered in November 2021. The grain buyer and farmer spoke by phone, and the buyer texted the farmer a photo of the contract signed by buyer for November delivery. The text message said “please confirm flax contract.” The farmer texted back a “thumbs-up” emoji.
Later, when November rolled around, the price of flax had gone up, and the farmer attempted to say that his “thumbs-up” in response to the buyer only signaled that he had received the contract, not that he had accepted it. The court also looked at the prior dealings between the farmer and buyer, noting that in prior contracts for durum wheat, the farmer had various formed agreements with the buyer employing similarly concise responses, including “looks good,” “ok,” or “yup.”
Here, the court ultimately found that yes, the “thumbs-up” was sufficient acceptance, and the farmer was ordered to pay C$82,000 for the unfulfilled contract.
Canadian law is not controlling in the United States. However, this case reminds us that as forms and methods of communication grow, U.S. courts may eventually find that an emoji can qualify as acceptance of an agreement.
So, during important business negotiations, consider the potential consequences of casually firing off that “thumbs-up” emoji to the other side. Finally, when in doubt, seek the advice of an attorney.
About
Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty provides a level of representation ordinarily associated with legal practices in major metropolitan centers. Our attorneys are routinely recognized in legal rankings and surveys as some of the best in their fields, and the firm is involved regularly with matters of local and national import. For over forty years Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty lawyers have practiced law with the get to know you culture that has engendered significant client loyalty
Rooted in the wine regions of Napa and Sonoma, Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty provides full service legal representation to all manner of businesses and individuals throughout California, the United States and abroad. The Firm's major practice areas include alcohol beverage law, business and corporate dealings, land use matters, labor and employment, civil litigation, cannabis law, intellectual property, real property transactions, as well as estate planning and probate. With offices in the major wine valleys of Napa and Sonoma, the firm is intimately familiar with, and has extensive experience, in both the wine and hospitality industries.
The attorneys at Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty take their involvement and contribution to their communities as seriously as they do the practice of law. Our attorneys (and our staff) have a long tradition of community involvement and have served in leadership roles in social, cultural, educational, financial and political institutions.
Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty offers clients exceptional services and sophisticated expertise while taking a genial and courteous approach to client relationships.
Contact
Contact List
| Title | Name | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No contacts found | ||||
Location List
| Locations | Address | State | Country | Zip Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty | 1500 First Street, Suite 200, Napa | CA | United States of America | 94559 |
List of Locations
Profile Picture