Litigation Update

Recent Activity

Litigation UpdateAug 26, 2021 - 7:15am

Florida High Court Clarifies That ‘Apex’ Doctrine Applies to Corporate Officers

The Florida Supreme Court ruled regarding the “apex” doctrine, which protects high-ranking corporate officers by seriously limiting the circumstances in which they can be deposed. 

Litigation UpdateAug 19, 2021 - 7:15am

Sixth Circuit Limits Some Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Actions

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to hold that all plaintiffs—including opt-in plaintiffs—in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act must establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Litigation UpdateJun 30, 2021 - 3:15pm

TransUnion v. Ramirez: The Death Knell for No-Injury Class Actions?

The Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez is one of the most important of the Term for business.  There’s no doubt it dealt a serious blow to abusive, no-injury class actions.  But just how far did it go?  Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami & Daniel Jones of Mayer Brown wrote this excellent blog post to answer that question.

Litigation UpdateJun 29, 2021 - 3:00pm

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Pipeline Builders Can Exercise Eminent Domain over State-Owned Lands, Clearing Way for Important Infrastructure Development

In PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court held, 5-4, that once FERC approves a new pipeline, the company building the pipeline may condemn all necessary rights-of-way, including on land owned by state governments. 

Litigation UpdateJun 25, 2021 - 2:45pm

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Government Appropriation of an Easement on Employer Property Constitutes a per se Physical Taking under the Fifth Amendment

A California regulation permits labor organizations to enter agricultural employers’ private property for unionization drives.  The Supreme Court held, 6-3, that the law appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical tak[1]ing, in violation of the Takings Clause, because the state did not offer just compensation for the taking.

Litigation UpdateJun 25, 2021 - 1:00am

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Certification of Class Action Where Class Members Lack Concrete Injury

In Transunion v. Ramirez, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, put real teeth into the constitutional requirement that all plaintiffs must have a concrete injury to sue. That will reduce abusive, lawyer-driven class actions against businesses by people who suffered no real injury. 

Litigation UpdateMay 17, 2021 - 2:45pm

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That a Pre-enforcement Challenge to Certain IRS Reporting Requirements Is Not Barred by the Anti-injunction Act, Even Though Violation of Those Requirements May Result in a Tax Penalty

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar pre-enforcement challenges to regulatory requirements that are not themselves taxes, but are enforced through tax penalties.  The Anti-Injunction Act narrowly, but powerfully, forbids lawsuits undertaken for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any federal tax. 

Litigation UpdateApr 22, 2021 - 3:30pm

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Holds that FTC Lacks Authority to Seek Equitable Relief such as Restitution or Disgorgement Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Federal Trade Commission cannot recover monetary relief, such as restitution or disgorgement, under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.

Litigation UpdateApr 01, 2021 - 11:30am

U.S. Supreme Court Narrowly Construes “Automatic Telephone Dialing System” Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that an autodialer must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce phone numbers.  The U.S. Chamber filed a coalition amicus brief supporting this result, as well as a brief in support of certiorari and a brief when this case was before the Ninth Circuit. 

Litigation UpdateMar 25, 2021 - 8:45pm

Federal District Court Holds that New Jersey Statute is Preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act

The U.S. Chamber filed a suit as co-plaintiff with the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute challenging a New Jersey statute that effectively prohibits employers in that state from using arbitration agreements in employment contracts.  The federal district court for the District of New Jersey released an opinion holding that the state statute is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and permanently enjoining the New Jersey attorney general from enforcing the statute.