(Podcast) The Briefing: IP Rights and the “Public Good” Exemption to California’s Anti-SLAPP Law: An Update
The Briefing: IP Rights and the “Public Good” Exemption to California’s Anti-SLAPP Law: An Update
On June 9, 2023, Justice Robert Reed of the New York State Court, Commercial Division, issued a decision in Trump v. Trump, 192 N.Y.S.3d 891 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. June 9, 2023). This decision largely denied Mary Trump’s motion...more
The California Supreme Court issued the following decisions last week: Hoffmann v. Young, et al., Case No. S266003: Under Civil Code section 846, landowners generally owe no duty of care to keep their property safe for...more
In this issue of the Arent Fox Class Action Quarterly Update, we will be focusing on one recent California Supreme Court decision and two court of appeal decisions impacting the fashion and retail industries. Key Retail...more
Severance and litigation settlement agreements often include a provision that prohibits one or more of the parties from making “disparaging” statements about the other. Such non-disparagement clauses are commonly used, but...more
claims often end in confidential settlements, as do many insured liabilities. But does it matter if lawyers sign a settlement agreement approving “as to form and content”? Last month, the California Supreme Court answered...more
Attorneys often sign settlement agreements under the words "approved as to form" or "approved as to form and content". In signing the settlement agreement, an attorney may not expect to be bound by the settlement, but should...more
Judge Davis’s recent denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss provides helpful guidance on how to distinguish between counterclaims used as solely as a “cudgel” and meritorious claims in breach of contract cases. The ruling...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Fourth District of Appeal held in Monster Energy Company v. Schechter that an attorney who signed his client’s settlement agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content” was...more
In Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, et al. (No. E066267 – 8/13/2018), the Fourth Appellate District reversed the trial court’s partial denial of the attorney defendants’ (“Attorneys”) underlying special motion to strike...more
Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories Inc., Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California, September 7, 2016, Case No. B26511 - The California Court of Appeal for the Second District holds that anti-SLAPP statute...more
In Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hirsh (No. 14-55539), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an order denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, to strike...more