Former licensed insurance agent Brett E. Lovett, 53, of Camarillo was sentenced to 16 years and eight months in jail after being found guilty, after a 9 week jury trial, of 29 felony counts including grand theft, elder abuse, money laundering, and burglary.

Translated into real time, that comes to about four years, according to Casey Nelson, who prosecuted the case and argued Lovett should get 28 years. The probation report – citing the utter financial ruin Lovett visited upon his elderly victims – many of whom he met through Carpinteria’s Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses – argued for 26 years. Ultimately, the judge imposed a lighter sentence, citing Lovett’s lack of prior criminal charges.

A 15-month California Department of Insurance investigation found he defrauded at least nine victims, including senior citizens, of close to $1.2 million.

Lovett was arrested in October 2017 after the Department’s investigation revealed that between 2011 and 2016, he defrauded at least nine victims. Several of his victims were senior citizens whom he met and befriended at a place of worship in Carpinteria. Other victims sought legal advice from Lovett through his legal aid information business.

Victims entrusted Lovett with their money for proposed investments that never existed, or for financial management purposes. Lovett then misappropriated the money for his own personal use and to repay some of his victims — sometimes using his Power of Attorney and Promissory Notes to embezzle funds from victims.

Lovett has a history of embezzling money from members of the places of worship he attends.

In 2007, doing business as Northwest Asset Fund, he was ordered to pay more than $675,900 in restitution, fines and sanctions by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Lovett never paid the fines or restitution.

The CFTC entered a permanent injunction against Lovett, who never registered with the CFTC. Between October 2002 and August 2005, Lovett fraudulently solicited money from individuals, purportedly to trade commodity futures, through false promises of high returns from a low-risk investment.

Lovett’s license to transact insurance expired in May 2000. He was not acting as an insurance agent during this time, but he was giving financial advice which he was not licensed to give.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted this case

.

In 2014, San Marcos Unified School District awarded Lusardi Construction Company a contract to construct the San Marcos K-8 School Project. Lusardi subcontracted with Pro Works to install the iron reinforcing work for the Project..

In 2015, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) opened an investigation into a complaint that Pro Works violated former Labor Code section 1777.5 by failing to: (1) provide contract award information; (2) request dispatch of apprentices from applicable apprentice committees; (3) employ registered apprentices in compliance with a required apprentice to journeyperson ratio; and (4) make certain required training fund contributions to an approved apprenticeship program.

Deputy Labor Commissioner Kari Anderson served several documents on Lusardi and Pro Works including a “notice of investigation” and a request that the forward certain listed documents. The entities responded differently to Anderson’s documents request.

Anderson issued a “Penalty Review” summarizing her findings. She concluded that in February 2015, Pro Works violated the statutes and regulations relating to apprenticeships by failing to submit compliant DAS 140 and 142 forms and other required information. Anderson found that Pro Works “failed to hire any apprentices.” She also concluded Pro Works had a “history” of apprentice violations, and specifically listed their dates and descriptions. Anderson concluded the penalty should be assessed based on Pro Works’s failure to comply with four out of the five factors set forth in former Labor Code section 1777.7, subdivision (f). Penalties were assessed in the amount of $30,800, consisting of $200 per each of 154 days of section 1777.5 violations.

Lusardi timely filed a request for review of Anderson’s decision with the Director. Before the review hearing started, the hearing officer ruled the 2014 version of the relevant Labor Code provisions and regulations would apply, based on the Project’s bid advertisement date. He also ruled regarding the burden of proof that “DLSE will have to come forward with sufficient evidence to provide prima facie support for the penalty assessment.” If this is done, “Lusardi will have . . . the burden of proof set forth in [California Code of Regulations, title 8, section] 232.50[, subdivision] (b).”

On the first day of the hearing, Lusardi’s counsel initially stated three of its representatives as well as Senior Deputy Labor Commissioner Michael Nagtalon who had reviewed and approved the “Penalty Review” would be called to testify. But Nagtalon was not available. DLSE’s sole witness, Anderson, was the only person who testified that day.

On the second and last day of the hearing, Lusardi’s counsel sought the testimony of Nagtalon, who was under subpoena. DLSE’s counsel explained Nagtalon was unavailable as he was outside of the country, but he offered to produce Nagtalon for a rescheduled hearing. However, Lusardi elected not to request a continuance to obtain Nagtalon’s testimony or to put on its case. Instead, its counsel stated, “Lusardi will rest without presenting any further evidence and will not move any of Lusardi’s exhibits into evidence in this matter.” Counsel explained: “We are not going to present any evidence because we feel very strongly the Labor Commissioner has failed to meet its burden in this matter.”

Lusardi’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful and the Director affirmed the hearing officer’s findings, concluding DLSE met its burden to present evidence showing prima facie support for the penalty assessment, including that Lusardi knew of Pro Works’s violations and was liable for the penalties. Lusardi filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which the superior court denied. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Director in the published case of Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations – D081704 (June 2024.)

On appeal, among other issues Lusardi contended the court erroneously adopted the Director’s “interpretation and unprecedented application of the two prongs of [former] Labor Code section 1777.7, subdivision (d)(1)-(4).”

Former section 1777.7, subdivision (d) provided: “If a subcontractor is found to have violated Section 1777.5, the prime contractor of the project is not liable for any penalties under subdivision (a), unless the prime contractor had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the provisions of Section 1777.5 (and the second prong in this case) or unless the prime contractor fails to comply with any of the following requirements” and four additional requirements are listed in this law.

The superior court denied Lusardi’s writ petition, interpreting former section 1777.7 subdivision (d) in the disjunctive: “Based on the plain language of the statute, the [c]ourt believes that the Legislature intended for the [Director] to have the burden of establishing that petitioner had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply with [former section] 1777.5 or that petitioner failed to comply with any [of] the requirements set forth in [former section 1777.7 subdivision] (d)(1)-(4). [¶] . . . [¶] The Director focused on the first prong of [former section] 1777.7[,subdivision] (d), and made a finding that Lusardi had knowledge of the subcontractor’s apprentice violations.”

The Court of Appeal noted that “Statutory construction is a question of law we decide de novo. [Citation.] Our primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the underlying legislative intent. [Citation.] ”

In interpreting the disjunctive parts of former section 1777.7, subdivision (d), The Court turned to one court’s discussion of the challenges in interpreting the conjunction “or”: “The fact is that there is nothing very plain about the use of the connective “or” in legal drafting.’ [Citation.] “Sometimes it joins alternatives; sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes or means and; sometimes it doesn’t[ ].” [Citation.] “Additionally, if ‘or’ is a disjunctive connector, sometimes it connects words in the inclusive sense (i.e., A or B, or both); other times, it connects words in the exclusive sense (i.e., A or B, but not both). [Citation.] Thus, the potential ambiguity created by ‘or’ is not one dimensional.”

The Court of Appeal concluded that “the court did not err in interpreting former section 1777.7, subdivision (d). The statute’s plain language provides two inclusive and alternative ways for imposing liability on a prime contractor for penalties resulting from the subcontractor’s violations of former section 1777.5. Specifically, first, the prime contractor is not liable for the penalties ‘unless [it] had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply’ with the statute; or, second, it is not liable for the penalties ‘unless the prime contractor fails to comply with any of the’ requirements set forth in the remainder of section (d).”

On June 20 the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board approved an indoor heat standard to protect indoor workers from heat illness. The new regulation will require indoor workplaces to be cooled below 87 degrees Fahrenheit if feasible when employees are present, and below 82 degrees if feasible in places where workers wear protective clothing that restricts heat removal or work in high radiant heat areas.

Back in March, CalMatters reported that the rule was expected to be finally voted into place by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board at a meeting in San Diego. But state officials ordered that it be pulled from the agenda after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration suddenly withdrew a required stamp of approval, saying it learned the rule would cost state prisons much more money than anticipated.

For state government, the standards board last year estimated the Department of Corrections would need to pay less than $1 million in the rule’s first year and less than $500,000 annually after that to comply. About half of the state’s 1,500 correctional institutions are either already climate controlled or located in areas that won’t be hot enough to trigger the heat rule, the Department of Industrial Relations stated. That was after finance officials told the department in 2021 that it underestimated prison costs; the department said its updated analysis resulted in double the cost to the state.

But State Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer told CalMatters the finance department received more updated information in recent weeks that costs to the corrections department would be in the billions of dollars instead. He could not explain what could account for such a drastic difference in estimates in just one year, saying “we’ve been trying to get an understanding of that.”

Then on April 18, Cal/OSHA said it planed to pass rules this summer, except for workers at prisons.

As planned, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, on June 20, 2024, approved California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 3396, “Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment.” The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has 30 working days to review and approve or deny the proposal. The Standards Board requested that the regulation take effect immediately after OAL approval.

Local and state correctional facilities as well as emergency operations directly involved in the protection of life or property are exempted from the proposed regulation for indoor heat. Cal/OSHA is in the process of developing an industry-specific regulation for local and state correctional facilities to protect their workers from indoor heat hazards. In the interim, for these exempted employers, Cal/OSHA will continue investigating potential indoor heat violations under existing regulations such as the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (Title 8, Section 3203) and Water Supply (Title 8, Section 3363).

Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment regulation applies to most indoor workplaces, such as restaurants, warehouses, and manufacturing facilities. For indoor workplaces where the temperature reaches 87 degrees Fahrenheit, employers must take steps to protect workers from heat illness. Some of the requirements include providing water, rest, cool-down areas, methods for cooling down the work areas under certain conditions, and training.

Employers may be covered under both the indoor and outdoor regulations if they have both indoor and outdoor workplaces. See the Comparison Chart of Indoor and Outdoor Heat Illness Prevention Standards.

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, a seven-member body appointed by the Governor, is the standards-setting agency within the Cal/OSHA program. The Standards Board’s objective is to adopt reasonable and enforceable standards that are at least as effective as federal standards. The Standards Board also has the responsibility to grant or deny applications for variances from adopted standards and respond to petitions for new or revised standards.

There are more resources for employers and workers on Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention web page and the 99calor.org informational website, as well as a Heat Illness Prevention online tool. The advisory includes a toll free number for workers who have questions about heat illness prevention in indoor and outdoor places of employment can speak with a Cal/OSHA representative, 1-833-579-0927, and information on how to file confidential complaints with Cal/OSHA district offices about workplace safety and health hazards.

Governor Gavin Newsom, in partnership with legislative leadership and business and labor groups, announced an agreement on needed reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that avoids a contentious ballot measure campaign.

Once the legislation reflecting this agreement is passed and signed into law by the Governor, proponents of the PAGA ballot initiative eligible for the November ballot have agreed to withdraw their measure. Here’s what this PAGA reform proposal would do:

Reform penalty structure

– – Encourages compliance with labor laws by capping penalties on employers who quickly take steps to fix policies and practices, and make workers whole, after receiving a PAGA notice, as well as on employers that act responsibly to take steps proactively to comply with the labor code before even receiving a PAGA notice.
– – Creates new, higher penalties on employers who act maliciously, fraudulently or oppressively in violating labor laws.
– – Ensures that more of the penalty money goes to employees by increasing the amount allocated to employees from 25% to 35%.

Reducing and streamlining litigation

– – Expands which Labor Code sections can be cured to reduce the need for litigation and make employees whole quickly.
– – Protects small employers by providing a more robust right to cure process through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to reduce litigation and costs.
– – Codifies that a court may limit both the scope of claims presented at trial to ensure cases can be managed effectively.

Improving measures for injunctive relief and standing

– – Allows courts to provide injunctive relief to compel businesses to implement changes in the workplace to remedy labor law violations.
– – Requires the employee to personally experience the alleged violations brought in a claim.

Strengthening state enforcement

– – Give the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) the ability to expedite hiring and fill vacancies to ensure effective and timely enforcement of employee labor claims.

“This package provides meaningful reforms that ensure workers continue to have a strong vehicle to get labor claims resolved, while also limiting the frivolous litigation that has cost employers billions without benefiting workers,” said Jennifer Barrera, President & CEO, California Chamber of Commerce. “We thank Governor Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore McGuire and Assembly Speaker Rivas for navigating this agreement, and we encourage the legislature to pass this package quickly.”

“We are happy to have negotiated reforms to PAGA that better ensure abusive practices by employers are cured and that workers are made whole, quicker,” said Lorena Gonzalez, principal officer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. “PAGA is an essential tool to help workers hold corporations accountable for widespread wage theft, safety violations, and misclassification. We appreciate the work of the Governor’s office and Legislative Leadership to help us reach agreement with the Cal Chamber of Commerce to protect this innovative law and strengthen labor law enforcement.”

“Today’s agreement is critical to the long-term success of workers and businesses here in the Golden State,” said Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D-North Coast). “Commonsense reform of PAGA has been discussed for years, and thanks to the collaboration of all sides, including the work of the Governor, this agreement will continue to provide strong worker protections and implement long talked-about reforms. Next steps include working with Speaker Rivas to move legislation forward in the days to come.”

“This agreement is important because it protects working people, who are the real engine behind California’s economic strength,” said Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas (D-Salinas). “It also recognizes companies that follow labor laws, and it puts more muscle into enforcement. I grew up watching farmworkers and employers find common ground, so it means a lot to me that so many groups came together and found consensus. This is a hard-earned agreement, and that makes the positive outcomes we’ll see for businesses and workers even better.”