Minding Your Business

Proskauer’s perspective on developments and trends in commercial litigation.

Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Concrete Enough to Stand: Ninth Circuit Upholds FCRA Claims in Spokeo

On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit delivered the latest episode in the Robins v. Spokeo saga, reaffirming on remand from the Supreme Court that plaintiff Robins had alleged an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing to bring claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Robins had brought a putative class action against … Continue Reading

Courts Split on Standing Issues in FCRA Suits After Spokeo

On October 5, 2016, two district courts came to opposite conclusions on whether putative class action plaintiffs had standing to bring claims based on prospective employers’ failure to comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure requirements. Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires (1) an injury in fact (2) fairly traceable to the … Continue Reading

The Eighth Circuit Extinguishes Claims of Continuing Conduct in Propane Tank Conspiracy

Before plaintiffs could light the pilot on antitrust claims against two propane tank distributors, a split Eighth Circuit panel cut the gas. In doing so, the majority espoused a narrow view of the applicability of the continuing violations theory in antitrust litigation. In 2014, following an FTC administrative complaint, class plaintiffs brought suit against defendant … Continue Reading

Does an Emailed Copy of a Complaint Start the 30-Day Removal Clock?

In today’s litigation practice, a defendant often receives a copy of a filed complaint before it is formally served with the pleading. Sometimes, plaintiff’s counsel emails a copy to the defendant’s counsel after filing. If it is a particularly newsworthy lawsuit, an employee or officer of a corporate defendant may download a copy of the … Continue Reading

Slapped Down: California Supreme Court Rules Anti-SLAPP Law Applies to Mixed Causes of Action

In Baral v. Schnitt, the California Supreme Court addressed a question that has divided California appellate courts for more than a decade: whether a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (C.C.P. 425.16) can be granted with respect to a “mixed cause of action” that combines allegations concerning both protected conduct, i.e., the rights … Continue Reading

Arizona Sheriff’s Criminal Contempt Charge Reinforces Importance of Compliance with Civil Orders

President Andrew Jackson is reported (likely inaccurately) to have flaunted a Supreme Court decision by retorting, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Any litigant who has been on the receiving end of an unwanted court order may find this sentiment a familiar one. As a federal judge in Arizona recently … Continue Reading

SCOTUS Puts an End to Ecuador’s Appeal of $96 Million Arbitration Award in Favor of Chevron

A long-running dispute between Chevron and Ecuador appears to have reached its end after the Supreme Court declined to take up Ecuador’s question of whether United States courts had jurisdiction to confirm a $96 million arbitration award in favor of Chevron. The case arose out of a decades-long contractual dispute between Ecuador and Texaco Petroleum. In … Continue Reading

When are Universities and Executive Agencies “State Actors” for Antitrust Immunity?

More than fifty years ago, the Supreme Court formalized the “state-action antitrust immunity” doctrine ─ a judge-made rule that certain state governmental conduct is immune from challenge under the federal antitrust laws. Since then, the courts have had a love-hate relationship with “Parker” immunity. The difficulties of that relationship are particularly important to public colleges and … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court’s Spokeo Decision and its Potential Impact on Privacy and Data Security Class Actions

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ruling that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege an injury that is both concrete and particularized in order to have Article III standing, and further that a “bare procedural violation” of a plaintiff’s statutory right may not be sufficiently “concrete” under this analysis. This … Continue Reading

NY Court Of Appeals Rejects No-Opt Out Class Action Settlement In Shareholder Litigation

In Jinnaras v. Alfant, decided on May 5, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a proposed settlement of a shareholder class action, where the proposed settlement would have deprived out-of-state class members of a “cognizable property interest” by failing to provide a mechanism for class members residing outside of New York to opt … Continue Reading

Express Yourself! Ongoing Split Over Class Arbitration Points to Importance of Clear Provisions

Despite the numerous Supreme Court decisions limiting class arbitrations, one central issue remains undecided: who decides whether an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration, the courts or the arbitrators? Entities that want to avoid class arbitration want the question to be decided by the courts, where the appeal process ensures at least one level of review. … Continue Reading

Need to Decrypt an iPhone? There’s an “Act” for That

A pair of recent cases pitted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) against Apple, Inc. (Apple) in a Herculean struggle between asserted interests in national security and privacy. In both cases, the DOJ relied on the same statute – the All Writs Act of 1789 – which operates to fill the gaps of “federal judicial … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Reinforces Strict Rule On Citizenship of Unincorporated Entities for Diversity Jurisdiction to the Detriment of Publicly-Traded REITs

Article III of the U.S. Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to “[c]ontroversies … between Citizens of different States.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but can become metaphysical when applied to legal entities.” Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.… Continue Reading
LexBlog