Minding Your Business

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

Tag Archives: Defendants

California UCL Standing Requirement — On This You Can Rely

The California Court of Appeal recently confirmed, in case there was any doubt, that plaintiffs must allege (and ultimately prove) actual reliance to adequately state a fraudulent prong Unfair Competition Law claim (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200). In Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, the plaintiff brought a variety of claims related to her alleged wrongful termination, both against … Continue Reading

Key Lessons From the Recent Precedential Order by Federal Circuit – Jurisdiction, Mandamus, and Privilege

On November 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit published a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn a district court’s determination. In In re: Rearden LLC, Rearden MOVA LLC, MO2, LLC, MOVA, LLC, the defendants in the underlying case had petitioned for a writ … Continue Reading

NY Court of Appeals Finds Personal Jurisdiction Based on Use of NY Correspondent Bank Accounts

A sharply divided New York Court of Appeals recently held that defendants who allegedly made intentional and repeated use of New York correspondent bank accounts for money laundering thereby purposefully transacted business related to the plaintiffs’ claims, and thus were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the New York courts. According to the three-judge dissent, … 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

A Sovereign Thumb on the Scale – Appeals Court Defers to China’s Interpretation of its Own Laws to Dismiss Antitrust Suit

The Second Circuit recently set aside a $147 million verdict against two Chinese companies accused of conspiring to fix the price and supply of vitamin C sold to U.S. buyers. In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation. The panel held that the complaint should have been dismissed after the Chinese government submitted an amicus curiae brief … 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

Taming the Bull Rider: Chancery Court Reining in Mootness Fee Awards in Merger Litigation

Last month, the Delaware Chancery Court drastically reduced – from $275,000 to $50,000 – a mootness fee award requested by plaintiffs’ counsel in a lawsuit challenging the merger between PayPal and Xoom Corporation, finding the supplemental disclosures that flowed from the lawsuit provided only minor benefits to stockholders. In re Xoom Corp. Stockholder Litigation. The steep … Continue Reading

Surviving Settlement Provisions in Joint Defense Agreements

Anyone who watches Survivor or Game of Thrones knows that alliances are critical. And while they may be necessary to endure from one day to the next, alliances are inevitably broken. Co-defendants in antitrust cases can draw lessons from these shows. Like alliances, joint defense agreements (“JDA” or “JDAs”) help facilitate defendants’ common interests. JDAs … Continue Reading
LexBlog