Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
The Bottom Line - The United States Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 19-938 589 U.S. __ (2020), which held that a bankruptcy court’s unreserved denial...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a...more
The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain...more
When a debtor files for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code provides for an automatic stay of almost all proceedings to recover property from the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). A party in interest can seek an order exempting...more
In a unanimous opinion released last week, the Supreme Court provided guidance as to how to determine the finality of an order in a bankruptcy case for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Court held that the...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion clarifying what constitutes a final order for purposes of bankruptcy appeal. The Ritzen decision comes a few years after the Supreme Court in...more
Under the Bankruptcy Code, filing a bankruptcy petition automatically halts efforts to collect pre-petition debts from the debtor outside of bankruptcy. This is the "automatic stay," and it is a command, not a suggestion....more
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding appeals of orders denying relief from the automatic stay. Generally, the automatic stay (section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code) prevents creditors...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938, holding that an order unreservedly ruling on a creditor’s motion for relief from bankruptcy’s...more
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion of interest to every debtor and creditor in a bankruptcy case as the decision involves the automatic stay. The appeal involved a bankruptcy court’s order that enforced...more
GAME AND TECH. CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LTD. Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board, applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, must independently determine whether...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485, holding that the statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 begins to run when the criminal...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more