California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation stripping the state’s beleaguered tax board of most of its powers and replacing it with two new agencies, the product of investigations into the board’s alleged misuse of state resources and other questionable practices.
An Illinois state court has tripled Playboy’s $5 million damages award, denied a bid by the maker of an energy drink bearing Playboy’s name for a new trial and granted Playboy fees and costs in a long-running trademark infringement case, bringing its winnings in the case to nearly $19 million.
The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday sunk an attempt by two anti-nuclear-proliferation groups to halt construction of a $715 million explosives-handling wharf at a submarine base near Seattle, ruling it was a harmless error when the U.S. Navy had withheld some information about the project’s risks from an environmental review.
A California federal judge on Wednesday again trimmed some claims from a securities class action that’s part of Volkswagen’s larger emissions scandal, but also let some claims back into the case and rejected efforts to change his mind.
A pair of proposed worker class actions accusing Berkshire Hathaway Homestate and two other insurers of hacking their lawyers’ databases were permanently dismissed Tuesday, as a California federal judge said Stored Communication Act claims were inadequately pled.
A Ninth Circuit panel on Tuesday upheld the reduction of attorneys’ fees for a lawyer who was found to have violated California’s rules of conduct and breached his ethical duty when he withdrew as counsel for the official committee of unsecured creditors of defunct Howrey LLP and began adversely working for several individual creditors.
Los Angeles-based Pacific Alliance Medical Center has agreed to pay $42 million to settle a whistleblower's allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by entering into illegal referral agreements with community partners, the U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday.
A California federal judge has thrown out a putative class action accusing Vizio Inc. of misrepresenting the refresh rate on its televisions, saying a “fatal” concession by the consumer at deposition showed he wasn’t misled.
Neal Katyal seemingly tried to educate Justice Samuel Alito about a well-known Latin phrase, Justice Sonia Sotomayor prayed aloud that she wouldn’t be assigned a mind-numbing opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan needled a lawyer who confused her with another justice. Here, Law360 wraps up the top moments of legal levity from the latest high court term.
Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice has emerged as the most talkative at oral arguments — and the title holder should come as no surprise to court watchers.
The justices’ level of engagement at oral argument can provide a crucial window into their thinking on an issue, but interpreting what that might mean for how they’ll rule is an elusive art. Here, Law360 looks at the sessions in which each justice engaged the most.
One of the country’s largest call centers has been hit with a proposed class action in California federal court alleging the company masked unsolicited robocalls in a bid to trick consumers into picking up the phone.
BMW of North America LLC reiterated its support Wednesday in New York federal court for a deal that would end two lawsuits over an alleged sunroof design defect that damaged electrical components in certain vehicles’ trunks, saying a mere .003 percent of the settlement class has objected to the deal.
A California federal judge has entered a final judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by a Chinese garlic exporter, which had accused Chinese competitors of defrauding the U.S. to acquire preferential duties, at the request of the plaintiffs, who want to move on to an appeal.
Toshiba told a Tokyo court that its joint venture partner, California-based Western Digital, is overstating its consent right to the Japanese company’s anticipated memory business divestiture in an effort to derail the roughly 2 trillion yen ($17.9 billion) transaction, calling the behavior anti-competitive, according to a Wednesday statement.
A toxicology expert who has repeatedly testified for women alleging they developed ovarian cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products on Tuesday explained her methodology to the California judge overseeing the state’s first talc trial.
A California federal judge Tuesday shot down a sanctions motion by drugmaker Collidion alleging rival Sonoma Pharmaceuticals relied on a forged letter to bring its trade secret suit, saying the motion was filed too early and that other evidence suggests the allegations in the disputed document are accurate.
While the U.S. Supreme Court may take a narrow view of the Dodd-Frank Act’s protections for whistleblowers by limiting them to those who report violations to the SEC, experts say such a decision could be a “Pyrrhic victory” for employers, as employees who would otherwise report violations internally may be forced into the agency’s arms.
The father of an autistic child urged a California federal judge to deny Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Inc.'s move for a quick win on his claims that the company’s treatment of autistic guests is discriminatory, arguing they have raised valid questions about the sufficiency of Disney’s disability program.
A California appellate court tentatively affirmed a $3.9 million verdict Tuesday against an R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. subsidiary in which the jury had found the cigarettes’ design was a key factor in a smoker’s death, casting doubt on the tobacco giant’s argument that federal law preempted his widow’s state claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities enables securities class action defendants to calculate their exposure to opt-out actions and other liability with much greater confidence and precision. The decision also has the potential to go even further in limiting securities class actions, say Susan Saltzstein and Robert Fumerton of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.
The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Jones v. Needham, where it reversed the dismissal of a sexual harassment claim based on "quid pro quo" set of facts, highlights for employers that labels or categories are irrelevant to harassment claims, exhausting administrative remedies is much easier than most employers might appreciate, and more importantly, employers must be vigilant and proactive, says Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP.
While the California federal judge's criminal referral in the trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo may not be typical, it provides important lessons about the criminal issues that lawyers should understand when litigating civil trade secrets cases, say Joshua Robbins and Adam Sechooler of Greenberg Gross LLP.
The simple practice of asking jurors important and substantive questions early can help make trial by jury a more reliable form of dispute resolution, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
Considering both the actual exposure and ultimate result, U.S. v. Dish Network LLC starkly highlights the absolutely devastating penalties provided by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the telemarketing sales rule. But the case is much more than a cautionary tale regarding the exorbitant monetary liability, say Jason Tompkins and Jonathan Hoffmann of Balch & Bingham LLP.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLane back to the Ninth Circuit to apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Unsurprisingly, the Ninth Circuit relied on its earlier analysis to once again conclude that the district court should have enforced the EEOC’s subpoena, says Mark Wiletsky of Holland & Hart LLP.
A fairly routine civil trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo recently took a more dramatic turn, with a criminal referral from the presiding judge. Grand juries, federal agents and indictments are not standard fare for the lawyers who typically handle trade secrets disputes. But they may become more familiar in the years to come, say Joshua Robbins and Adam Sechooler of Greenberg Gross LLP.
It was a privilege to spend a half-hour on the phone with the nation's foremost First Amendment lawyer. Floyd Abrams and I discussed his career, his new book and what he sees in his free-speech crystal ball. And he was a very good sport when I asked if it is constitutionally protected to yell inside a movie theater: “Citizens United is a terrible decision and should be set on fire,” says Randy Maniloff of White and Williams LLP.
Recent surveys show that law firms won't be able to rely on the flood of associates their business model demands as long as they require them to dedicate all day, most nights, every weekend and all holidays to firm business, says Jill Dessalines, founder of Strategic Advice for Successful Lawyers and former assistant GC at McKesson Corp.
Since the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act last year, savvy defendants have established a viable strategy: moving to dismiss the claim where the plaintiff has only alleged facts that show acts of misappropriation occurring prior to the law's enactment date. At least a half-dozen courts have tackled this “timing defense” and defendants raising it in motions to dismiss have seen mixed results, says Jonathan Shapiro of Epstein Becker Green.