If you have ever received a pre-litigation records request, then you may already know that such a request tends to be a harbinger of a lawsuit on the horizon. Plaintiff’s lawyers regularly use Labor Code provisions to obtain pay and personnel records, before a lawsuit has been filed.
Articles Discussing The Work Of Practicing Labor And Employment Law.
The evidence is in, the jury instructions are done, final trial motions have been made (and appeal points dutifully preserved), and it is time for the final argument, the holy grail of the trial lawyer. After months (if not years) of preparation, it is finally time to just argue, to tell the jurors what you think about the evidence and convince them to agree with your view of what is just and proper, right? Wrong.
Nationwide class action claims against employers under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) are more common now than ever before. On July 13, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, Dutta v. State Farm, addressing an important procedural issue in FCRA cases: constitutional standing. Standing is a legal rule that addresses whether a person has been adversely affected by some action resulting in a right to assert the claim at issue, and a person without standing cannot continue a lawsuit in federal court. The standing issue is being litigated in courts across the country based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in another FCRA case, Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. In Dutta, the Ninth Circuit ruled for the employer, State Farm, and affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claim for violation of the “pre-adverse action” notice provision in the FCRA.
The increase in connectivity has greatly improved an attorney’s ability to represent her clients. From searching a party on social media, to quickly parsing through online materials, saves hours and hours of time. Furthermore, attorneys can leverage professional organization memberships to seek input from thousands of other practitioners on legal questions or strategic decisions. Thus, an attorney can investigate deeper than ever before and easily liaise with other practitioners. But, this cuts both ways. Attorneys must be aware that technological advances also mean that her own clients and experts are vulnerable, and they must take steps to protect confidential information as necessary.
Drafting an agreement that includes a forum selection clause? Preparing to litigate an agreement that includes a forum selection clause and wondering how to argue?
The smoking gun. That key piece of evidence that will conclusively prove your client’s case and guarantee victory may be out there.
No one is perfect. In the adversarial arena of litigation, attorneys are rarely willing to admit even having a weak legal argument, let alone an actual error. However, the American Bar Association recently issued an opinion which makes it an ethical duty for attorneys to disclose any material errors in representation to their clients.
It’s generally known that communications between attorney and client are privileged absent waiver.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Generally, the amount in controversy articulated in Plaintiff’s complaint is controlling. However, it is not always that easy. What happens when specific damages are not alleged? How are damages assessed when the relief sought is a declaratory judgment? The court recently examined both scenarios.
U.S. Customs searches have become increasingly invasive over the years. Pursuant to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates under the “broad search exception”, which allows searches and seizures at international borders or an equivalent (e.g. international airports) without probable cause or a warrant. CBP’s searches are deemed “reasonable” per se, and thus not a Fourth Amendment violation, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. The broad power of the CBP, of course, stems from concern for national security.
In IDC Financial Publishing Inc. v. BondDesk Group LLC, et al., Case No. 15-cv-1085 (PP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177626 (Oct. 26, 2017), a case involving allegations of copyright infringement, the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of over 600 documents previously produced by Defendant TradeWeb Markets LLC d/b/a TradeWeb Direct (“TradeWeb”) with extensive redactions.
Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is being amended on December 1, 2017 to add two new provisions that impact the authentication of electronic evidence.
On October 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a moving party is not excused from showing irreparable harm prior to the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a trade secret misappropriation case. First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed, Case Nos. 16-1434, 16-1465 & 16-1502 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2017). The Tenth Circuit reversed a trial court’s decision that issued an injunction without a showing of irreparable harm, which was presumed based on a statutory violation. Departing from prior Tenth Circuit precedent, the court found that the only circumstance where a trial court can excuse the moving party from demonstrating irreparable harm is where the statute calls for mandatory, not permissive, injunctive relief. As a practical result, employers within the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction must now prove that monetary relief is insufficient, and that only an injunction can provide adequate protection.1
For the vast majority of employment relationships around the world, choice-of-law analysis is a non-issue that we rarely ever think about. Obviously (for example), a Paris-resident baker working locally for a French bakery is protected only by French employment law. A Buenos Aires-resident banker working locally for an Argentine bank is protected only by Argentine employment law. And so on. Choice-of-law (also so-called “conflict of laws”) analysis in plain-vanilla domestic employment scenarios is so simple, so intuitive and so uncontroversial that it almost never comes up.
On October 10, 2017, Judge Ritter issued the Memorandum Opinion and Order which granted a former employee’s Motion to Compel and held that the former employee was entitled to information from the company’s nationwide offices relating to other employees fired under the company’s 100% healed policy and other FMLA or ADA complaints.