The June 4, 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Sidibe v. Sutter Health marks a potential shift in how rule of reason antitrust cases are approached and adjudicated. The opinion underscores the significance of historical evidence in antitrust trials and places considerable emphasis on analyzing the purpose behind challenged conduct.
Evelyn Blanco
Evelyn T. Blanco is an associate with the Litigation Department, holding the distinguished Silver Scholar award from Proskauer. During her Summer Associate secondment, Evelyn interned with NBC Universal, gaining firsthand experience in the dynamic Entertainment Industry.
Evelyn earned her J.D., graduating cum laude from Duke University School of Law. Her academic journey included a full-time externship with the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General’s Antitrust and Nonprofit Enforcement Section, providing her with valuable insights into the inner workings of the legal system. Evelyn's commitment to pursuing justice further led her to serve as a student attorney in both the Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic and the Duke Children’s Law Clinic. Additionally, she generously devoted her time to several Pro Bono projects for the Duke Immigrant and Refugee Project.
Before embarking on her legal career, Evelyn spent several years as a paralegal, specializing in Employment and Tort matters. This rich and diverse background underscores her expertise as a professional in the field of litigation.
Contact:Read more about Evelyn Blanco
California Lemon Law Just Got a Little Sweeter for Consumers
By Evelyn Blanco on
On March 4, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in Niedermeier v. FCA that consumers forced to trade in or sell their defective vehicles due to a manufacturer’s failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code section 1793 et seq., (the “Act”) should not have their restitution reduced by the money they received from the trade-in or sale.