State AG Pulse | The State AG: Both Advocate & Influencer
State AG Pulse | Swinging Through the Rust Belt, the Sun Belt and the South
Emerging Technology in the FY24 NDAA
El juicio presidencial en Colombia con Rossi Cruz
2024 Elections: The Race for the White House and Congress
Podcast: A Conversation with Andy Rotherham on Hot Topics in Education for 2023
Podcast - An Update on the Renewable Fuel Standard Final Rule
Stroock Presents: GOAT Town, Episode 2: “Bringing Some POP(S) to New York City Blocks”
2022 Midterm Election Update: Which Party Will Control the House and Senate?
Podcast: A Deep Dive into Consortia with Dan Sennott and Stephanie Halcrow
Since the recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, companies have been impacted nationwide and have several new legal angles to consider as it relates to their employees and their business
The Art of Making Policy
Orrick Public Policy Podcast #26 – A Conversation with the Minnesota State Senate Majority Leader Jeremy Miller
Monthly Minute | ESG—Integrating Public Policy Engagement
A Different Kind of Advocacy | Amy & Steve Bresnen | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Season One Wrap-Up
Podcast - Earmarks: A Conversation with Quorum and PP&R Practice Leader Rich Gold
Podcast: A Conversation with Attorney General Aaron Ford
[WEBINAR] Planning in the Coastal Zone
In its latest Covid-era coverage case, John’s Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services, Group, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that an insured cannot use the “illusory coverage doctrine to transform the policy’s...more
For decades, California has taken arguably the most pro-employee-mobility position on noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements in the country – generally, post-employment noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements...more
The California Supreme Court has answered in the negative the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ certified question regarding “take-home” COVID-19 exposure (see Federal Appeals Court Asks California If Covid-19 “Take Home” Suits...more
Last week, a California federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a claim made against a Nevada company by the spouse of an employee who contracted COVID-19, allegedly at his workplace, and later transmitted the disease to...more
Arbitration clauses with class action waivers remain one of the most effective lines of defense against consumer class actions. They are also one of the most challenged. As we have discussed in prior posts, including here,...more
The most powerful tool capable of invalidating competitive restraints under California law is Business and Professions Code section 16600. That statute states that “[e]very contract by which anyone is restrained from...more
ZB, N.A. v. Super Ct. of San Diego Cty., 8 Cal. 5th 175, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228 (2019) - Summary: Employee may not recover unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 through PAGA. Facts: Plaintiff Lawson worked for...more
California courts will generally give effect to a mandatory forum selection clause unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair, and the party opposing enforcement of the clause ordinarily bears the burden of proving...more
Many contracts include a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to use a particular jurisdiction’s set of laws to govern the contract. These provisions promote predictability. No matter where a dispute may arise...more
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a...more
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a decision on an important issue to many insurance coverage disputes. In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Court held that California’s...more
In November 2018, we noted that the California Supreme Court had agreed to resolve Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a case that hinged on the importance and application of California’s notice-prejudice rule....more
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019). On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the...more
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public...more
Before a court can resolve a dispute, it often needs to determine what law applies to that dispute. In certain insurance cases, that question will appear to have an easy answer. Some policies include explicit choice-of-law...more
This month’s key California employment law cases are from the California Supreme Court and from the California Court of Appeal. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (2018) - Summary: Employer that requires...more
When does a public employee’s personal privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to access records? Originally Published in PublicCEO - July 18,2018....more
Jobseeker Website May Be Compelled To Disclose Identity Of Anonymous Posters Who Criticized Employer - ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7, 13 Cal. App. 5th 603 (2017) - ZL Technologies brought suit, alleging libel per se and...more
It is not uncommon for parties to enter into agreements containing jury waiver provisions. However, enforcing such provisions in California courts may be a losing battle. California has a strong public policy in favor of the...more
“Agreements to arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief under [California’s Consumers Legal Remedy Act or Unfair Competition Law], or the false advertising law are not enforceable in California.” The California Supreme...more
In an April 5, 2017 unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) held that private arbitration agreements which prohibit public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to California public policy and...more