Our attorneys provide outstanding service and innovative legal solutions to help clients in the retail sector meet unique business challenges.

Valued Advisors

Hopkins & Carley attorneys have a deep understanding of the legal issues that impact clients in this highly competitive business environment. The firm’s success advising retail companies of all sizes stems from our dedication to helping businesses grow and succeed while protecting brand equity.  Hopkins & Carley’s extensive experience and professional breadth allow the firm to provide top-quality counsel in virtually every area affecting retail businesses.

  • Advised McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Applebee’s franchisees in connection with entity formation and governance issues, and the purchase and sale of individual and multiple restaurant locations.
  • Represented a large regional bank in a series of related construction loans for mixed use project that included hotel and retail space.
  • Obtained a $3.5 million settlement for a shopping center landlord  after its anchor tenant, a major grocery chain, ceased operations and abandoned the premises. 
  • Represented local grocery store and national grocery chain in leasing and subleasing of their stores, including licenses for use of space within the stores.
  • Represented landlords in the Borders, Radio Shack and American Apparel bankruptcies, achieving a settlement of a dispute concerning a contingent proof of claim, negotiating the immediate assignment of the lease; and successfully negotiating assumption of lease with no change in lease terms.
  • Represented the owner of a retail shopping center whose anchor tenant withheld a full year of rent.  The case settled a week before trial resulting in our client receiving 100% of damages and legal expenses.
  • Assisted grocers in the ground lease and development of grocery stores throughout California.

They're Back: No-Match Letters from Social Security

For the first time in several years, the Social Security Administration has resumed sending out a large volume of so-called "no-match" letters, in which the agency notifies employers that the Social S... Read more »

To Designate or Not To Designate FMLA (and/or CFRA) Leave? - Employers are Provided Some More Guidance

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees working for covered employers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave each year for a number of pre-determined purpose... Read more »

Strict Requirements for Background Checks: Federal and State Mandated Disclosures Must Stand Alone in Separate Documents

California employers who use background checks in making personnel decisions about employees and job applicants must comply with a variety of strict legal requirements, including the federal Fair Cred... Read more »

New Law Expands Employers' Obligation to Provide Anti-Harassment Training

Since 2006, California has required employers who receive services from 50 or more persons to provide anti-harassment training to their supervisors. The new law expands the training obligation to empl... Read more »

Is It Ever Okay for a Non-Exempt Employee to Work "Off the Clock"? California Supreme Court Rejects Federal "de minimis" Defense in Starbucks' Case

In Troester v. Starbucks, the California Supreme Court rejected the application of the de minimis defense to work performed by Starbucks' hourly employees who were required to close out the store afte... Read more »

Stay up to date on the latest news, alerts, events and legal insights: