Class Action

Expert Analysis

• 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.

• 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.

• Justices Mull Interplay Of ERISA, Securities Laws In IBM Case

  

  At recent U.S. Supreme Court arguments in IBM v. Jander, the justices grappled with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s difficult application and its intersection with federal securities laws in considering whether plan fiduciaries must disclose inside information about publicly traded companies, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

• 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.

• 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.

• How Food Label Class Actions Fare In Calif. Vs. NY

  

  While food marketing class actions have declined in California and increased in New York over the past few years, an examination of Ninth and Second Circuit case law shows why New York appears to be a less favorable forum for food plaintiffs overall, say attorneys at FaegreBD.

• Texas Could Take Page From Mass.'s Judicial Selection Book

  

  As Texas and other states review their judicial election processes, they would be well served by taking guidance from Massachusetts' Governor’s Council system, which protects the judiciary from the hazards of campaigning, says Richard Baker of New England Intellectual Property.

• Series

  Judging A Book: McKeown Reviews 'Conversations With RBG'

  

  Reading Jeffrey Rosen’s "Conversations With RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law" is like eavesdropping on the author and his subject while they discuss how the restrained judicial minimalist became the fiery leader of the opposition, says Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

• FCRA Ruling Offers Defense For Hypertechnical Claims

  

  A Virginia federal court’s recent decision in Frazier v. First Advantage Background Services provides compelling grounds to challenge claims that attempt to blur the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s technical requirements that distinguish between consumer reporting agencies and the users of their reports in the hiring context, say attorneys at Troutman Sanders.

• 2 Post-Kisor Rulings Show Auer Deference Isn’t Extinct

  

  Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kisor v. Wilkie opinion, which narrowed Auer deference, recent decisions in Pennsylvania and New York federal courts demonstrate that Auer remains intact, even though courts are more closely scrutinizing agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations, says Brent Owen at Squire Patton.

• M&A 'Pure Omission' Claims Test Limits Of Securities Laws

  

  The plaintiffs in two recent federal appellate M&A cases did not successfully import so-called pure omission claims from Delaware fiduciary duty law into Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act, but plaintiffs will likely keep trying to expand federal securities law on this premise, say Matthew Kilby and Rory Collins at FaegreBD.

• Opinion

  Flat-Fee Legal Billing Can Liberate Attorneys

  

  Replacing hourly billing with flat-fee arrangements, especially for appellate work, will leave attorneys feeling free to spend as much time as necessary to produce their highest quality work, says Lawrence Ebner of Capital Appellate Advocacy.

• Spoliation Rule Remains Ambiguous Despite Amendments

  

  Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to provide a uniform standard of culpability for spoliation, cases with similar facts are still reaching differing results because the rule does not specify how a court should evaluate a party's intent, say attorneys at Pepper Hamilton.