The class-action variety of plaintiffs’ lawyer abhors the federal Arbitration Act.
Securities litigation has a culture defined by multiple elements: the types of cases filed, the plaintiffs’ lawyers who file them, the defense counsel who defend them, the characteristics of the insurance that covers them, the way insurance representatives approach coverage, the government’s investigative policies – and, of course, the attitude of public companies and their directors and officers toward disclosure and governance.
I can’t begin to say what I truly think of this article. Clap Clap Clap. Happy Dance. Yay.
Who says law review notes don’t matter? A new decision proves that what students write in law journals can matter a great deal.
The Federal Court has recently reiterated the importance of both a properly defined class and a proper representative plaintiff at the certification stage.
As our readers know, we write about legal developments that affect companies involved in manufacturing, importing, distributing, and/or selling “consumer products.”
One of my favorite kid friendly, safe for work jokes…
On July 23, 2015, the Second Circuit, in Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., revived a putative collective action brought by David Lola, a contract attorney, against Skadden and Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Seventh Circuit may have gone a long way to opening a flood of data-breach class actions when it held that “injuries associated with resolving fraudulent [credit-card] charges and protecting oneself against future identity theft” suffice as injuries to confer Article III standing on the plaintiffs in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC.
Class Certification is Proper Where Employer Never Paid Meal Period Premiums — Safeway, Inc. V. Superior Court (Esparza)
The Labor Code and Wage Orders impose two separate obligations on employers: (a) to provide uninterrupted, 30-minute off-duty meal periods at specified time intervals; and (b) to pay one hour of compensation as a “premium wage” for each time that the employee was effectively prevented from actually taking such a compliant break.