John S. Poulos is an experienced attorney who has also been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer. Currently, John S. Poulos serves as a partner at the Sacramento-based law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. Mr. Poulos currently specializes in commercial litigation, but also has experience in many other legal areas, including settlement of claims related to the California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act was originally passed in 1970 (first known as the California Species Preservation Act) to protect rare and endangered species within the state. Types of wildlife protected under the law include fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants. Currently, the law is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Act has been amended several times. In 1984, it was modified to reclassify rare species as threatened, include plants, and allow incidental “take” in specific situations. The incidental take program was expanded in 1997 through the addition of permits. Lastly, in 2016, Senate Bill 839 was passed to raise additional funding through permit application fees to allow the CDFW to maintain current operations.
0 Comments
Having received his Juris Doctor from Berkeley Law at the University of California Berkeley in 1991, John S. Poulos is currently an attorney for the law firm of Lewis Brisbois in Sacramento, California. John Poulos argues cases for the firm exclusively in the area of commercial litigation. Students in the J.D. Program at Berkeley Law have the privilege of learning in one of the top law schools in the nation from some of the best scholars in the field. Known for its demanding, hands-on coursework and real-world applications, the school only accepts an average of one out of every ten applicants each year. The J.D. Program at Berkeley Law focuses on analyzing and interpreting the law as well as learning how to consider and challenge competing viewpoints, present persuasive arguments and developing effective policies and insights. The training is accomplished through a number of different learning styles, including student-run clinics and think tank environments. A Northern California Super Lawyer, attorney John S. Poulos is a partner at Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard, and Smith in Sacramento. Although John S. Poulos focuses on commercial litigation, he has significant experience handling binding arbitration cases for clients in and around Sacramento. A form of alternative dispute resolution, binding arbitration involves a neutral third party making a decision regarding a dispute between two parties. In this process, both involved parties have the opportunity to present their cases before a decision is made. Ultimately, the parties agree to comply with arbitrator’s decision. The most common form of binding arbitration is voluntary arbitration. Often, this form is agreed upon well in advance in the form of a contract that stipulates arbitration as the dispute resolution method. This is a common feature in labor law and contracts between unions and employers. Mandatory arbitration, which is usually required by legislation, is less common. This form of arbitration requires parties to use binding arbitration when specific issues arise. Based in Sacramento, California, attorney John S. Poulos has earned several Super Lawyer awards for his work in commercial litigation. As a partner in the Sacramento firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John S. Poulos is experienced in cases of breach of contract. Breaches of contract come before a judge when one party claims a failure of the other party to fulfill part or all of a contract, without a legal excuse. Breaches are classified as material or minor. A material breach occurs when one party obtains a good or service different than what the contract promised. For instance, providing tennis balls instead of the specified footballs could constitute a material breach. The aggrieved party would no longer have to fulfill the contract’s terms and is eligible for remedies. By contrast, a minor breach can involve the provision of a good or service that does not match the terms of the contract. For example, the delivery could be later than desired by the non-breaching party. This could happen in contracts that did not specify a time of fulfillment. If a delay is ruled minor, the non-breaching party could receive damages John S. Poulos of Sacramento California, is a commercial litigation attorney with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Attorneys. An experienced federal and state trial lawyer, John S. Poulos serves as vice chair of the Sacramento firm’s Commercial Litigation Practice. Lewis Brisbois recently sent out a client alert on the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court clarifying the awarding of attorney fees for copyright infringement cases. The US Supreme Court recently issued an overdue ruling that clarified the rules to be followed when US District Courts awarded attorney fees in copyright infringement cases. Before the ruling, the language of 17 U.S.C Section 505 necessarily mandated the District Courts to exercise discretion in awarding attorney fees. However, this resulted in inconsistent awards by the Appellate Courts and the District Courts when exercising their discretion. The recent ruling by the nation’s highest court in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons gave guidelines for the awarding of attorney fees. The ruling began by reiterating that “objective reasonableness” was an important factor to consider; that where a party put forward an objectively reasonable position and prevailed, attorney fees would be awarded in his/her favor. However, it went on to state that objective reasonableness was just one of the factors District Courts should put into consideration when awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court gave instances in which the burden of paying attorney fees would shift. These include situations wherein a party’s litigation misconduct warrants it, to discourage further copyright infringement by a serial copyright infringer, and wherein the copyright holder is overaggressive with copyright claims. A seasoned litigator serving clients in Sacramento, California, attorney John S. Poulos serves as a partner at Lewis Brisbois. John S. Poulos counsels Sacramento clients, as well as those in surrounding areas, on commercial law. In addition to providing legal representation, the firm Lewis Brisbois hosts educational seminars regularly. “Los Angeles Employment & Workers’ Compensation Law” is among those slated for September 2016. The course takes place at 333 Universal Hollywood Drive in Universal City on September 22. It begins at 8:30 a.m. and ends at 3:30 p.m. Attendees will receive a comprehensive explanation regarding management of risks to limit claims related to employment and workers’ compensation. The seminar benefits workers’ compensation administrators, insurance claims managers, in-house legal professionals, and executives. Individuals tasked with employee relations should attend, as well. The course requires payment of a $75 fee. Upon completion, all attendees will receive four hours of continuing education credit. The credits will be documented in the form of a certificate, which participants receive prior to their departure. John S. Poulos is a Sacramento-based commercial litigator with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Commercial litigators represent businesses in lawsuits and handle many different types of cases. One case John S. Poulos worked on was a class action labor dispute, Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association. Class action lawsuits are 1) ones where there are many people (called a “class”) who share a common grievance and 2) the number of people affected is too many to bring before the court. In these cases, the court typically takes a sampling of the people involved to get a representation of the situation. It’s important for the sampling to be accurate in order to make an accurate ruling. In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, for example, the employees sued their employer on the basis that they were misclassified as exempt employees and as a result were not being paid overtime for their work. The employer claims because the employees spent more than 50 percent of their work time on outside sales duties, they were exempt from overtime. While the employees were initially awarded what was calculated as what was owed to them, the ruling was overturned on appeal because the California Supreme Court found that the trial court had failed to obtain a representative sample of employees, and therefore, the data used in its statistical analysis was flawed. |
AuthorJohn Poulos, a Managing Partner with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, has realized a number of successes over the course of his academic and professional careers. Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|