Code of Federal Regulations

  • California Court of Appeal Agrees Employer Does Not Have To Pay For Shoes...This Time

    “On appeal, the California Court of Appeal considered whether the purchase of black, slip-resistant shoes was a “necessary expenditure” which would require reimbursement under the Labor Code. The court concluded reimbursement was not required. In so doing, the court held that because the slip-resistant shoes Townley was required to purchase were not part of a uniform and were the type generally usable in the restaurant occupation, Labor Code section 2802 did not require reimbursement. Put differently, the indemnification provision in Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse an employee for basic, non-uniform wardrobe items, such as slip-resistant shoes.” See Article.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:32 PM

  • Court Upholds $4.3 Million of Jury Verdict Against Depuy Synthes

    “Acantha LLC sued Depuy Synthes Sales Inc. and DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., alleging that Depuy’s Vectra and Zero-P VA products infringe U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE 43,008. The patent relates to an orthopedic implant used for joining bone segments. A jury found that all accused products infringed and awarded over $8.2 million in damages. Depuy moved for judgment as a matter of law that it did not infringe. The court found insubstantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that the Zero-P VA product infringes, but did find that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the Vectra products infringe. Thus, the court reduced the jury’s damages award to $4,320,136.” See Article.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:32 PM

  • Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Enacting Sweeping Protections for Homeowners

    On August 14, the governor of New York signed a package of legislation designed to increase protections for homeowners. “The legislation includes enhancing consumer protection measures and closing loopholes to prevent deed fraud and mortgage scams; requiring banks to continue paying homeowner's association fees on zombie properties that are part of a co-op; and safeguarding homeowners by reforming the obligations of banks and financial institutions during sale of a mortgage.” See Press Release.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:30 PM

  • Texas Court Dismisses False Claims Act Allegations Against Texas Hospital System

    “On August 4, 2019, U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra dismissed with prejudice a $61.8 million False Claims Act (FCA) case brought by relator Integra Med Analytics LLC (Plaintiff) against Baylor Scott & White Health...The Court based its decision to grant Baylor Scott & White Health’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on Plaintiff’s failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) and its failure to state a plausible claim for relief as required by Rule 8(a).” See Article.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:27 PM

  • Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Liquidation Trustee Controls The Privilege Of Board Of Directors' Special Committee

    “A Delaware bankruptcy court has held that a special committee's advisors cannot withhold privileged documents from a liquidation trustee appointed pursuant to a chapter 11 plan. This decision serves as an important reminder that a bankruptcy trustee, including a trustee appointed to manage a liquidating trust established pursuant to a chapter 11 plan, may have exclusive control over a company's privilege and that executives, board members, and their advisors may be unable to withhold documents from the trustee.” See Article.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:25 PM

  • Breach Of Contract Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    “In Maxum Indemnity Co. v. The Robbins Co., the policyholder leased a tunnel boring machine to a third-party for a construction project. The machine apparently failed. The lessee brought an arbitration under the lease against the policyholder for breach of contract. When the policyholder asked its insurance company to defend and indemnify, the insurance company brought a declaratory judgment action claiming that it owed neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. The district court granted the insurance company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.” See Article.

    Aug 16, 2019 9:24 PM

  • Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

    Issue number #37-2 (March 2019) of publication Columbia Journal of Gender and Law is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:50 AM

  • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology

    Issue number #32-2 (March 2019) of publication Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:50 AM

  • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

    Issues #42-3 (June 2019) and #42-2 (March 2019) of publication Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy are now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:50 AM

  • Stanford Law Review

    Issue number #71-5 (May 2019) of publication Stanford Law Review is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:50 AM

  • Defense Transportation Journal

    Issue number #75-3 (June 2019) of publication Defense Transportation Journal is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:50 AM

  • The New American

    Issue number #35-14 (July 2019) of publication The New American is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:49 AM

  • Journal of Accountancy

    Issue number #228-2 (August 2019) of publication Journal of Accountancy is now available

    Aug 16, 2019 10:49 AM

  • Ohio’s First District Holds Immune Employer Can Be Used as an “Empty Chair” When Considering Appointment of Fault

    “Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) recently held that an immune party must be considered when determining apportionment of fault where there is evidence of the immune party’s negligence, a decision overturning a $28 million-dollar jury verdict in a wrongful death case.” See Article.

    Aug 15, 2019 9:03 PM

  • 8th Circuit affirms preliminary injunction enjoying North Dakota Senate Bill 2289

    On August 2, the 8th Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining North Dakota Senate Bill 2289, which regulates relationships between manufacturers and farm equipment dealers. The Court reasoned that the Act likely violated rights of the manufacturers under the Contract Clause of the Constitution. See Decision.

    Aug 15, 2019 9:01 PM

  • Ninth Circuit Rules That Facebook’s Facial Recognition Could Violate Biometric Law

    “On August 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld certification of a class of Illinois Facebook users alleging that the social media giant’s facial recognition feature called “tag suggestions” violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”).” See Article.

    Aug 15, 2019 9:00 PM

  • 2nd Circuit Court affirms life sentences affirmed despite claims that they were cruel due to the defendants’ ages

    On August 1, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals considered defendant’s argument that their life sentences were cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they were 18 and 22 years old when the murders were committed. The Court followed the Supreme Court’s reasoning noting that, while drawing the line at 18 is subject to objections raised against categorical rules, a line must be drawn and 18 “is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood.” See Decision.

    Aug 15, 2019 8:59 PM

  • New PTAB Guide Creates Uncertainty As To Multiple Petition Situations

    “The USPTO published its second update to the PTAB Trial and Practice Guide last month. The section addressing procedures for addressing multiple challenges to a patent is a new and noteworthy addition. In the new section addressing "parallel petitions challenging the same patent" by the same petitioner, the Board states that, ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.’” See Article.

    Aug 15, 2019 8:57 PM

  • Utah Supreme Court finds section 78B-15-803(2)(b) unconstitutional

    On August 1, the Supreme Court of Utah held that section Utah Code 78B-15-803(2)(b) unconstitutional. In this case, a Utah court denied the approval of a gestational agreement where the married couple wishing to become parents were both male. The Court denied the petition citing Utah statute's use of the words "mother and her plainly refer to a woman.” See Decision.

    Aug 15, 2019 8:57 PM

  • First Circuit Splits From Sixth Circuit And Education Department On Title IX

    “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that constitutional due process principles do not require public universities to permit respondents or their advisors to cross-examine complainants in Title IX matters. The First Circuit's decision in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst creates a federal circuit court split, and outlines cross-examination standards that are different from those outlined in the U.S. Department of Education's draft Title IX regulations.” See Article.

    Aug 15, 2019 8:55 PM

  • District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Mental Health Parity Act Putative Class Action

    “In the latest volley between participants and group health plans over mental health services coverage, a federal district court in California denied United Healthcare’s motion to dismiss a putative class action challenging the reimbursement rates for out-of-network mental health services. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that UHC reduced reimbursement rates for out-of-network services by 25% for services provided by a psychologist and by 35% for services provided by a masters level counselor in violation of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.” See Article.

    Aug 15, 2019 8:53 PM

  • San Fernando Valley Business Journal

    Issue number #24-15 (July 2019) of publication San Fernando Valley Business Journal is now available

    Aug 15, 2019 4:51 AM

  • Diverse Issues in Higher Education

    Issue number #36-12 (July 2019) of publication Diverse Issues in Higher Education is now available

    Aug 15, 2019 4:51 AM

  • American Bankruptcy Law Journal

    Issue number #93-2 (March 2019) of publication American Bankruptcy Law Journal is now available

    Aug 15, 2019 4:50 AM

  • Eleventh Circuit Issues Decision Underscoring the Stark Law’s Favorable Treatment of Indirect Financial Relationships

    “[T]he Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of a multi-state hospital system by dismissing the qui tam relator’s claims under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). The relator’s claims against the hospital system were predicated on allegations that it violated the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the Stark Law by providing sweetheart deals to physicians who leased space in on-campus medical office buildings (MOBs) in exchange for referrals. Under arrangements with the hospital system, third-party developers constructed and managed the MOBs, leasing space to hospital system affiliates and independent physicians.” See Article.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:21 PM

  • 5th Circuit vacates award for future mental anguish in personal injury case

    On August 1, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated part of a $2.8 million award in a personal injury case filed after a trucking accident. The Court vacated the award for “future mental anguish as there was no evidence to support any such award and vacate as excessive the award for future pain and suffering and remand that award for a remittitur determination.” See Decision.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:21 PM

  • Second Circuit Revives Private Rights of Action Under Section 47(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

    “On August 5, 2019, the Second Circuit held in Oxford University Bank v. Lansuppe Feeder, LLC that “§ 47(b) provides an implied private right of action for rescission.” The case arose when the senior noteholder in a trust sought to have the trust’s assets distributed in accordance with the trust’s indenture. Junior noteholders, who would receive nothing under the indenture scheme, argued that the trust violated the ICA, thereby entitling them to rescind their investment notes under Section 47(b).” See Article.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:20 PM

  • 9th Circuit Court reverses denial of class certification in action filed against Nissan

    On July 26, the 9th Circuit Court reversed the denial of class certification in an action against Nissan North America pursuant to state and federal warranty laws arising from an allegedly faulty hydraulic clutch system in plaintiff's 2012 Nissan vehicle. The Court determined that plaintiff did not seek damages for the faulty performance of the clutch system, but rather alleged that the defective clutch was itself the injury, regardless of whether the faulty clutch caused performance issues. See Decision.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:19 PM

  • New York State Court Holds PSLRA Bars Discovery In State Securities Act Cases Pending A Motion To Dismiss

    “On August 7, 2019, New York State Supreme Court Justice Andrew Borrok issued a stay of discovery, pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, in a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933. Justice Borrok held that the automatic discovery stay under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) applied to Securities Act claims brought in state court.” See Article.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:19 PM

  • MI Supreme Court vacates sentence where judge considered a crime that the defendant had been acquitted of

    On July 29, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated a prison sentence where the applicable guidelines minimum sentence range for the felon-in-possession conviction was 22 to 76 months in prison, but the court imposed a sentence of 240 to 400 months. The sentencing judge had explained that he had imposed this sentence in part on the basis of its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had committed the murder of which the jury acquitted him. The MI Supreme Court held that “[d]ue process bars a sentencing court from finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant engaged in conduct of which he was acquitted and basing a sentence on that finding.” See Decision.

    Aug 14, 2019 8:18 PM