Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...more
TCPA revocation cases are on the rise, and a closely related type of case– the internal DNC claim– is on the rise along with it. There is a slight difference between the two types of cases, and one which we don’t talk about...more
The TCPA’s ban on “prerecorded or artificial” voice calls has often been applied to prerecorded or artificially-generated voicemails. Remains unclear to me whether that is the proper application of the statute– the TCPA...more
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools that students bringing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act lawsuits against public schools should not face a...more
Judge Nelson S. Román (S.D.N.Y.) recently dismissed a patent-infringement complaint for failure to state a claim, emphasizing the requirement that plaintiffs plead factual allegations rather than legal conclusions....more
Can members of a majority group be subject to a heightened pleading standard for their Title VII discrimination claims? The United States Supreme Court answered this question with a unanimous “no” in Ames v. Ohio Department...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that “reverse discrimination” claims are not subject to a heightened standard of proof. This decision clarifies the legal standard required for such...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently reminded district courts that they may use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7)—a little-known rule—to screen out meritless complaints before discovery....more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement multiple circuit courts of appeals have applied to Title...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the “background circumstances” rule in “reverse” employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in a unanimous decision overturning...more
Real World Impact: The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a sex discrimination case as it sided with a straight woman on the standard to be used in pleading disparate treatment on the basis of her...more
On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. (“ERGO Baby”). ...more
On May 14, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 29 (“SB 29”), which significantly reforms the Texas Business Organizations Code (“TBOC”). With these reforms, Texas aims to create a legal environment...more
On May 7, 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a significant decision in Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC, No. 24 C 1267 (N.D. Ill.). The court dismissed with prejudice a putative class...more
In our prior article, we discussed instances in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the district courts made different findings with regard to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A recent...more
Excessive fee cases against plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have been on the rise for the last decade. ERISA litigation is expanding with novel theories such as forfeiture litigation....more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Jones v. Ceinski - qualified immunity - Otto Candies v. Citigroup - RICO, fraud, conspiracy - Berrocal v. US Att’y Gen - standing, international treaty - Maglana v....more
Most uses of artificial intelligence in litigation carry great promise but little risk. That’s not the case with generative AI tools employed to draft legal pleadings. Despite the best efforts of courts and bar groups to...more
A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Virginia, Matthews v. Senior Life Ins. Co., provides a helpful reminder that TCPA complaints do not satisfy Rule 8’s pleading standard if they do not plausibly link the...more
Under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007 (April 17, 2025), plaintiffs asserting that ERISA plan administrators engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406 are...more
In Cunningham v. Cornell University,1 the Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs who bring a prohibited transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) are only...more
by Alex Smith The Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the pleading standards for ERISA prohibited transactions claims in a case involving Cornell’s 403(b) plan to resolve a federal circuit court split. Under...more
Many sponsors and fiduciaries of ERISA retirement plans had been hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University (No. 23-1007) would articulate new pleading standards that would slow the...more
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the pleading requirements to bring a prohibited-transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in Cunningham v....more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, resolved a circuit split and established a plaintiff-friendly pleading standard for ERISA prohibited transaction claims in Cunningham v. Cornell University,...more