Defendants Guttman Buschner & Brooks PLLC and senior founding partner Reuben Guttman filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment Oct. 10. On Friday, the defendants also filed a motion to strike plaintiff Grant & Eisenhofer PA’s complaint in its entirety.
On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit government officials, most notably the DOJ, from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States that provides for a payment or a loan to any person or entity other than the United States, with some exceptions.
A resolution of disapproval, striking down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new anti-arbitration rule, passed 51-50 Tuesday, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking “yes” vote. Only one Republican voted against the resolution.
Joe Rubin, who recently was named senior vice president of government relations and public affairs at Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm MWWPR and who previously served as senior counsel at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, said the plaintiff groups’ arguments are “very strong.”
More than a dozen groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Financial Services Association and Financial Services Roundtable, filed a lawsuit Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new rule, finalized in July.
Plaintiff Tajie Major sued several cigarette manufacturers her husband, William, had smoked, as well as manufacturers of asbestos to which he had been exposed, alleging both his smoking and asbestos exposure caused his lung cancer and death.
At issue before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3, is the sequence in which Montrose Chemical Corporation of California may access its excess comprehensive general liability, or CGL, policies to cover its liability for the environmental injuries caused by the chemical dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane, also known as DDT.
The plaintiffs filed their notice of termination of settlement agreement days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s Aug. 25 decision. The Seventh Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s decision certifying a proposed class and approving a settlement in the case, calling it “utterly worthless.”
Cozen O’Connor PC attorney Jeremy Glenn, the current co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Federal Labor Standards Legislation committee, said he “wholeheartedly” agrees with the U.S. Department of Labor’s recent move to rescind its so-called “persuader rule.”
Filed in a Connecticut federal court last week, the lawsuit alleges the photos, taken while the plaintiff was on Miami Beach for spring break, suggest she used drugs and engaged in sexual acts. The plaintiff, a Connecticut college student, contends she never consented to the pictures, which were used in a series of articles about spring break on the defendants’ websites.
California attorney Michael Mandelbrot appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s affirmance of an order that enforces a stipulated agreement between him and the J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust, among others. The trusts, following an investigation, had concluded that Mandelbrot engaged in a pattern of submitting “unreliable evidence.”
Cordis Corp. filed its petition for writ of certiorari, or review, with the nation’s highest court last month. The company, which makes IVC filters, wants the court to reaffirm defendants’ statutory right to remove cases of “national significance” to federal court.
Defendant Abbott Laboratories Inc. appealed the City of St. Louis Circuit Court’s judgment awarding plaintiff Maddison Schmidt $15 million in compensatory damages and $23 million in punitive damages for her personal injury claim. Schmidt was born with spina bifida and other birth defects.
The plaintiffs, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, and Biotechnology Innovation Organization, or BIO, filed their lawsuit against Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and the head of the state’s Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada Sept. 1. They allege Senate Bill 539, signed into law by Sandoval in June, will violate patent rights and negate trade secret protection for designated diabetes medicines.