Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
(Podcast) The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
RICO's Person/Enterprise Distinction - RICO Report Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Navigating Civil Standing Requirements for Defense Success — RICO Report Podcast
Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
Second Circuit Decision Potentially Broadens RICO Proximate Cause Element - RICO Report Podcast
Anatomy of a Successful Motion to Dismiss in RICO Case
A Discussion on the Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees Decision
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Case Involving Burger King Employee Spitting in Officer’s Burger Goes Before WA Supreme Court
Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-24128 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2018) – In October 2018, Jarvis Arrington, a former employee at a Burger King franchisee in Illinois, filed a class action complaint against...more
On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit published a significant decision in Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corp., reviving a dormant class action lawsuit against a group of the country’s largest naval...more
Summary - Following a string of unsuccessful prosecutions in the labor space, the DOJ Antitrust Division moved this week to dismiss its last indicted criminal no-poach case, which had been pending against Surgical Care...more
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division recently suffered another setback in its most recent effort to secure criminal convictions for labor-side violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Having finally secured a...more
The closely watched government campaign to criminally prosecute labor-related antitrust matters has run into a major roadblock—juries. Last week, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was...more
Antitrust treatment of no-poach agreements continues to evolve as private cases progress, state attorneys general ramp up enforcement efforts and federal regulators further contemplate the legality of no-poach agreements....more
Legal battles over the antitrust treatment of no-poach agreements continue to escalate with new district court decisions and new pronouncements from two “titans” of antitrust policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the...more
• The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have indicated in the past that they believe that certain agreements between employers not to poach each other’s employees are...more
Jimmy John’s will face antitrust claims, after an Illinois federal judge declined to dismiss allegations in a class action. Plaintiffs claim the chain’s franchise agreement harmed competition by preventing franchisee...more
We recently wrote that the Department of Justice’s and the Federal Trade Commission’s announcements condemning no-poaching agreements have sparked civil class actions, including a putative class action against Jimmy John’s....more