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
The TCPA generally prohibits the transmission of an “unsolicited advertisement” to a “telephone facsimile machine.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(c). But is an “online fax service” a “telephone facsimile machine”? And can a plaintiff...more
TCPA defendants often assert, in either a motion to dismiss or answer (or both), that a plaintiff gave prior express consent to receive the calls or text messages at issue. But it is the exceptional case where a defendant...more
Last month, in Lawson v. Nations Health Grp., Inc. (“Defendant”), a magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a useful decision for Telephone Consumer Protection Act...more
Although most courts will punt on a motion to strike a class definition at the pleading stage, two recent rulings reveal that such motions can succeed. In Sowders v. Scratch Financial, Inc., No. 23-0056, 2023 WL...more
On June 28, a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a report recommending that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied because the plaintiff had standing under the Telephone...more
On November 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that text messages sent by a “chatbot” do not constitute an artificial or prerecorded voice, per the federal Telephone...more
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a class action for allegations that GrubHub, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff alleged that she...more
In January of this year, the DOJ indicted the Chinese telecom giant Huawei on counts of theft of trade secrets conspiracy, attempted theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice. On August 1, Huawei moved to...more
One can prorogate all one wants, but raise the ire of British MPs, and a price will be paid, my friends. So goes the story for PM Boris Johnson, against whom British lawmakers “rose up” on Monday to “prevent him from taking...more
On June 14, 2019, in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that state sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before...more
As we head into 2019, there are plenty of reasons for optimism in the TCPA defense bar. Courts nationwide have continued to interpret the ACA v. FCC ruling favorably to defendants at both the motion to dismiss and summary...more
If you have seen members of the TCPA plaintiffs’ bar sweating a bit more than usual lately, it’s not just the summer heat—they’re probably concerned about the steady stream of positive cases for the defense bar over the past...more
On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision in FTC v. AT&T holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act’s “common carrier” exemption is activity-based, reversing the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A case out of the District of Oregon recently dismissed a Plaintiff’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims where the allegations relied on manufactured text messages that Plaintiff failed to produce. ...more
• While financial recoveries under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) continued at a fast pace last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) started 2018 with a proverbial "bang" by issuing new internal guidance directing...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In denying Dave & Buster’s motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, a federal judge said that telephonic access might be an alternative to having an accessible website, but cannot decide until the...more
The Seventh Circuit has held that a voice mail message left for a consumer is a “communication” under the FDCPA. In Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18375 (11th Cir. Sept, 22, 2017), the debt collector left...more
On December 21, 2016, the Appellate Division, Second Department, rendered yet another decision whereby an appeal was dismissed “as academic” on the grounds that during the pendency of the appeal, the land use development...more
The past month’s judicial and administrative activity in the area of IC misclassification reflects the wide range of industries facing these types of claims: communications; cleaning services; transportation and delivery...more
This decision explains when a Caremark claim exists based on illegal corporate conduct. The “substantial likelihood” of liability that justifies excusing a pre-suit demand on the board must involve a knowing violation of the...more
It is settled law that a cause of action accrues when the wrong is committed, not when its effects continue to be felt in the future. But as this decision makes clear, that is not always the case. When additional wrongdoing...more