Drivers alleging Uber lied about a 2014 data breach that compromised their sensitive personal information told a California federal judge Friday that the Ninth Circuit’s recent Zappos ruling underscores that the mere risk of future identity theft from the hack gives them standing to pursue their putative class action.
President Donald Trump has asked a California federal court to take on Stormy Daniels’ suit over an allegedly void hush contract, as his personal attorney’s consulting company claimed she had violated the deal 20 times and could owe $20 million in damages, according to court filings Friday.
Two years after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission put Silicon Valley on notice about complying with Wall Street’s rules, the agency has delivered a pair of enforcement actions that show its focus on the California region hasn’t lessened and may even heat up.
A lawsuit alleging Charter Communications Inc. violated state civil rights law by refusing to carry a number of Spanish stations including Azteca America was moved from state to California federal court Thursday in a case similar to other pending litigation in which Charter is defending broadcast selectivity on First Amendment grounds.
Shares of cybersecurity startup Zscaler Inc. more than doubled in a sizzling debut on Friday, one day after the technology “unicorn” priced an upsized $192 million initial public offering above its projected range, representing the largest of four IPOs during the week of March 12.
Monument Peak Ventures LLC, a Texas subsidiary of Dominion Harbor Enterprises that claims to own more than 1,000 Kodak patents, sued drone-maker DJI Technology Inc. and camera manufacturer Hasselblad Inc. Friday in California federal court, accusing them of refusing to correctly license imaging patents used in their products.
A Ninth Circuit judge told United Airlines Inc. pilots and flight attendants Friday that courts have clashed on when California law applies in disputes like theirs alleging an employer's pay stubs fall short of state requirements, saying California’s high court may need to weigh in.
A California judge said Friday she’ll approve Safeway’s settlement that provides a class of store-brand olive oil buyers with a $1.50 voucher or 50 cents cash and awards their attorneys $1.42 million in fees and expenses, resolving allegations the grocery store chain falsely labeled olive oil as “imported from Italy.”
A coalition of Native-led and environmental organizations filed suit Thursday against the National Marine Fisheries Service, alleging it has not acted quickly enough to designate critical habitat to protect three distinct populations of humpback whales that are endangered or threatened.
Fiat Chrysler and Bosch must face consumers’ fraud and racketeering claims in multidistrict litigation in California over Jeep and Ram diesel trucks allegedly outfitted with emissions-cheating devices, a federal judge ruled late Thursday.
The Supreme Court’s headline-making term is far from over as the justices return this week for a politically charged case over California’s abortion disclosure law and a dispute that could result in more lawsuits against Native American tribes.
A putative nationwide class of Delta flight attendants asked a Ninth Circuit panel Friday to revive allegations they aren’t compensated on an hourly basis for all their work, arguing that under California law they should be compensated for work performed on the ground in the Golden State before and after flights.
Microsoft has asked a California federal court to add its attorneys' fees to the $278,000 verdict it scored against Corel last month for infringing patents related to its Office software, in a move that could add substantially to the relatively milquetoast judgment.
A California federal judge Friday sent back to state court climate change torts lodged by a trio of municipalities against dozens of oil, gas and coal companies, creating a split with another judge who’s said similar suits filed by San Francisco and Oakland belong in federal court.
A California federal judge on Thursday tentatively dismissed with prejudice the latest attempt by investors to sue the holding company of BofI Federal Bank for allegedly making false or misleading statements to the public, finding the investors still hadn’t linked stock value losses to the alleged misrepresentations.
The Board of Alien and Labor Certification Appeals on Thursday affirmed a certifying officer’s denial of permanent labor certification for a maid in Pacific Palisades, California, finding that the employer's recruitment report was deficient.
The Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed six jury convictions against a former U.S. Customs and Border Protection official for his participation in a scheme to pay bribes to government employees to obtain green cards and other benefits for immigrants, saying questions about his past were fair game.
A California federal judge has sent to arbitration a suit filed by a photographer who worked on a Princess cruise vessel and claims he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder because he was forced to document the scene of an alleged murder aboard the ship.
A California judge said Friday she’ll approve Wells Fargo Bank NA’s $27.5 million settlement resolving a consolidated action brought by the bank’s hourly Golden State bankers and sales representatives, who claim they were required to work more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay and were shorted meal breaks.
A purported California entrepreneur has admitted to bilking investors out of $6.8 million by falsely claiming that three different companies he controlled were developing technology that could dramatically increase gas mileage for any car, working on anti-counterfeiting technology and coming up with a method to convert used tires into oil.
If an employee asserts representative claims seeking civil penalties from his employer under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, are they arbitrable by agreement of the parties? Courts should adopt a unified approach to this question and allow representative PAGA claims to be arbitrated, so long as they are not outright waived, say M.C. Sungaila and Marco Pulido of Haynes and Boone LLP.
In Liberty v. Ledesma and Travelers v. Actavis, the California Supreme Court should stand by its long, if not uniform, history of requiring an insurer to provide defense if there is even a remote possibility that the insured's conduct or its effects were accidental, say Kurt Melchior and Joan Cotkin of Nossaman LLP.
Because there is a clear definition of sexual harassment under both California and federal law, there are several precautions that employers can take to prevent the #MeToo movement from occupying their workspace, even as state representatives work to bolster the statutory scheme of protection, says Jamie Wright of Albright Yee & Schmit APC.
The insurance coverage litigation arising from the settlement of the shareholder claims filed in connection with Dole Food’s 2013 going-private transaction continues to grind on, and the latest ruling could be helpful for companies seeking to argue that Delaware law should govern the interpretation of their insurance policies, says Kevin LaCroix of RT ProExec.
Despite the 2016 dismissal of federal human rights cases against food companies in California, a similar class action — Tomasella v. Hershey Co. — was recently filed in Massachusetts federal court, and it’s one that companies in the sector should watch closely, says Markus Funk of Perkins Coie LLP.
There's no reason for limiting unbundled legal services to family law or even pro se litigants. Wider adoption, especially by litigators, presents an opportunity to correct law's distribution and pricing problem, to make justice practically available to all, and to dethrone litigation as the "sport of kings," says New York-based trial lawyer David Wallace.
Like medical professionals, lawyers often resist policies to reduce errors due to the culture of perfectionism that permeates the industry. Autonomy is key to the legal professional's prestige and the outward demonstration of competence is key to maintaining autonomy, says Peter Norman of Winnieware LLC.
It is undisputed that in his first year in office President Trump was able to confirm a significant number of judges to the federal bench. How it happened — and whether it's a good thing — are debated here by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility has significant implications for enforcement against telephone, wireless and internet businesses, and for the potential fate of the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order, say attorneys with Cooley LLP.
For the past two years, California employers have been able to pay employees for working weekends with a flat-sum bonus, confident that following official federal regulations would be enough to protect them from liability. However, this interpretation came to a halt with the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., say attorneys with Scali Rasmussen.