Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Mark K. Kitabayashi

Partner | Los Angeles, Bakersfield

More from Mark K. Kitabayashi

Image
Image

More from Mark K. Kitabayashi

Image
Image

More from Mark K. Kitabayashi

Image
Image

mkitabayashi@lozanosmith.com
Tel: 213.929.1066
Fax: 213.929.1077
Vcard   | Bio

Overview


Mark K. Kitabayashi is the Managing Partner of Lozano Smith's Los Angeles office. He is a trial attorney with more than 30 years of litigation experience representing state and local agencies, predominantly in the areas of employment discrimination law, Constitutional disputes, local government issues, labor and employment, contracts, business, and construction matters. Mr. Kitabayashi also handles employment/personnel cases, including employee disciplinary hearings, grievances, EEOC/DFEH Complaints, and appeals. He has also engaged in hundreds of mediations and arbitrations, successfully resolving matters before they result in protracted and expensive litigation.

Presenter Experience


Mr. Kitabayashi has taught several seminars to attorneys and clients on the following topics: How to Take and Defend Depositions; How to Take and Defend Expert Depositions; Overview of Discovery Practices and Strategy in Civil Litigation; Preparing for and Handling Arbitrations; Proper Billing Practices for Attorneys; and Monitoring and Controlling Outside Counsel's Billing Practices.

Education


Mr. Kitabayashi received his J.D. from the University of Southern California in 1986. He was admitted to the California State Bar that same year. He earned a B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1983.

Admissions


He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Central Districts.

California Supreme Court Limits Employers' Ability to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors

By: Mark KitabayashiAlyse Pacheco Nichols-

May 2018Number 20In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Apr. 30, 2018, No. S222732) ___ Cal.5th ___, the California Supreme Court adopted a new test for determining whether a worker should be considered an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC). Under this new test—called the “ABC test”—a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the em...

Hold On: Litigation Holds and Electronic Records

By: Mark KitabayashiMichael Linden-

You may have experienced the following situation working for a local public agency. You open your mail and you see a document entitled “Litigation Hold.” An attorney wants your employer to preserve records for discovery in a legal dispute, including emails and other electronic data. Initially, you have no idea where relevant emails and data might be kept, whether they are even being saved or what policies are in place regarding the retention of emails and other electronically s...

California Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Anti-SLAPP Motions

By: Mark Kitabayashi-

May 2017 Number 25 A new California Supreme Court ruling clarifies how litigants may use a tool intended to fight lawsuits filed to chill free speech. In Park v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (May 4, 2017, No. S229728) ___Cal.5th___ (Park), the Court clarified and simplified the analysis for determining whether a plaintiff's cause of action is one "arising from" constitutionally protected activity for purposes of a motion to strike a civil complaint on the basis tha...

California Supreme Court says Minors' Claims against Public Agencies Must Adhere to Government Claims Act Timelines

By: Mark KitabayashiAmanda Ruiz-

April 2017 Number 14 In J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School District (Mar. 6, 2017, No. S230510) ___ Cal.5th ___ 2017 [Cal. LEXIS 1609] < http://www.courts.ca.gov/ opinions/documents/S230510.PDF >, the California Supreme Court determined a high school football player was not entitled to court relief for his personal injury claim against a school district because he failed to strictly comply with the timelines spelled out in the California Government Claims Act (Act), often r...

  • Avila v. City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff police officer claimed he was subject to a Board of Rights proceeding and subsequently terminated in retaliation for testifying against the LAPD in a Fair Labor Standards Act wage and hour violations lawsuit filed against the City of Los Angeles. Despite facing counsel who had obtained over $4.5 million against the City in a very similar companion case tried the year before, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the individual defendant and against the City for only $50,000, or 1% of the demand.

  • Sequoia v. County of Fresno. The County sought to challenge a thirty year old injunction compelling it to expend approximately $21 million per year to provide health services to a segment of its population. The County's motion to dissolve the injunction was granted and the obligation extinguished.

  • Newman v. Stringfellow. At the time, the largest toxic tort personal injury case in U.S. history. Claim of personal injury and property damage by approximately 3,800 plaintiffs due to claimed exposure to a "toxic soup" of materials that emanated from the Stringfellow waste facility. Plaintiffs' verdict against the client was less than $160,000.00.

  • Shiell v. County of L.A. Equal protection action claiming staff members of a non-profit, public benefit corporation were entitled to the same rights, salaries and benefits of County employees because they performed the same work. A dispositive motion was brought on 3 issues: 1) statute of limitations; 2) entitlement to civil service; and 3) entitlement to County retirement benefits. The motion was decided in the County's favor.

  • Hall v. County of L.A. Approximately 200 female attorneys of a non-profit, public benefit corporation brought a sex discrimination suit claiming they were not receiving the same salaries and benefits as male employees of the County, even though they were doing the same work. The County brought a dispositive motion on the grounds that plaintiffs were using improper male comparators and had not shown any indicia of discrimination. The motion was granted in the County's favor.

  • Ashford v. Visalia Unified School District. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of all similarly situated employees, sued the District and sought the payment of all alleged unpaid vacation benefits covering the entire period of the employees’ employment with the District, which dated back years. Following an extensive meet and confer process regarding the merits and viability of such claims, plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without receiving any relief, thereby extricating the District from the lawsuit in its early stages and saving the client substantial fees and costs.