The British have a phrase “too clever by half” to describe complex schemes that ultimately won’t work.
Stanford Hospital and Clinics contracted with a business associate, Multi-Specialty Collection Services (MSCS), to perform a revenue cycle review. Using data supplied by Stanford in an encrypted format, MSCS generated a spreadsheet listing the names, diagnosis codes, account numbers, admission and discharge dates, and billing charges for 20,000 patients seen at the hospital’s emergency room during a six-month period in 2009.
Ninth Circuit Says Cellphone Calls Do Not Have to Be Confidential to Violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act
The Ninth Circuit recently issued a divided and unpublished opinion in Young v. Hilton Worldwide Inc. et al, which plaintiffs may attempt to use in class action lawsuits against call centers for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
Beverage companies PepsiCo and Goya face a spate of class action lawsuits relating to the caramel coloring in their soda drinks.
In January, we observed that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin on Ontario’s summary judgment rule would have effects in class action litigation, including effects outside of Ontario.
The Tennessee General Assembly has passed, and the Governor has signed, legislation adding nurse practitioners to the list of people who are ordinarily exempt from subpoena to trial. Nurse practitioners are still subject to being subpoenaed to give a deposition.
Let’s consider the following scenarios. For purposes of this discussion, we assume you handle hail claims all over Texas:
District Court Cites Recent “Evolution” of Rule 23 Standards to Deny Class Certification Motion in Securities Action
In In re Kosmos Energy Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-CV-373-B, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36365 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2014), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Boyle, J.) denied lead plaintiff’s class certification motion in a consolidated action alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o.
In Ubaldi v. SLM Corp., No. 11-01320, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38587 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2014), the plaintiffs sued student-loan institution Sallie Mae for allegedly imposing unenforceable choice-of-law provisions on some of its borrowers, as well as charging improper late fees and “usurious” interest.