KMK Law Complex Litigation Blog

During the summer, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and the Ohio Liquor Control Commission instituted new rules governing alcohol sales.  The emergency measure, intended to combat the spread of COVID-19, mandated that all alcohol-serving establishments cease alcohol sales at 10 p.m.^[1]  The primary targets of the order were bars and restaurants which, according to the Governor, had contributed to outbreaks in Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.^[2]  Customers could be served until 10 p.m., but had until 11 p.m. to finish their drinks.

The last-call order was to remain in effect for 120 days ...

As part of the next phase of Healthy at Work/Reopening Kentucky, Kentucky restaurants have begun reopening for dining, while bars are not slated to reopen until June 29, 2020.  In addition to complying with Kentucky’s general Healthy at Work requirements, Kentucky restaurants must also comply with specific social distancing and other requirements. Most notably, restaurants must limit their indoor dining capacity to 33%, and not only are party sizes limited to 10 people, but persons not living within the same household should not permitted to sit at the same table. Restaurants should also maximize their use of outdoor seating. Restaurants must also maintain 6 feet of space between seated customers, i.e. no person can be within 6 feet of a person seated at another table.

As part of the next phase of Responsible RestartOhio, Ohio restaurants and bars have begun reopening for outdoor patio dining, with inside dining to resume on May 21, 2020. While continuing to comply with food safety and sanitation guidelines, and after instituting special protocols for employees during weeks of carryout-only operations, restaurant and bar owners are now faced with the challenge of enforcing social distancing requirements as the number of diners increases and the risk of crowds forming at their premises rises. Current steps restaurants and bars must take with respect to customers include:

This past month, the Supreme Court avoided providing guidance on “cy pres” class-action settlements—instead, it reaffirmed the importance of its Spokeo decision (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)) in class action jurisprudence and deferred the complicated cy pres issues for another day.  See Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019).[1]

The Court had granted review in Frank to review whether so-called “cy pres” class-action settlements—settlements that distribute monetary relief to public interest organizations instead of the plaintiffs—are proper ...

Once a company owns a trademark, it must police the mark for unauthorized use, or risk losing its rights. As a result, companies will send “cease and desist” letters to enforce and protect their marks. At times, however, legal rights are only one consideration. Public opinion and consumer perception are also part of the equation, as the Aloha Poke Co. (“Aloha Poke”), a Chicago based restaurant, recently learned firsthand.

G-Day is May 25, 2018, the day when the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR) is set to go into effect.  Even though the Regulation has been approved and available for review for more than a year, most companies are still working to determine whether GDPR applies and, if so, how to become GDPR compliant.  The litigators from KMK’s Cybersecurity and Privacy Team have prepared a Legal Alert which helps companies answer both questions. 

On January 25, 2018, the SEC filed a sealed civil Complaint in federal court in Dallas against AriseBank and its founders. The Complaint alleged that the defendants had committed securities fraud in raising more than $600 million in an initial coin offering ("ICO") of AriseCoin, starting in December 2017. The SEC immediately made a series of rapid legal moves designed to gain control of AriseBank and its assets.

Giga Watt, Inc. and a related entity got a late Christmas present on December 28: a lawsuit alleging that Giga Watt violated federal securities laws in its initial coin offering (“ICO”). The plaintiff seeks more than $5,000,000.

Last week, the D.C. Circuit joined an increasing number of federal courts applying a broad interpretation of the degree of harm required to satisfy Article III standing and expanding the holding of last summer’s Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).