Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
Bipartisan Momentum Builds to Shine Light on Litigation Funders - In October 2023, we discussed the efforts by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and John Kennedy (R-LA) to address the concerns presented by opaque third-party...more
On November 14, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined StarKist Company’s petition to review the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion upholding certification of three subclasses of tuna purchasers in Olean...more
On Friday, June 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., that the federal government has authority to dismiss qui tam (or whistleblower) False Claims Act...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court ruling, finding that the district court failed to properly apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in granting injunctive relief....more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions: Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166: This case involved the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” in the context of seizing property to collect unpaid...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week that the securities-law requirement to plead a “strong inference” of scienter does not apply to claims under § 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act even where...more
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that there may be no prevailing party for purposes of assessing costs and attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)....more
US Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General’s Views in FCA Rule 9(b) Context - On May 16, 2022, the US Supreme Court requested a brief from the US Solicitor General on the level particularly required by Federal Rule of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal of a disappointed movant seeking prejudgment interest and a new damages trial after concluding that the district court did not enter an appealable final...more
On March 16, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California certified two of the hot button issues splitting district courts on the standard for pleading willful infringement (see order),...more
On August 10, 2021, a divided Ninth Circuit panel vacated a trial court’s certification of two nationwide classes, finding that the defendant had not waived its personal jurisdiction objection to class certification by not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to review a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that could alter the landscape of class action litigation under Rule 10b-5. The issue in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v....more
On December 2, 2019, the United States government submitted a brief to the Supreme Court urging it to deny review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling holding a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086. As set forth in our prior blog posts, Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. and related...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more
Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement—whereby an aggrieved employee first must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or a state...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a...more