|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Court Rules No Misconduct Where Juror Friends Plaintiff After Trial Ends.Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP - November 17, 2009 Ah, Facebook in the courtroom. It's a relationship that appears to have a long and tumultuous future ahead. Report Link Tightened Federal Pleading Rules Take Effect: Three Months After the U.S. Supreme Court's Iqbal Decision.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 18, 2009 In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), a case that initially garnered little attention when it was decided, the United States Supreme Court, emphasized and elaborated on the "plausibility" standard first injected into Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure two years earlier in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly1 an antitrust case. The importance of understanding the resulting enhanced requirements for pleading a claim under Rule 8 cannot be overstated. Together, the Twombly and Iqbal decisions radically change the rules of pleading in all civil cases and make it much easier for a federal judge to dismiss a complaint in the initial stage of the lawsuit. The preparation of an adequate complaint for relief in a federal court - one that will withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss - is now a far more demanding task than has previously been the case. Report Link Summary Judgment Standard Requires Court to View Evidence in Light Most Favorable to Non-Moving Party.Ogletree Deakins - June 11, 2009 Litigation often ends when one party files a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that there is no issue of material fact for the jury, and asserting that a decision can be made in its favor based solely on the legal issues. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Recently, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for an employer in an age discrimination case, holding that the lower court “failed to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to [the employee] and to draw all permissible inferences in [his] favor.” Report Link The “Disfavored” Motion?Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - May 15, 2008 Last year, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of a motion to dismiss in a putative antitrust class action, holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the plaintiffs could plausibly win at trial. In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Court expressly rejected the standard long used by the lower federal courts that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Instead, the Court held that, while the factual allegations of a complaint need not be "detailed," they must "possess enough heft" so as to "plausibly" suggest that the plaintiff can prevail. Report Link 5 Must-Have Employment Defense Motions in Limine (pdf).Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 21, 2007 In this Littler attorney-authored article, Michael Brewer discusses five effective motions in limine specific to employment trials. Brewer says that these "are favorites among defense attorneys and offer significant strategic benefits both at trial and on appeal." Some of the motions Brewer discusses include "Evidence of Misconduct Against Plaintiff's Co-Workers," and "Testimony of Employee's Own Opinion of His or Her Job or Job Performance." Report Link Pleading Requirements Tightened.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 22, 2007 Employers are often frustrated by the difficulty in obtaining early dismissals of seemingly frivolous or meritless federal lawsuits. Courts tend to deny motions to dismiss and allow such lawsuits to proceed through the entire discovery process, rather than carefully scrutinizing a plaintiff's initiating complaint. The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in an antitrust lawsuit that has the potential to alter the relative ease by which plaintiffs avoid early dismissals. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (May 21, 2007).
|
ArticlesFound: 6 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds