Remand

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Decides Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, (No. 13-935), holding that Article III does not prevent bankruptcy judges from entering final judgment on claims that seek only...more

Pretzel Logic: Federal Circuit holds that TTAB Failed to Consider Mark as a Whole

An application to register PRETZEL CRISPS as a mark will live another day, thanks to a Federal Circuit opinion reversing a TTAB decision that had canceled the mark on grounds of genericness....more

Intellectual Property Alert: Akamai v. Limelight: Federal Circuit Limits Direct Infringement of Method Claims

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit held that Limelight did not directly infringe an asserted method claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) because the “sweeping notions of common-law tort liability” do not apply to...more

401(k) Fee Litigation to Increase Following Tibble Decision

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tibble v. Edison Int'l, it will now be easier for participants in 401(k) and other participant-directed plans to bring lawsuits challenging investment options added to the...more

Locke Lord QuickStudy: The Supreme Court Opines In Tibble v. Edison That The Duty to Monitor Investments Is Ongoing

In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a 401(k) fiduciary breach lawsuit may proceed even when the claim is based on an imprudent selection of investment funds that occurred more...more

Real Property, Financial Services & Title Insurance Update: Weeks Ending May 1 & 8, 2015

Foreclosure: trial court abused its discretion in dismissing foreclosure action with prejudice, cancelling substantial debt, and denying lender ability to refile a foreclosure action without making finding of facts as...more

Voluntary-Involuntary Rule Implicated In Removal Proceeding

In late April, a district court in New York granted plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Utica”) motion to remand, implicating the voluntary-involuntary removal rule. Utica originally filed a breach of contract...more

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #2

SUPREME COURT CASES - U.S. Supreme Court Remands Case to Federal Circuit to Review Patent Under Teva - On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a case back to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal...more

SCOTUS Opts Not To Remand Case Raising Preclusion Question Answered in B&B Hardware

On April 27, the Supreme Court surprisingly denied certiorari in Escamilla v. M2 Tech., Inc., U.S., No. 14-1012 rather than remanding the case for further consideration in light of the High Court's recent decision in B&B...more

Second Circuit Vacates Dismissal of $25M CDO Case Against Citi

On April 22, 2015, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s decision dismissing on statute of limitations grounds claims Woori Bank brought against Citigroup Global Markets arising out of Woori’s purchase of...more

First Circuit Reinstates Arbitral Award Despite Arbitration Panel’s Potentially Erroneous Conclusions

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the district court’s vacatur ruling and remanded the matter for entry of an order confirming an arbitration award. While the First Circuit found that several of the...more

Supreme Court Update: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (13-895), Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (12-1226) And...

We're back with summaries of the two remaining decisions from last week, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (13-895), on racial gerrymandering in Alabama, and Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (12-1226),...more

Supreme Court Limits Employers' Ability to Distinguish Between Causes of Work Restrictions When Denying Accommodations to Pregnant...

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the much-awaited Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. pregnancy discrimination case, as we first reported in our Supreme Court Decides Young v. United Parcel...more

Supreme Court Strikes Middle Ground on Pregnancy Accommodation

The decision in Young v. UPS revives discrimination claims but takes a dim view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2014 Pregnancy Guidelines....more

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Pregnancy Accommodation

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) specifies that the Title VII prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. It also says that...more

Supreme Court Sends UPS Pregnancy Accommodation Case to Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a defeat to United Parcel Service (UPS) this week. At issue was whether UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by requiring a pregnant woman with lifting restrictions to go on leave...more

Supreme Court Remands Alabama Voting Rights Case

Last week, in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, the Supreme Court issued an important opinion in the field of voting rights jurisprudence. The question presented to the Court was whether the Alabama legislature’s...more

Supreme Court Decides Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, holding that a pregnant worker who seeks to show disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act may do so under...more

U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Young v. UPS Finding that UPS Failed to Accommodate Lifting Restrictions of Pregnant Worker

The U.S. Supreme Court revived Peggy Young’s pregnancy discrimination claim against UPS by vacating a Fourth Circuit decision today by a 6-3 vote. Young worked as an air driver for UPS, which required her to lift up to 70...more

The Class Action Chronicle - Spring 2015

In This Issue: - Nexium and the Problems of Overbroad Class Actions - Class Certification Decisions: ..Decisions Granting Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims ..Decisions Denying Motions to Strike/Dismiss...more

U.S. Supreme Court Sends 4-R Act Case Back to Lower Court for the Second Time

A day after issuing its decision in Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc. The Court held that a rail carrier can show discrimination under...more

District Court for the District of Columbia Finds CAFA Jurisdiction Exists; Denies Remand For Lack of Local Controversy

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to remand an action removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), where the plaintiff failed to show CAFA’s local controversy exception...more

Court of Appeals of New Mexico Reverses Bad Faith Judgment for Insured and Remands for New Trial on Bad Faith Claim

Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. v. Vigil, No. 32,171 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2015). Court of Appeals of New Mexico rules that district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of previous coverage ruling in...more

Protecting the Identity of Your LLC Members & LP Partners in Litigation, Part I: Motions to Remand

The situation is familiar: You represent a LLC or LP and file suit in state court to avoid disclosing the identity of your members/partners. But then the identity of those members/partners becomes an issue when the defendant...more

Court Confirms Standard for Appellate Opinion Dispositions - “Do Not Hide Elephants in Mouseholes”

In Ducoing Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (filed 2/10/2015 after rehearing, No. G050457), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held that a reversal of a nonsuit judgment "in all other respects" also served to...more

64 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×