Litigation Update

Recent Activity

Litigation UpdateMar 23, 2020 - 8:15pm

U.S. Supreme Court holds that a race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 requires a plaintiff to show that race was the cause of the defendant’s challenged actions

The opinion in Comcast v. National Association of African-American Owned Media clarifies that an allegation that race merely played “some role” in a defendant’s decision-making process is not sufficient under Section 1981.

Litigation UpdateMar 23, 2020 - 8:15pm

U.S. Supreme Court holds that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars states from being sued for copyright infringement

Relying on precedent, the Court held that Congress did not have constitutional authority to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity.  But the Court left open the possibility that Congress in the future could permit copyright claims against states if Congress develops a stronger legislative record demonstrating state copyright infringement. 

Litigation UpdateMar 18, 2020 - 2:15pm

Delaware Supreme Court upholds corporate bylaws requiring Securities Act claims to be brought in federal court instead of state court

The opinion says state law provides “flexibility and wide discretion” for organizing, governing and financing businesses. 

Litigation UpdateFeb 26, 2020 - 2:45pm

Supreme Court issues unfavorable decision in ERISA case

The Supreme Court held that ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations—which requires a plaintiff with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach to file suit within three years—does not apply where the plaintiff received written information about the breach but did not actually read it (or at least does not recall having read it).  As a result of the Court’s decision, plaintiffs who may not have read written information about their benefits may now have up to six years from the date of the alleged breach to file suit. 

Litigation UpdateFeb 06, 2020 - 11:00am

Olsen v. State of California Amicus Brief in support of the Plaintiff

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an Amicus Brief to urge the U.S. District Court, Central District of California to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and enjoin defendants from enforcing AB 5 against them, or otherwise causing it to be enforced against them, pending final judgment.

Litigation UpdateJan 17, 2020 - 4:30pm

U.S. Chamber and other business groups move to intervene in support of the Trump administration’s 2019 amendments to the Risk Management Program Rule

The U.S. Chamber and other business groups moved to intervene in support of the Trump administration’s 2019 amendments to the Risk Management Program Rule governing the prevention and detection of, and response to, accidental releases of hazardous substances from certain covered facilities.

Litigation UpdateJan 14, 2020 - 4:30pm

Supreme Court issues favorable decision in ERISA stock-drop case

The Supreme Court issued a brief opinion in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, vacating the Second Circuit’s unfavorable decision against IBM and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Litigation UpdateDec 10, 2019 - 12:00pm

Supreme Court issues favorable 8-1 decision in debt collection case

The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims begins to run on the date the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not the date on which the violation is discovered.

Litigation UpdateDec 09, 2019 - 11:00am

U.S. Chamber files complaint and motion for preliminary injunction challenging California AB 51

The U.S. Chamber filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging California AB 51.  California AB 51 purports to bar employers from requiring employees and applicants for employment from arbitrating disputes.

Litigation UpdateDec 03, 2019 - 9:00am

D.C. Circuit reverses district court and further clarifies what constitutes final agency action that’s reviewable in the courts

On appeal, the Chamber supported Ipsen’s arguments that an agency action is final where there is no avenue for further review and a company faces enforcement for not following the agency’s determination.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed.  It reversed and remanded the district court’s decision and clarified that a federal agency’s decision expressed in a letter can constitute reviewable final agency action where there is no further avenue for administrative review and the letter creates a “legal consequence,” which includes increased risk.