Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pending Ruling on National Bank Preemption: A Discussion of Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
U.S. District Court Addresses Federal Preemption for State Credit Reporting Laws
State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 24 - Special Edition: Spotlight on the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 386: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
[Podcast] Cellular Agriculture and the Evolving Legal/Regulatory Landscape: A Conversation with Ahmed Khan
Keeping Up With the Bureau Episode 2: FCRA Preemption Issues, Infringing State Laws, and the CFPB's Position
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Law of the Land? Cannabis, Preemption, and SCOTUS [More with McGlinchey Ep. 37]
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 162: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Case In Point: Recent Developments in Employment Law
Employment Law Now V-96- LOTS of Big Employment Law Developments
Nota Bene Episode 101: Catching up with Global Climate Regulation with Nico van Aelstyn
On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a long-anticipated final rule that will effectively ban the use of noncompete clauses by employers, with a few limited exceptions....more
On April 16, 2024, more than fifteen months after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that would ban noncompetes and nearly a year after the comment period closed, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it was...more
Ogletree Deakins’ Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group is pleased to announce the publication of the Winter 2023 issue of the Practical NLRB Advisor. This issue provides an overview of a host of controversial decisions...more
The federal government has proposed a rule to ban non-compete agreements between nearly all employers and all workers. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) believes this rule will increase wages by almost $300 billion annually...more
On October 26, 2022, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Rourke v. Herr Foods, Inc. once again confirmed that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the 2019 amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)...more
The Commercial Division’s decision in Rockmore v. Plastic Surgery Associates, LLP demonstrates the broad scope of ERISA preemption and the difficulty of pleading breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims alongside breach...more
In Wong v. Flynn-Kerper, 999 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit barred the use of equitable estoppel to challenge the purchase price of company shares under an ERISA stock ownership plan when such use would...more
On February 25, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion for preliminary injunction brought by the California Grocers Association (CGA) against the City of Long Beach. In California...more
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a...more
Real Property Update - HOA / Contracts: Trial court erred by entering a post-judgment enforcement order requiring the association to assign its riparian rights to plaintiff pursuant to an enforceable settlement agreement,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Among other things, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. AB 51 was quickly challenged...more
On February 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order supporting its injunction of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October, which was...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: After granting a temporary restraining order days before AB 51 was to go into effect, the Eastern District of California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 31, 2020. An order detailing...more
After denying the defendants’ petitions for panel and en banc rehearing in the Blair v. Rent-a-Center appeals, the Ninth Circuit has granted their motions to stay the issuance of the Court’s mandates for 90 days pending the...more
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Monday, December 30, to halt enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020. AB 51 would have prevented...more
On December 30, 2019, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California entered an order temporarily halting the enforcement of AB 51, California’s new anti-mandatory arbitration law. AB 51, which was set to go into...more
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Newsom signed a bill seeking to ban employers from requiring employees or applicants to sign arbitration agreements waiving their rights under the Labor Code or the state’s...more
We recently wrote about a new California law set to go into effect on January 1, 2020 that would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees....more
A federal court in California has prevented, at least for now, an expansive anti-arbitration law from taking effect on January 1, 2020. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 51, enacted on October 10, 2019, employers cannot require...more
If your business operates in California, you need to be aware of AB 51, a law that will take effect January 1, 2020. AB 51 precludes employers from requiring any applicant or employee, as a condition of employment, continued...more
On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or...more
As employers with operations in California had feared, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 51, which effectively outlaws mandatory arbitration agreements with employees – a new version of a bill that prior Governor Jerry...more
Seyfarth Synopsis. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, the Legislature passed AB 51. This bill would ban mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act while...more
On June 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in three separate cases that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017) — otherwise...more
We have good news from the U.S. Supreme Court for creditors who use arbitration agreements. On April 24, 2019, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that courts may no longer infer from an...more