California

Expert Analysis

• Will College Athletes Be Deemed Employees Soon?

  

  In light of the NCAA's recent proposed rule change on student-athlete compensation, and state and federal legislative developments in this area, people are again questioning whether student-athletes should be considered employees of the universities for whom they serve as a major revenue stream, says Sara Moore of Nemeth Law.

• Wage Ruling Clears Up Tip Questions For Calif. Employers

  

  A California state appeals court's recent wage decision in O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions highlights that employers must clearly communicate to customers and employees the purpose of a service charge, especially if it is not intended as a gratuity, say attorneys at Davis Wright.

• Health Care Fraud Lessons For Lawyers Advising Doctors

  

  The U.S. Department of Justice's seven recent health care fraud takedowns reflect an overall shift in how this type of fraud works, from doctor-driven to doctor-enabled schemes, says Stephen Lee at Benesch.

• The Force (Majeure) May Be With ND Oil And Gas Lessees

  

  The North Dakota Supreme Court's recent ruling in Pennington v. Continental Resources, applying force majeure to both primary and secondary oil and gas lease terms, is good news for lessees, as courts in other states have disagreed on this issue in recent years, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• How To Hire Lateral Partners More Effectively

  

  Although lateral partner hiring is the preferred method of inorganic growth among law firms, the traditional approach to vetting does not employ sufficient due diligence by the hiring firm, says Michael Ellenhorn at executive search firm Decipher Competitive Intelligence.

• Using Multiple-Attorney Depositions After Finjan Ruling

  

  The recent patent case, Finjan v. Cisco Systems, in which a California federal court prohibited two-attorney questioning in a deposition where the parties failed to agree to it in advance, indicates that it may be better to ask permission than forgiveness when employing this deposition strategy, say attorneys at Finnegan.

• MGA Ruling Guides On Time Limits For Trade Secret Claims

  

  A California state appeals court recently upheld a trial court’s dismissal of MGA Entertainment’s Bratz doll trade secret claims against Mattel, demonstrating that new claims uncovered during discovery can trigger the statute of limitations under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, says Stephen Moses of Ferber Law.

• High Court's Pass On 1 SEC Case Offers Insight Into Another

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court effectively recognized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's extraterritorial reach in denying certiorari in Scoville v. SEC. The move may foreshadow the high court's eventual ruling in Liu v. SEC, which will determine the regulator's authority to seek disgorgement, say Adam Schwartz and Russell Koonin at Homer Bonner.

• Opinion

  ADA Braille Gift Card Claims Shouldn't Gain Traction In NY

  

  A recent wave of consumer class claims that challenge the visual accessibility of gift cards under the Americans with Disabilities Act in New York federal courts are facially deficient and should be susceptible to early dismissal, say attorneys at Akin Gump.

• State Net

  Wildfire Responses Resonate Beyond California

  

  Firefighting practices are often shared between states, so what California does, or doesn't do, to prevent and combat wildfires has impacts beyond its borders. One lesson learned this year is that power shutoffs to prevent fires cause more problems than they solve, says Lou Cannon of State Net Capitol Journal.

• Justices' Maui Ruling Could Change Groundwater Permitting

  

  Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund raise the possibility that the national permitting system for discharging wastewater into the ground will need to be retrofitted, says Marcia Greenblatt of Integral Consulting.

• How Increased Stays Pending IPR May Affect Venue Choice

  

  A little over one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, data show a 5% increase in district court-granted stays of litigation pending inter partes review, and the grant rate disparities may influence new patent filings toward certain venues and defendants facing patent infringement claims toward others, say attorneys at Armond Wilson.

• Comcast Bias Suit A Bad Way To Make Law, Arguments Show

  

  Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media highlighted the case's flaws, including that it concerns the dismissal of a complaint that omitted a key fact and was tainted by dubious insinuations, says R. Scott Oswald of The Employment Law Group.

• Kellogg's Deal Highlights Sugar Focus In Label Class Actions

  

  A recent $20 million settlement that requires Kellogg's to limit “healthy” claims on cereals with significant added sugar is a prime example of consumer class actions shifting focus toward sugar, and shows why even compliant labels inconsistent with current nutrition trends can pose a risk, say Lindsey Heinz and Elizabeth Fessler of Shook Hardy.

• 4 Months After Kisor V. Wilkie, Auer Deference Survives

  

  Recent federal appellate and district court rulings suggest that the predicted radical curtailing of Auer deference in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie has not come to fruition, say Jeffrey Karp and Edward Mahaffey at Sullivan & Worcester.