Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pending Ruling on National Bank Preemption: A Discussion of Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
U.S. District Court Addresses Federal Preemption for State Credit Reporting Laws
State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 24 - Special Edition: Spotlight on the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 386: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
[Podcast] Cellular Agriculture and the Evolving Legal/Regulatory Landscape: A Conversation with Ahmed Khan
Keeping Up With the Bureau Episode 2: FCRA Preemption Issues, Infringing State Laws, and the CFPB's Position
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Law of the Land? Cannabis, Preemption, and SCOTUS [More with McGlinchey Ep. 37]
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 162: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Case In Point: Recent Developments in Employment Law
Employment Law Now V-96- LOTS of Big Employment Law Developments
Nota Bene Episode 101: Catching up with Global Climate Regulation with Nico van Aelstyn
In the long-awaited newest chapter of case law discussing the validity and enforceability of arbitration clauses and class action waivers, the Ninth Circuit on October 28, 2024, dealt a setback, though not a fatal blow, to...more
Evenskaas v. California Transit Inc. reversed a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration of a former employee’s wage and hour class action. The trial court had concluded that the...more
Case Overview - On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573. The Court held that the rule from Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles,...more
On June 15, 2022, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573,_ U.S. _ (2022), by an 8-1 majority, the U.S. States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Supreme...more
This week, we look at two significant court decisions for employers and bring you a practical update on new bereavement leave rules in Illinois. SCOTUS: FAA Preempts California’s PAGA Loophole Last week, the U.S. Supreme...more
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act...more
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, which considered whether or not claims brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act...more
Employers can enforce arbitration agreements in California to the extent they require an employee to arbitrate individual claims under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), according to an 8 to 1 SCOTUS ruling...more
On September 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 split decision, partially upheld a California law passed in 2019 governing the use of mandatory arbitration agreements by employers in California. The state law, AB 51...more
Takeaway: One would think that “public injunctive relief” – especially under California law – would be a broad remedy. Not so, according to the majority opinion in Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, --- F.4th...more
On September 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit lifted an injunction and mostly upheld a California law, known as Assembly Bill 51 (“AB-51”), that prohibits mandatory arbitration agreements. AB-51 invalidates mandatory arbitration...more
As employers and employees alike continue to monitor and watch the landscape of alternative dispute resolution as a viable option (or not) in New Jersey, an important federal court decision was recently handed down. ...more
A controversial California law that would have prevented employers from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment has been enjoined from taking effect by a federal district judge. Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51)...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Among other things, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. AB 51 was quickly challenged...more
On February 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order supporting its injunction of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October, which was...more
The California Legislature’s attempt to circumvent both the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Epic Systems by crafting a new law prohibiting California employers from requiring...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: After granting a temporary restraining order days before AB 51 was to go into effect, the Eastern District of California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 31, 2020. An order detailing...more
A California federal court has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Assembly Bill 51, an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October and set to take effect on January 1, 2020....more
On January 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants’ petitions for panel and en banc rehearing in the Blair v. Rent a Center appeals, setting the stage for possible U.S. Supreme Court review of the California Supreme...more
As we recently wrote here, on December 29, 2019, just days before California’s new arbitration statute known as AB 51 was to go into effect, a federal judge in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of...more
On December 30, 2019, a federal District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the State of California temporarily enjoining the State from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) —the new California law...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Set to take effect on January 1, 2020, AB 51 would make it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. As...more
We previously highlighted Assembly Bill 51, which prohibits employers from requiring employees or applicants for employment to “waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation” of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or...more
On December 30, 2019, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California entered an order temporarily halting the enforcement of AB 51, California’s new anti-mandatory arbitration law. AB 51, which was set to go into...more
On October 13, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 51 into law, banning most employment arbitration agreements in California starting January 1, 2020. This new law is expansive in scope but short...more