Sean Paisan

Of Counsel Orange County

Sean Paisan maintains a broad employment practice, reflecting his extensive litigation experience working for both the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (Hardcore Gang Unit) and the United States Attorney’s Office (Civil Division) before moving into private practice. A 15-year attorney, he has first chaired numerous trials in both federal and state court, administrative law trials, and binding arbitrations. Sean has represented clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to governmental entities to small businesses. In addition to general employment matters, one of his specialties is assisting employers with Workplace Safety and Health issues. Typically, Sean is the first person his clients contact after a fatal or serious accident, often times after regular business hours. Once engaged, he ensures that a proper investigation is conducted, that the investigation remains privileged, and helps manage potential criminal and civil exposure to the company. Drawing on his years of experience in general liability, criminal, commercial, and construction law, Sean’s unique skillset allows him to anticipate and proactively manage issues, rather than simply reacting to requests and inquiries by investigating agencies such as OSHA, Cal/OSHA, Bureau of Investigations (BOI), FAA, NTSB, District Attorney investigators, as well as opposing counsel in litigation matters. Additionally, Sean assists employers with Unfair Competition, False Advertising, and Trade Secret matters, and has successfully tried cases in the federal court involving the Lanham Act and the Defend Trade Secret Act. In addition to his litigation experience, Sean is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) and assists employers with Data Privacy issues. Before becoming an attorney, Mr. Paisan earned his degree in Accounting from USC’s Marshall School of Business and worked in the construction industry, helping construct Disney’s California Adventure.


Experience

Mr. Paisan’s experience includes the following:

  • Representation of clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to governmental entities, including airlines, automobile and tire manufacturers, construction companies, newspaper publishers, retail establishments, property owners, trucking and express freight companies, hospitals, universities, real estate developers, insurance companies, the State of California, counties, cities, municipalities, and school districts.
  • Mr. Paisan has earned the Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) credential through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). He helps organizations manage rapidly evolving privacy threats and mitigate the potential loss and misuse of information assets. He has an in-depth understanding of how the myriad of privacy laws can impact business operations. These laws include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, California Financial Information Privacy Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Junk Fax Prevention Act, Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), Cable Communications Policy Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA). With respect to laws affecting the ability of the government to obtain information, Mr. Paisan can assist employers in understanding their obligations under the Federal Wiretap Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Right to Financial Privacy Act, Privacy Protection Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and USA PATRIOT Act.
  • Kaatz v. Graham (Riverside RIC1112557) Mr. Paisan assisted in obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a religious university and its related church entities in a lawsuit filed by former employees. The MSJ, which asserted defenses based on the First Amendment, was successful in persuading the court that there were no triable issues of fact as to plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of employment contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, interference with contractual relations, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Cal/OSHA v. AMG Demolition/Hensel Phelps Construction (12-R3D2-0986/7) – Mr. Paisan obtained a complete dismissal of citations for Serious Accident Related Violations issued by Cal/OSHA during trial before the OSHA Appeals Board. The Serious Citations alleged overloading caused the collapse of an engineered, hanging scaffold at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.  Mr. Paisan established that the collapse was due to the defective design of the hanging scaffold, improper use of tube and clamp connectors, and improper truss bridging, which resulted in an as-built capacity of only 6.2 psf, instead of the contracted-for capacity of 25 psf.
  • Gee v. All Cartage Transportation, Inc. (Los Angeles BC561962) – Mr. Paisan obtained summary judgment on behalf of his clients Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., Maersk, Inc., and Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc.  The plaintiff, who was represented by Panish, Shea & Boyle, was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer, in which the trailer separated from the tractor and landed on top of the plaintiff’s sedan. The Court granted summary judgment holding: (1) that the undisputed material facts established that the sole cause of the accident was the lack of proper driver input by the driver of the tractor-trailer; (2) there was no evidence of any defect in the tractor, chassis or container that caused or contributed to the accident; (3) the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. §§30101, et seq.) preempts California law with respect to vicarious liability imposed on vehicle lessors; (4) there can be no vicarious liability under Vehicle Code section 17150 because neither a semitrailer nor a container are self-propelled, and hence, they are not “motor vehicles” under Vehicle Code section 415(a); (5) moving parties had no legal relationship with the driver of the tractor; and (6) the moving parties did not manufacture, assemble, design or sell the subject tractor, semitrailer, or container, or any component part thereof.
  • Hill v. State of California (Los Angeles BC528799) – Mr. Paisan obtained summary judgment on behalf of his client Flatiron West, Inc., a general contractor that was named as a cross-defendant by the owner of a freeway project. The cross-complainant alleged that Flatiron owed indemnity and a duty to defend the owner for the personal injury claims of a motorcyclist that was injured on the freeway after allegedly hitting a pothole.  Despite an aggressive opposition, the trial court granted his motion for summary judgment holding: (1) Flatiron’s work did not create the alleged pothole; (2) Flatiron had no affirmative obligation to defend and indemnify the owner of the project; and (3) the term “commenced work” in the contract means the start of physical construction (e.g., breaking ground) at the subject location, not simply signing a contract and putting up construction signs at the subject location.
  • Rodriguez v. The San Diego Union Tribune, LLC (San Diego 00052098) – Mr. Paisan obtained a voluntary dismissal on behalf of The San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) after preparing and filing a Motion for Summary Judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was represented by Panish, Shea & Boyle, alleged that the SDUT was responsible for injuries, including traumatic brain injury, sustained when the plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with a vehicle being operated by an independent contractor of one of SDUT’s independent distributors. The MSJ established that there was no employment or agency relationship between the SDUT and the operator of the vehicle.
  • Holbrook v. Hutchinson (San Diego 0008906) – Mr. Paisan prepared and successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of real estate land developers.  The Court granted the MSJ holding that the land developers owed no duty to plaintiff as a matter of law in a wrongful death case involving allegations of improper street lighting and sidewalk configuration.
  • Espinales v. Access Services (Los Angeles BC445898) – Mr. Paisan prepared and successfully argued a demurrer on behalf of Access Services. The Court sustained the demurrer holding that a paratransit provider under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was not a common carrier as a matter of law and, therefore, not subject to a heightened duty of care.
  • Barlow v. County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino CIVMS1000447) – Mr. Paisan obtained a voluntary dismissal on behalf of the County of San Bernardino after filing motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff.

Professional Activities and Speeches

Speeches:

  • Phylmar Regulatory Roundtable - ''Cal/OSHA Recent Enforcement Trends'' - Costa Mesa - March 21, 2018
  • K&N Engineering, Inc. - ''Improving Data Security'' - Riverside - March 07, 2018
  • California Grocers Association’s Loss Prevention, Safety & Risk Management Committee Meeting - ''OSHA Update: What Retailers Need to Know Right Now'' - Sacramento - April 17, 2017
  • OD Employment Law Briefing - ''What to Do when Cal/OSHA Comes Knockin'' - San Francisco - April 13, 2017
  • OD Employment Law Briefing - ''Disability Leaves and Accommodation'' - Costa Mesa - April 05, 2017
  • The Knowledge Group - ''OSHA's New Electronic Recordkeeping Rule: Navigating Significant Risks for Employers'' - Webcast - August 25, 2016

Media

Published Works

X

Our Insights

Top