• Sacramento:   (916) 446-5297
  • San Francisco:   (415) 266-1800

This

Welcome to Messing Adam & Jasmine

.

Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP started in 2015 with the objective of pushing the boundaries of what it means to be “strong and knowledgeable representation.”  Our team is comprised of the finest expert attorneys in their respective fields and were hand chosen to build our firm.

Collectively, our firm has decades of experience helping clients overcome their legal challenges. We encourage you to look around and explore our services and should you have any questions at all regarding our business, practice areas, or anything else, please feel free to reach out to us.

News & Recent Developments…

23 Sep, 2020

The Labor Beat | September 2020 | Vol. 33 No. 2

0 Comments

MAJ attorneys and employees continue to work remotely, but The Beat goes on. We are pleased to share our second “e-only” edition of The Labor Beat. In it, we report on recent negotiations on behalf of our clients and what’s new in the courts and legislature affecting our clients and their members. With the hope … continue reading

04 Aug, 2020

“I’m Still Standing!” The California Rule After Alameda

0 Comments

The biopic Rocketman concludes with Elton John’s hit “I’m Still Standing,” which was written in 1983, and signaled a sharp turnaround from a darker place in the maestro’s career. After Thursday’s decision in Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association, the California Rule can also sing “I’m Still Standing;” however, its … continue reading

30 Jul, 2020

California Supreme Court Rules That “the California Rule remains the law of California” But Still Rejects the Pension Claims of Employees and Unions

0 Comments

This morning, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association. The 90-page opinion maintains the California Rule but found that the changes to PEPRA at issue in this case were constitutional: With respect to the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claim, however, we hold … continue reading