Law school; first-year; civil procedure exam question: May a court assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who ships millions of packages into Ohio, and is paid millions of dollars in return by the resident plaintiff? Be careful, 1L’s (and practitioners).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently denied the defendant's joint summary judgment motion in the case Fish, et al. v. Greatbanc Trust Co., et al., where the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by ERISA's 3-year statute of limitations.
On May 26th, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that, under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, postings to a user’s Facebook “wall” (and, similarly, to the “comments” page on MySpace – although nobody actually uses MySpace anymore) are considered private so long as the user has his privacy settings set such that only “friends” can see his wall postings.
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
For a more theoretical and mildly controversial read regarding class actions, follow the argument and articles (like the recent article in the February 8, 2010 issue of Forbes) of Northwestern University School of Law Professor Martin Redish, who is now suggesting that Rule 23 may be unconstitutional.
In an ERISA case pending in the Northern District of Illinois involving breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow them to proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan under ERISA section 502(a)(2) rather than require them to certify a class under Federal Rule 23. The District Court in Chicago denied that motion based on the defendants' opposition, and suggested that the case proceed, not as a class action under Federal Rule 23, but as a "derivative action" under Federal Rule 23.1.
ERISA class action litigation has become a niche practice. Originally, ERISA class actions were tag-along suits in securities cases. In recent years, plaintiffs have sought to certify ERISA class actions on a broad variety of breach of fiduciary duty claims. One such variety was the "excessive fees" claim — a claim that the plan sponsor and/or administrator breached its fiduciary duty to a class of plan participants by allowing unreasonable or excessive fees to be charged to the class on the investments offered through the Plan.
Everyone practicing in this area knows that over the past several years, hundreds of "stock drop" class action complaints have been filed around the country against virtually every public company and financial institution — whether they survived the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression or not.
"Barratry" dates back to 15th Century Middle English and is defined by Mirriam Webster's Dictionary as: (1) the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state; (2) an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty by a master of a ship or by the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo; and (3) the persistent incitement of litigation. Barratry is a common law crime in some states and a civil tort or equitable defense in others.
Over the past several years, circuit courts have started to provide more specific guidance on the countours of the "rigorous" analysis required by district courts in deciding whether to certify a class.
- Class Action Litigation
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- Securities Law
- Supreme Court
- Sixth Circuit
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Securities Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Craft Brewing
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Electronically Stored Information
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- Business Process Improvement
- Employment Litigation
- Receivership Statute
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Construction Litigation
- Federal Rule
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!
- "Aloha Poke": Social Media and Consumer Perception are Part of the Trademark Enforcement Equation
- GDPR: Less Than 100 Day and Counting to "G-Day" - Here's What You Need to Know
- Rapid SEC Action Against AriseBank Reveals New Playbook For Allegedly Fraudulent ICOs