The court, in its Aug. 18 opinion, ruled that the 2015 sale of Stewart’s merchandising company to Sequential Brands Group Inc. -- worth more than $350 million -- included the appropriate protective measures.
Five plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against Little Rock, Arkansas, law firm Poynter Law Group and attorney Scott Poynter in Orange County Superior Court in June. Poynter filed a removal notice in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, last month.
The proposed class action, Laurens v. Volvo, is about a car buyer’s disappointed expectations. The dispute, in particular, centers on the difference between Volvo’s model XC90 and the XC90 T8. Both are luxury SUVs, but the XC90 runs on gas, whereas the T8 is a plug‐in hybrid.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, recently denied defendant DePaul University’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against it over a series of allegedly unsolicited text messages sent to a man’s personal cell phone.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged foot-long sandwiches sold at Subway restaurants were marketed as being 12 inches in length, when, in fact, they were not. According to their complaint, Subway’s alleged business practices violated state consumer protection statutes.
In June, the U.S. Department of Labor published a Request for Information, or RFI, related to the rule and whether to delay its full implementation. The rule, released in April 2016, mandates financial professionals who service individual retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans, to serve the “best interest” of the savers and disclose conflicts of interest.
Plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a South Carolina federal court this week, accuse the online retailer of selling “unfit” glasses and criticize Amazon for its last-minute email recall of the product.
Plaintiff Grant & Eisenhofer PA alleges in its lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week, that one of its former attorneys allegedly breached his duty to the firm and acted unethically. The firm filed a separate but related lawsuit earlier this month, seeking to recover millions in fees and costs it incurred in representing a California whistleblower.
Last week, more than 150 groups and organizations sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging them to oppose any “ill-considered efforts” that would split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So far, three such bills have been introduced in Congress this year.
The state Supreme Court, in a request for guidance by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, also upheld a damages award of $41.5 million to the family of a private school student who contracted tick-borne encephalitis on a school-sponsored trip to China.
After a four-week trial, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned a verdict of $417 million against Johnson & Johnson Monday. The total includes $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 in punitive damages.
The case, originally filed in a California state court last year, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California earlier this month. The plaintiffs are seeking a damages award of $1,000 per email.
Plaintiff Grant & Eisenhofer PA contends the defendants -- including law firms Richard Harpootlian PA and Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC -- conspired to interfere with and help terminate its agreement with California whistleblower Beverly Brown, a former Celgene sales representative.
Plaintiff Brave Law Firm LLC, based in Wichita, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas last month. Brave alleges a group of Wichita-based law firms owned by attorney Bradley Pistotnik have been engaging in false advertising for years, in turn hurting Brave’s business.
The Oct. 2 oral argument date means a decision likely won’t be reached in the cases -- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young v. Morris and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. -- until late this year or even early 2018.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards published its notice in June, explaining it intends to rescind the rule, first published by the DOL in March 2016. The rule, or Persuader Advice Exemption Rule, effectively eliminates the “advice exemption” under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, earlier this year, sent the case back to a Minnesota federal district court to reconsider the objections of class member Leif Olson. In May, the federal court approved certification of the class action for a second time.