Search

The article discusses the case of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Junhong v. Boeing Co. where lawsuits filed against Boeing involving a plane crash into seawall separating Pacific Ocean and runway of airport. It states that according to the Illinois district court, Boeing did not act as a federal officer and jurisdiction was not available because the crash was on land not over water. It mentions that self-certification does not constitute under federal agency.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Mohamed et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. where the plaintiffs filed suit against Uber, alleging putative class claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. It presents the views of Brian Koji, cochair of the ABA Section of Litigation's Employment & Labor Relations Committee, on assault against the enforceability of arbitration agreements. It mentions that businesses that have operations throughout the country will have to confront it.

The article discusses ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc. that the lawyers in a copyright suit may not research the public social media posts of their prospective jurors unless they fully disclose the extent of that research to each juror involved. It include comments from Marcus R. Chatterton of American Bar Association, online juror research by lawyers. It adds alternates for counsels to mitigate risks.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., where the court rejected more than half of the requested attorney fees. It mentions that the court is focused on redacted billing entries, writing press releases time spent for inquiries from television outlets, and clerical tasks of attorneys. It states that the court explained that the fee request should exclude time which are documented inadequately or not reasonably expended during the litigation.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court Simoneaux et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. which highlights the significant difference in threshold requirements for a new trial under different rules. It mentions that whistleblowers filed the case for violations of the False Claims Act, alleging the defendant withheld evidence of chemical leaks. It states that the Jury returned a defense verdict as the plaintiffs had not submitted evidence of the quantity of the alleged leaks.