Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
On June 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted a closely watched case that could have clarified whether federal courts may certify damages class actions under Rule 23 when the class includes both...more
Le 23 avril 2025, dans l’affaire Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Ari (décision disponible uniquement en anglais), la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique (la « CACB ») a confirmé une décision de première...more
On May 1, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., affirming the dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy...more
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued an order on April 14, 2025, blocking DHS’s March 25, 2025, decision to terminate Humanitarian Parole for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela paroled into the...more
A federal court is poised to temporarily block the early termination of the humanitarian parole program for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela (CHNV), a move that could impact the legal status and work...more
On Apr. 10, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani stated her intention to block DHS’s Mar. 25, 2025, decision to terminate Humanitarian Parole for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, also known as...more
Delivered in digestible, insightful bites, McGlinchey’s Litigation Byte is a monthly roundup of financial services decisions and cases nationwide that impact your business....more
On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., a case and decision that may have an outsized impact on the nature of judicial review of...more
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Jorge Luis Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., resolving a court of appeal split between the Second District (Wesson v. Staples...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., finding that the trial court lacked the inherent authority to dismiss a California’s Private...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, resolving a dispute among the appellate courts and concluding that Private Attorneys General Act...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., concluding that trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on the grounds that it is...more
California employers lost the chance last week to have trial courts act as gatekeepers for the onslaught of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative suits alleging wage and hour violations. Previously, some trial...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court held that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike (dismiss with prejudice) claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on manageability grounds. The...more
In a case of first impression, last week, the Second District California Court of Appeal held that judges have inherent authority to limit, and even strike, unmanageable PAGA claims. ...more