Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive Into Judge Jackson’s Preliminary Injunction Order Against CFPB Acting Director Vought
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 303: Listen and Learn -- Injunctions and Restraining Orders (Civ Pro)
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
Post-Injunction Enforcement — Highway to NIL Podcast
The NCAA's Response to the NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
Injunctions for All – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee Privacy and COVID-19, CMS Vaccine Mandate on Hold, Independent Contractor Classification - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
#WorkforceWednesday: Component 2 Pay Data Shutdown, CDC Coronavirus Guidance, and California Employers Fight Back - Employment Law This Week®
E18: ICANN Loses First GDPR Court Ruling in Germany
Arizona employer cannot exclude settlement communications from former employee’s retaliation complaint - In Flores v. Rafi Law Group PLLC, the plaintiff accused her law firm employer of retaliating against her by (i)...more
In Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated, a Massachusetts court held that a retention bonus did not constitute not “wages” under the Massachusetts Wage Act (the “Wage Act”). The plaintiff-employee alleged that his former employer...more
In another reversal of course, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way again for California employers to require arbitration agreements. The latest 2-1 decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, issued on...more
A Ninth Circuit panel that previously upheld a California law prohibiting mandatory employment arbitration agreements in the workplace withdrew its decision and ordered the matter to be resubmitted for a panel rehearing. ...more
The panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that largely upheld California’s law banning mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context just withdrew its decision. On August 22, 2022, two of the three...more
Businesses and attorneys alike have kept a close eye on the developments surrounding the challenge to California Assembly Bill 51 (now codified as Labor Code section 432.6). Most recently, in a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a preliminary injunction issued in January 2020 that prohibited California from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which barred employers from requiring employees to sign...more
- The Ninth Circuit rules that portions of Assembly Bill 51 are not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and lifts a lower court’s injunction that barred the law from taking effect. - The court did rule that...more
A federal district court found that the new California law barring mandatory employment arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court granted the challengers’ motion for preliminary...more
On February 7, 2020, United States District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued a decision explaining her prior order blocking enforcement of California's new law restricting arbitration agreements, 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
A federal court in Sacramento explained last week its rationale for temporarily barring the State of California from enforcing a new law, AB 51, that would curtail employment arbitration agreements. The rationale set forth in...more
As we wrote here, United States District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California wrote a brief “minute order” explaining that she was issuing a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of...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
On Friday, January 31, 2020, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the federal District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Preliminary Injunction (PI) against the State of California, enjoining the...more
On Friday January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) to the extent it applies to arbitration...more
On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration...more
Here is the latest in a series of blogs about AB 51, the California bill that threatened mandatory arbitration. Thankfully, the District Court granted the preliminary injunction in full (not just temporarily), and stopped AB...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
U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller just granted a preliminary injunction to block Assembly Bill 51 throughout future court proceedings, which will examine the enforceability of the new law. This is welcome news for...more
A federal judge just extended the reprieve that permitted California employers to escape the grasp of a newly enacted law that aimed to prevent them from utilizing mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees. After...more
AB 51 is the California Bill which attempts to ban certain mandatory employment arbitration agreements. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020, but was temporarily enjoined on December 30, 2019, after a coalition...more
The temporary restraining order (“TRO”) which prevents the enforcement of AB 51 remains in effect until January 31, 2020. As a reminder, California’s AB 51 bars mandatory arbitration agreements in employment agreements....more
Assembly Bill (AB) 51, which attempts to ban certain mandatory arbitration agreements, was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020. However, a coalition of business organizations filed a suit on December 9, 2019...more
California AB 51’s ban on mandatory employment arbitration remains stayed for now. AB 51 was passed in fall 2019 and essentially prohibits employers from requiring an applicant or employee to consent to mandatory arbitration...more