Jonathan Kintzele

I completed my law degree at the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, where I served as a Senior Editor for the Southern California Law Review. I graduated with Dean's Honors, and was one of the four students whose Law Review Article was selected for Publication in the Journal.

EDUCATION:
USC Good School of Law, Dean's Honors
UC Santa Barbara, Summa Cum Laude

In my professional journey, I have had the privilege of working for 7 years between the global law firms of DLA Piper (US) LLC, which ranks third overall in the AMLAW listings, and K&L Gates LLP, which holds the 29th position. My experiences at these distinguished firms have been instrumental in shaping my legal career.

I have also contributed to legal scholarship through my publication, "Easy Come Easy Go: A Guide To California Cap-And-Trade Spending," which appeared in Volume 95, No. 1 of the Southern California Law Review. This work reflects my ongoing commitment to understanding and elucidating complex legal frameworks.

• Free Consultation
  Submit an inquiry for a free consultation about your case.
• Credit Cards Accepted
• Contingent Fees
  Contingency Fee Arrangement on Case-by-Case Basis Starting at 33%.

California

State Bar of California

Counsel

KLG P.C.

2023 - Current

Associate

DLA Piper LLC

2021 - 2023

Associate

K&L Gates LLP

2017 - 2021

University of Southern California Gould School of Law

J.D. (2017) | Law

2014 - 2017

Honors: Southern California Law Review Senior Editor Dean's Honors

Activities: Athletics Chair SBA Executive Board Member USC Gould School of Law Student Mentorship Program

University of California - Santa Barbara

B.A. (2012) | Political Science; Environmental Science

2008 - 2012

Honors: Cum Laude

Activities: UCSB Lacrosse

State Bar of California

Member

Current

CAALA

Member

Current

LACBA

Member

Current

Beverly Hills Bar Association

Member

Current

Orange County Trial Lawyers Association

Member

Current

EASY COME, EASY GO: A GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA CAP-AND-TRADE SPENDING

Southern California Law Review

March 3, 2017

Q. How plaintiff can oppose court's decision if Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied?

November 16, 2024

A: If a motion for reconsideration is denied, your option would be to appeal the decision within the statutory timeframe, which runs from the date of the denial of reconsideration, rather from the date of the initial order, but only if the order itself was appealable.

Note that the appeal will be interlocutory and under CCP 1008, if the underlying order was appealable, then the denial of reconsideration can be reviewed on appeal of that order.

Q. Hi I have a question. Is it illegal to post voting sings and banners in my property without my permission?

November 5, 2024

A: Yes, it would be an illegal trespass, severity depending on how much of an intrusion onto your property it was (i.e., as Mr. Kane said, if they had posted signs in your kitchen, it would be more extreme of an intrusion than if they planted them on your lawn).

Q. City golf course contractor employer prevents employees from drinking at site restaurant on off days. public can drink

November 4, 2024

A: I presume this question is based on the premise that you have implied but not stated fully: employees, during *non-working hours* that visit their place of work (City golf course) are not allowed to drink while on the premises, whether or not they are working that day or at the time.

If this is the case, it seems to be an attempt for the Company to control its employees during non-working hours; i.e., this could present an issue as to when you work shift ends and when it begins, as the Company is preventing you from taking a purely recreational action, even though your hourly timesheet will never reflect that time nor will employee likelihood be compensated at all. It sounds unfair enough to suggest there are possible remedies that are being overlooked in order to keep a status quo.

Secondly, I see this as possibly a non-issue style-situation purely by way of the difficulty of enforcing the alleged "policy." It is hard to expect to see active employees refusing to serve beverages to former employees, or at least telling their managers when their fellow employees do so.

Ultimately, yes it is unfair, but you would need a high level of documentary evidence to support that you are in essence being asked to relinquish control of your non-working hours for the benefit of the employer and without compensation. It smells like there is a case there, but you would have to confirm after a consultation with the managing lawyer for the matter. ... Read More