Schwartz v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2022-125| December 21, 2022 | Vasquez, J. | Dkt. No. 17291-14L - Short Summary: Eric Schwartz (“Schwartz”) and his spouse divorced. Pursuant to those divorce proceedings, the state court...more
Ask any good attorney a question, and you will probably be given the following response: “It depends.” The answer usually serves as a preface to a more thorough discussion about the specific facts of your case, what the...more
As discussed in our recent article, the Virginia General Assembly voted to allow most criminal defendants and civil litigants to have an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals of Virginia starting on January 1, 2022. ...more
The Ninth Circuit recently considered an issue of first impression: What standard of review does an appellate court apply when reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment in a trademark infringement case on the...more
If there is no binding precedent on point, where does the Supreme Court of North Carolina look for guidance? Which are more persuasive: federal court opinions or North Carolina Court of Appeals opinions? Does the answer to...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent 10th Circuit decision holding that in order for the abuse of discretion standard to apply in litigation the claims administrator must provide participants with actual notice of discretionary...more
In recent Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) litigation challenging benefit decisions by plan administrators and fiduciaries, litigants have been pleading closely related claims under multiple ERISA...more
In Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., No. 18-20700, 2019 WL 5866677 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). This...more
Often, trial lawyers minimize the importance of a timely evidentiary objection. Trial lawyers think that appellate courts review evidentiary objections under a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard and that one single...more
CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development - In a published opinion issued December 24, 2018, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783, the California Supreme Court determined that an...more
To reduce the cost of maintaining an ERISA plan and reduce the expense of ERISA litigation, it is helpful to have courts both apply a deferential standard of review and limit the review to the administrative record. If an...more
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit again vacated a District Court’s Order denying enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued to an employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...more
In Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., No. 16-20174 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2017), the Firth Circuit concluded that Texas’ ban on discretionary clauses in certain insurance policies did not require a de novo review of...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court confirmed that federal appeals courts should apply a deferential standard of review to federal district court determinations regarding the legal sufficiency of EEOC subpoenas....more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 3, 2017, in McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case which presented the question of what the appropriate standard of appellate...more
Recently, in McLane Co., Inc. v. EEOC, case number 15-1248 , the United States Supreme Court clarified the standard for when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order to enforce or quash a subpoena from the EEOC....more
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that appellate courts must utilize the deferential “abuse-of-discretion” standard when evaluating a ruling on a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. 2017), a decision that clarifies the scope of review for employers facing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit court split regarding the standard of review applicable to district court decisions that evaluate the enforceability of EEOC investigative subpoenas and held yesterday that an abuse...more
Under Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has the authority to issue subpoenas for documents relevant to its investigations. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, which issued...more
In a 7 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that courts of appeals should largely defer to lower courts’ decisions when policing subpoenas issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By...more
On April 3, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, addressing how federal courts review subpoenas that the EEOC issues while investigating charges of employment discrimination. McLane involved...more
On April 3. 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, holding that a district court’s decision whether to enforce or quash an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...more
Just how broad is the EEOC’s subpoena power and are we likely to get some guidance soon? We’ve said before that the McLane v. EEOC case (which is about the EEOC’s subpoena power and is currently before the Supreme Court) is...more
In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more