California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
The California Supreme Court granted review in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court—a hopeful turn of events after lower courts issued decisions that resulted in an unprecedented expansion of negligence liability for...more
The Situation: The California Supreme Court recently granted review of a California Court of Appeal decision, Gilead Life Sciences, Inc. v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, that made waves in the...more
On May 1, the California Supreme Court granted Gilead Science Inc.’s request to review a California appellate court’s holding that the pharmaceutical manufacturer must defend against negligence claims stemming from its...more
In a recent decision, Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., the Supreme Court of California opened the door for some restrictive covenants between commercial enterprises, but it left alone California law generally prohibiting...more
In Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., S256927, 2020 WL 4432623 (Cal. Aug. 3, 2020) (“Ixchel Pharma”), the Supreme Court of California clarified two points: (1) that to state a claim for interference with an at-will contract...more
In Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., the court addresses “an important question of California law, potentially affecting all contracts in California that in some way restrain a contracting party from engaging in a...more
The California Supreme Court recently granted review in Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. Actavis, Inc., a very unusual case where two counties sued the manufacturers of opiate medicines for allegedly engaging in a...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., became the first state high court to recognize the doctrine of “innovator liability,” unanimously holding that brand-name prescription drug...more
In September, we discussed several new trends in jurisdiction, including an opinion—Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County—in which the California Supreme Court held that hundreds of non-California...more
The California Supreme Court’s recent opinion on specific jurisdiction may have far-reaching consequences for future actions brought in the state. In the recently published opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior...more
Eight years ago, in Conte v. Wyeth, the California Court of Appeals shocked brand prescription drug manufacturers when it held that they could be liable for injuries caused by generic versions of their medications — an...more
Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court's application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called "reverse payment"...more
In In Re Cipro Cases I & II, the California Supreme Court laid out a four-part rule of reason analysis for evaluating ANDA settlements that involve a reverse payment to the generic challenger (also referred to as “pay for...more
On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro holds that reverse payment settlements can be challenged under...more
Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616 (Cal. May 7, 2015), holding that reverse payment, or “pay-for-delay,” settlements can be challenged as unreasonable restraints on...more
The California Supreme Court issued a decision today in the Cipro antitrust cases, concluding that the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis applies to alleged “pay-for-delay” pharmaceutical patent...more