Search

The article deals with the immediate enforcement of the revocation of a driver's license after cycling under the influence. An applicant had lost his driver's license due to cycling under the influence with a blood alcohol content of 2.35 ‰. The administrative court overturned the decision of the district office, but the Free State of Bavaria filed an appeal. The applicant filed a motion to amend the decision and restore the suspensive effect of the lawsuit, which was rejected because the appeal is likely to be successful. According to § 13 sentence 1 no. 2 letter c of the Driver's License Regulation (FeV), the driver's license authority can order the submission of a medical-psychological assessment if the driver's license holder has operated a vehicle in road traffic under the influence of alcohol, including bicycles. The driver's license authority can assess the need for an assessment independently of criminal prosecution, but this must be sufficiently documented. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses three separate cases involving lawyer misconduct and mistakes in appellate practice. In the first case, Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that appellants' counsel had fabricated evidence and perpetrated a fraud on the court. The court imposed sanctions and referred the matter to the state bar for possible disciplinary proceedings. In the second case, Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Concordia Par., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's ruling, finding that the appellant had forfeited their arguments on appeal by failing to adequately brief them. The court emphasized the importance of following procedural rules and preserving arguments. In the third case, Uyanik v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the appellant's claims were based on incorrect statements of law and were frivolous. The court awarded sanctions against the appellant's counsel for repeatedly raising identical claims in multiple cases. The article highlights the consequences of lawyer misconduct and the importance of adhering to ethical and procedural standards in appellate practice. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a pharmaceutical litigation case involving H. Lundbeck A/S and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The court ruled that several generic drug companies' applications did not infringe on the plaintiffs' patents. The court also rejected arguments of induced infringement and contributory infringement. The article highlights the importance of considering noninfringing uses and the limitations of a specific section of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The IPLitigator magazine, where the article is featured, covers various topics related to intellectual property law and provides valuable insights and analysis from experts in the field. It is a useful resource for library patrons interested in researching intellectual property law. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the Public Contract Law Section's comments on proposed changes to federal procurement regulations in 2023. The Section submitted four separate comments on proposed rules, including topics such as disclosing greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk, SBIR and STTR programs, protesting orders set aside for small businesses, and representing size and socioeconomic status. The Section provided recommendations and suggestions for each proposed rule, addressing issues such as implementation costs, dollar thresholds, regulatory authority, impact on subcontractors, and clarification of timing and recertification requirements. The article concludes by inviting readers to join the Legislative and Regulatory Coordinating Committee to contribute to future public comments. [Extracted from the article]

Inaccuracies in CW Allegations in an Operative Complaint Defendants typically get their first view of CW allegations in an amended or consolidated complaint filed by the court-appointed lead plaintiff. Since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995, plaintiffs in securities class actions have increasingly relied on allegations attributed to confidential witnesses (CWs) to satisfy the PSLRA's exacting pleading standard. Pre-Complaint Outreach from Plaintiffs' Investigators Plaintiffs' firms commonly use in-house investigators to contact former employees of a corporate defendant in hopes of gathering information for a securities complaint. [Extracted from the article]

In both cases, following the denials of its motions to compel arbitration, Coinbase filed interlocutory appeals under section 16 of the FAA and sought stays of the district court litigation. December 22, 2022 On December 9, 2022, in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts the district court of jurisdiction to proceed while the appeal is pending. [Extracted from the article]

In its appeal of the 2019 state court decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ford had argued that the used vehicles involved in those two cases were designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold in states other than the forum states. Ford argued that its extensive presence in the forum states did not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction in the lawsuits because the claims themselves did not "arise out of or relate to" that conduct, urging the Court to require a causal relationship. The plaintiff alleged that a design flaw in the borrowed motorcycle caused severe injuries from the accident, and the plaintiff sued Yamaha in South Carolina, her home state. [Extracted from the article]

In Laudato, the Third Circuit has reiterated its liberal willingness to grant Rule 23(f) review in a broad range of cases. On August 3, 2022, the Third Circuit released its decision on the merits of the defendants' Rule 23(f) appeal, reversing the certification order and remanding the case. A recent opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Laudato v. EQT Corp., 23 F.4th 256 (3d Cir. 2022), provides a helpful refresher on the procedure for obtaining interlocutory review of district courts' class certification decisions-and also confirmed the Third Circuit as perhaps the most liberal circuit in granting such review. [Extracted from the article]

This article focuses on the court's holding concerning the applicable burden of proof at class certification-an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. In its April 8, 2022, en banc decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a number of issues central to class certification. Instead, they imply that a court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine if the class litigants have met the Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. [Extracted from the article]

Impact of the District Court Decision in Saxon v. Southwest Airlines In its decision, the Crooms court noted that "[f]the second time in this case, there is a precedent that is squarely, eerily on point." In Saxon v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 19-cv-0403 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2019), Saxon, one of the plaintiffs in Crooms, had filed a putative collective action against Southwest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Facts in Saxon v. Southwest Airlines Latrice Saxon began work with Southwest Airlines as a unionized ramp agent at Chicago Midway International Airport. [Extracted from the article]

In Morgan, after the court denied the motion for a change of judicial venue, Sundance engaged in additional inconsistent behavior by participating in litigation-related mediation. Sundance's litigation strategy, however, did not materially prejudice Morgan because the parties had not yet begun formal discovery or contested any matters "going to the merits" of the case. In response, Sundance moved in November 2018 to dismiss the Iowa lawsuit, arguing that under the first-to-file rule, a similar lawsuit filed in Michigan barred the Iowa lawsuit. [Extracted from the article]

Litigants may seek assistance from the courts before and after conclusion of the arbitration proceedings (and, in some jurisdictions, under exceptional circumstances during the proceedings) by, among other things, filing petitions to compel or enjoin arbitration and filing applications to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitral awards. The Core Premise The core premise for analyzing disputes over arbitration agreements, arbitrability, and arbitration awards is a simple one: arbitration is "a matter of contract between the parties." Conclusion The FAA allows courts to set aside or modify arbitration awards only in certain narrow circumstances. [Extracted from the article]

In the case of HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., a Federal Circuit Panel reversed a district court ruling that would have added an employee of HIP, Mr. Howard, as a named inventor on Hormel's patent. The panel determined that Howard's contribution was deemed "insignificant" in relation to the overall specification of the patent, and therefore he should not be added as an inventor. The panel concluded that Howard's contribution to the claims was viewed as insignificant and insufficient to justify adding him as a joint inventor. This case highlights the fact that being a joint inventor requires a significant contribution, and more than merely explaining well-known concepts or the state of the art. [Extracted from the article]

Both plaintiffs and defendants face a delicate balancing act in establishing or defeating federal jurisdictional requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The removing defendant need not show that the plaintiff is likely to obtain a judgment in excess of $5 million, as "[s]uch a requirement would require a court to improperly look beyond jurisdictional matters and consider the merits of the claims.". [Extracted from the article]

According to experts at the ABA Midyear Meeting, there have been significant developments in gun policy, gun rights, and gun regulation in the past three years. They discussed the impact of Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022), as well as the pending case United States v. Rahimi. The panelists noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen revolutionized constitutional doctrine and led to the striking down of various types of gun regulation by lower courts. They also mentioned that the Supreme Court has other pending Second Amendment cases and may continue to shape its doctrine in the future. [Extracted from the article]

The advisory committee notes describe this change as a practical fix because different hearsay exceptions have different inherent levels of trustworthiness, and evidence fitting one exception-Rule 804(b)(6)-is admissible without evidence of its reliability. And the requirement that the court consider the totality of the circumstances and the presence of corroborating evidence may give courts more latitude to admit evidence under the exception. For many years, Federal Rule of Evidence 807 reflected a rough compromise that provided a path to admit some evidence that did not satisfy the strict admissibility requirements for hearsay exceptions in Rules 803 and 804, but this exception rarely applied in practice. [Extracted from the article]

[23] The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision that the FAAct does not preempt CA MRB, finding that CA MRB does not have a "direct bearing on the field of aviation safety."[24] The Ninth Circuit further held that 14 C.F.R. [13] It found only one FAA regulation, [14] C.F.R. § 121.467(b) (prohibiting flight attendants from working duty periods of longer than 14 hours and requiring a nine-hour rest period between duty periods), that it deemed to regulate flight attendant breaks in some way. California courts, however, are applying California's meal period and rest break laws (CA MRB) to flight attendants. California is regulating airline crew in a way that significantly impacts air carriers' prices, routes, and services and interferes with the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme directly governing pilot and flight attendant duty and rest periods. [Extracted from the article]

With Thaler v. Vidal, we have a clear indication regarding how AI-invented patents will be treated, but more clarification is required to understand how patentability will be addressed where AI is but a part of the equation. Artificial intelligence (AI) is making an impact in our everyday life. [Extracted from the article]

Despite this adherence to the Third Circuit's approach in Carrera and Byrd, the court retreated from any strict requirement of administrative feasibility in In re Petrobras Securities, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017). That, along with the court's analysis determining that it would have been administratively feasible to identify class members, suggests that the administrative feasibility inquiry is at least relevant (if not necessary) to the class certification decision in the Sixth Circuit-although at some lower threshold than set forth by the Third Circuit in Carrera. A court must consider "the likely difficulties in managing a class action", but in doing so it must balance the countervailing interests to decide whether a class action "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." April 22, 2021 In February 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals contributed to a growing circuit split concerning the requirement of "administrative feasibility" in determining the propriety of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. [Extracted from the article]

Interestingly, in both Bogucki and Litvak, the intermediaries' assumption of the market risk if the counterparties decided not to execute the planned transaction was significant to finding that a principal-agent relationship did not exist. The federal government has recently brought a number of criminal cases concerning the relationship of broker-dealers serving as market intermediaries with their customers in sophisticated markets where trading is largely over the counter and historically lightly regulated. Particularly large transactions, even in highly liquid markets like foreign exchange, may become more cumbersome if courts determine that acquiring inventory to fulfill a potential customer order constitutes frontrunning. [Extracted from the article]

June 03, 2021 The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ensures the uniformity and supremacy of federal law. State Courts and De Novo Review The majority of state courts follow the U.S. Supreme Court and independently review mixed questions of federal constitutional law and fact. [Extracted from the article]

To the Ninth Circuit, mere footnote disclosure of the Attorney Memos was not sufficient to waive the strong protection provided to core opinion work product, even if it was "foundational material" to DLA Piper's opinion, because the IRS failed to establish sufficient need. Sanmina's worthless-stock deduction caught the attention of the IRS, which ultimately issued a summons for Sanmina to produce the Attorney Memos. The case then went to the Ninth Circuit again, but this time only on the issue of whether a waiver occurred because the parties agreed that the Attorney Memos were privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product. [Extracted from the article]

SEVERAL PROMINENT ANTITRUST lawyers have observed that economic experts in litigated merger challenges tend to cancel each other out.[1] Even the most recent Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division adopted this view.[2] Moreover, some judges who presided over merger trials have admitted that they found the economic testimony difficult to understand,[3] which can be interpreted as further evidence that the experts cancel each other out. Nearly every court in our data set-regardless of whether it relied on economic experts or not-spent a lot of time discussing the economic expert testimony. Because one cannot know in advance how a judge will treat economic experts and because both the government and the merging parties inevitably will proffer economic expert testimony, approaching a case from the perspective that the experts will cancel each other out is rather pointless. The government won 7 of 9 cases (or 78 percent) in which the court relied heavily on economic experts but only 4 of 9 cases (or 44 percent) in which the court did not heavily rely on them.[44] This difference makes sense because the government has the burden of proof, but it also explains why both sides devote so many resources to economic experts.[45] But ... Economic Experts Are Unlikely To Be the Most Important Source of Evidence. [Extracted from the article]