On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB [No. 23-970]. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to address, for the first time in over a decade, the exacting...more
In this special episode, Akin Supreme Court and appellate practice head Pratik Shah and partner Aileen McGrath look back at the tumultuous 2022 Supreme Court Term....more
1/31/2024
/ Affirmative Action ,
Appeals ,
Clean Water Act ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Eighth Amendment ,
Election Laws ,
Equal Protection ,
Executive Orders ,
Free Speech ,
Gerrymandering ,
LGBTQ ,
SCOTUS ,
Voting Rights ,
Voting Rights Act
Key Takeaways -
In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its past precedent and held that the goal of achieving a diverse student body cannot...more
Key Points -
The 9th Circuit, disagreeing again with the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 11th Circuits, reaffirmed that claims under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act do not require a showing of scienter.
In the 9th...more
The past year saw appellate courts weigh in on a number of critical questions regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), headlined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S....more
On July 20, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G059860, which indicates that it may intend to address the questions of state law addressed by the...more
In this episode, Akin Gump Supreme Court and appellate practice senior counsel Aileen McGrath and labor and employment counsel Jonathan Slowik discuss California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and the significance of...more
In this special episode, Akin Gump Supreme Court and appellate practice head Pratik Shah and senior counsel Aileen McGrath discuss the momentous 2021 Supreme Court Term and look at notable upcoming cases in the October 2022...more
On June 22, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 685 (2022), to resolve a split of authority regarding whether trial courts can strike or limit...more
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. At issue was a rule announced by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS...more
Key Points -
On May 23, 2022, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that a failure to provide premium pay for meal or rest break violations under California Labor Code § 226.7...more
Two recent rulings by California state court judges have struck-down California statutes that were intended to foster diversity at California-based public companies. In the first case, Crest v. Padilla, No. 20-STCV-37513...more
The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's recent watershed decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC established several significant benchmarks for determining class...more
Key Points -
The en banc 9th Circuit clarified numerous rules applicable to class actions brought under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court’s watershed decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery v....more
On March 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. At issue was a rule announced by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. Wage and hour practitioners, particularly in California, have watched the case with keen interest because it...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal, held that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.” This decision creates a split of authority with Wesson v....more
In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action under the Private...more
On September 30, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) decided Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., Case No. G057836. At issue in Uribe was a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement that purported to...more
In this episode, Akin Gump Supreme Court and appellate practice head Pratik Shah and senior counsel Aileen McGrath review the 2020 Supreme Court Term and preview the big cases and topics in the October 2021 Term.
Among the...more
In Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that “courts have inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims...more
In this episode, Akin Gump litigation partner Hyongsoon Kim and Supreme Court and appellate senior counsel Aileen McGrath and Crimcard founder and managing partner Dr. Kareem Crayton discuss redistricting and the impact of...more
Key Points -
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court held that premiums paid for missed meal, rest or recovery periods must include nondiscretionary pay, not just hourly wages. The decision...more
Key Points -
The U.S. Supreme Court held that all members of a certified class must demonstrate that they suffered a concrete harm—such as physical injury or monetary loss—to have Article III standing to recover damages in...more
6/30/2021
/ Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Members ,
Credit Reporting Agencies ,
Credit Reports ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
TransUnion ,
TransUnion LLC v Ramirez
The California Supreme Court overturned the California Court of Appeals to hold that a party to a phone call can violate California Penal Code section 632.7 by recording the conversation without the consent of the other...more