Company Overview of Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.
Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. is a real estate investment firm specializing in acquiring, developing and managing multifamily communities. It seeks to invest in commercial and residential real estate. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Foster City, California.
4000 East Third Avenue
Foster City, CA 94404-4805
Founded in 1968
Key Executives for Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2013.
Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. Key Developments
California Court of Appeal Breaks National Labor Relations Board's Ruling on Lawsuit Filed Against Legacy Partners Residential, Inc
Aug 3 12
Breaking with the National Labor Relations Board's ruling that arbitration agreements containing class waivers can violate federal labor law, the California Court of Appeal recently held that an arbitration agreement precluding class arbitration was not unconscionable, norwould enforcing it violate California state law, federal law or public policy. After Plaintiff Lorena Nelsen filed a putative class action against her former employer, Legacy Partners Residential, Inc., alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, LPR moved to compel Nelsen to submit her individual claims to arbitration based on an arbitration agreement Nelsen signed when she joined LPR. Nelsen appealed the trial court's decision granting LPR's motion. The Court ofAppeal affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court cited a number of reasons for its decision not to followthe NLRB's decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. (discussed here) includingthe fact that the Court, not bound by the decisions of lower federalcourts on questions of federal law, is similarly not bound by federal administrative interpretations. Nor did the Court find Horton particularly persuasive. The Court noted that the Horton decision was subscribed to by only two NLRB Board members and the subject matter of the decision fell well outside the Board's core expertise. The Court also noted that the NLRB's decision in Horton reflected a novel interpretation of the law and cited no prior legislative expression, or judicial or administrative precedent. What's more, at least two federal district court cases had rejected the reasoning set forth in Horton since its publication.
California Court Rejects NLRB's Appeal
Jul 25 12
The California state appellate courts have enforced an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of wage-and-hour claims on an individual basis. The First District Court of Appeal's decision in Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc., 2012 WL2913809, follows a similar decision by the Second District and represents another sign that California courts are taking heed of the U.S. Supreme Court's broad pro-arbitration holding in AT&T Mobility LLC verses Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740. (2011). The plaintiff in Nelsen had worked as a property manager for Legacy Partners. When Nelsen was hired, she agreed to an arbitration provision that authorized arbitration only on an individual not 'class-wide' basis. Nelsen later filed a putative class action, alleging that she was deprived of overtime and rest and meal breaks. In response, Legacy Partners filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the superior court granted the motion. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the order compelling arbitration. Most significantly, the court rejected Nelsen's argument that requiring arbitration of employment disputes on an individual basis violates the National Labor Relations Act, which protects the rights of employees to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The court first explained that only two Board members subscribed to 'Horton' and that those members lacked the benefit of dialogue with a full board or dissenting colleagues. Second, the court explained that the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act and the NLRA 'falls well outside the Board's core expertise in collective bargaining and unfair practices. The court also observed that the NLRB's decision was unsupported by precedent and was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in CompuCredit Corp. verses Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012), which reaffirmed the principle that if Congress wishes to declare a federal claim non-arbitrable, it must do so clearly and unmistakably. The court also rejected Nelsen's contention that the arbitration agreement violated California public policy because it implicitly precluded class arbitration. Nelsen relied heavily on Gentry v. Superior Court, 165 P.3d 556 (Cal. 2007), which sets forth a multi-factor test for determining when an employment arbitration agreement that includes a class-action waiver violates California public policy. Finally, the court rejected Nelsen's argument that California exempts her claim for injunctive relief from arbitration under the Broughton-Cruz doctrine, in which the California Supreme Court held that claims for so-called 'public injunctive relief' under California consumer protection statues are non-arbitrable.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions