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
On Monday, a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by former Kansas basketball player Mario Chalmers and 15 other former college basketball players. The plaintiffs all...more
Previously, this Blog examined the doctrine of res judicata (here, here, here and here). Under the doctrine, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties...more
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Charles Moulton addressed in an August 16th Amended Recommended Decision (“ARD”) an issue arising out of the administrative litigation associated with Mena Short Stop, LLC (“Mena Short Stop”)....more
On February 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Brownback v. King, No. 19–546, holding that the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act was triggered by a judgment of dismissal for failure to state a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that res judicata can apply to dismissals on procedural grounds and to claims arising after a prior judgment. Sowinski v. California Air...more
RICHARD SOWINSKI v. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD - Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Res judicata may bar subsequent claims regarding...more
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, addressing the subjects of claim and issue preclusion. The Court held that claim preclusion (or...more
Lucky Brand has emerged victorious in the latest skirmish of its nearly 20-year trademark litigation battle with Marcel Fashions, a competitor in the apparel business. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group,...more
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rebuffed the Second Circuit’s attempt to expand the scope of res judicata to include the so-called concept of “defense preclusion” – a novel doctrine that would...more
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. that Lucky Brand was not precluded from raising a defense that it could have raised in a previous trademark...more
The outdated pair of acid washed jeans that your dad wears to mow the lawn seem brand new in comparison to the nearly 20 years of litigation between Lucky Brand and Marcel over the use of various “Lucky” trademarks. Last...more
On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the latest round of a 20-year long trademark dispute between Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. and Marcel Fashion Group, Inc. over the use of “Lucky.” ...more
In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., the United States Supreme Court recently considered for the first time whether and the extent to which it should recognize “defense preclusion” as a valid...more
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of jeans manufacturer, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky"), in its protracted trademark battle with Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. ("Marcel"), holding that Lucky...more
On May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., that a party is not precluded from raising new defenses, when a subsequent lawsuit between the same...more
Competitors with similar trademarks can find themselves in long-running trademark disputes, making for bitter rivals. Multiple rounds of litigation are not only contentious, but also expose litigants to procedural pitfalls....more
On May 14, 2020, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the US Supreme Court overturned the “defense preclusion” doctrine proposed by the Second Circuit, upholding the requirement that preclusion of a defense...more
The Supreme Court yesterday issued its second trademark decision of this term. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., Case No. 18-1086 (S. Ct. May 14, 2020), the ultimate question before the Court was...more
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086: Petitioner Lucky Brand Dungarees and respondent Marcel Fashions Group have been engaged in three separate rounds of trademark-related litigation over a...more
On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, holding that a party is not precluded from raising defenses submitted in earlier...more
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, finding that any preclusion of litigation defenses must comply with traditional res judicata principles, and ruling that Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. (Lucky...more
Today, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group., Inc. that claim preclusion did not prevent Lucky Brand from asserting a defense it failed to fully litigate in a prior lawsuit...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held this week that Lucky Brand was not precluded from mounting a new defense in its litigation with Marcel Fashions Group — despite having chosen not to bring up the same defense in a prior...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in a long-running trademark dispute: Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. The question presented to the Court was whether Lucky...more
Many litigants are familiar with the well-settled rule that an affirmative defense will be waived if it is not included in a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss or in the answer (see CPLR 3211[e]). And so, lawyers tasked with...more