The U. S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants in state court “mass” actions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct 1773 (June 17, 2017) (hereafter “BMS”). BMS’s key holding was that the necessary nexus between an appropriate court for a mass action and a corporate defendant required more than just the company’s connections in the state and the alleged similarity of claims by resident plaintiffs and non-resident plaintiffs. The practical effect is to limit forum shopping by plaintiffs in large state mass or class actions and to require such suits be maintained only where a corporate defendant has significant contacts to support general jurisdiction.
In a stinging rebuke of the Trump Administration’s attempt to remove burdensome regulations on employers, Judge Tanya Chutkan, a District Court judge in the District of Columbia this week reinstated the EEO-1 “Part 2” wage data/hours worked reporting form for all employers who file annual EEO-1 demographic reports with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Labor. (This includes all companies employing more than 100 people, or 50 people if they are a US federal contractor.)
Lidings once again takes top positions as the leading legal advisor in the areas of Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A, and Life Sciences in Russia as a result of the best law firms’ research annually conducted by Chambers and Partners Europe.
RSS is proud to announce that Dominique Poulin, a long-time partner in its Insurance Law Practice Group, has been appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec.
The U.S. Department of Labor has released a proposal to update the overtime rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers should be prepared to raise salaries to meet the minimum thresholds, pay overtime when appropriate, and otherwise adhere to the new rules if they go into effect.
Restaurant Group Severs Relationship with Mario Batali, Highlighting Long-Lasting Impact of Sexual Misconduct Allegations in the Hospitality Industry
On March 6, 2019, the 20-year business partnership between celebrity chef Mario Batali and the Bastianich family of restaurateurs, Batali & Bastianich Hospitality Group, was formally dissolved following allegations by several women more than a year ago that he sexually assaulted and harassed them at his restaurants years earlier. Tanya Bastianich Manueli and her brother Joe Bastianich have bought all of Mr. Batali’s shares in the restaurants. As a result, Mr. Batali has been fully divested and will no longer profit from his former restaurant group, and his name already has been removed from the group’s website. A new company (not yet named) has been formed to replace the now defunct Batali & Bastianich Hospitality Group. Ms. Bastianich Manueli will run day-to-day operations at the new company.
Consumer privacy protection continues to be top of mind for regulators given a climate where technology companies face scrutiny for lax data governance and poor data stewardship. Less than a year ago, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018, to strengthen its privacy laws. In many regards, the CCPA served as a watershed moment in privacy due to its breadth and similarities to the E.U. sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law.
In today’s complex world, a growing number of lawsuits hinge on an expert’s opinion. So the matter of who testifies as an expert witness in your legal case does make a difference. Fortunately – due in no small measure to the new code of procedure – it is now possible to influence this.
Enerzijds wil de verhuurder toegang tot het gehuurde om zijn eigendom te inspecteren. Anderzijds heeft de huurder het recht op rustig woongenot. De vraag die rijst is of de huurder de plicht heeft tot medewerking aan een algemene periodieke inspectie aan het gehuurde. Hier wordt veel over geprocedeerd. Op 13 november 2018 heeft het Gerechtshof Den Haag hierover uitspraak gedaan.
The obligations of a district court to analyze conflicting evidence regarding class and collective action certification was recently addressed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Reinig v. RBS Citizens N.A., 912 F.3d 115, (3d Cir. 2018) (“Citizens”). In that case, the Third Circuit opined that Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 class certification orders (i) must explicitly define the classes and claims that are the subject of a certification order and (ii) provide an analysis of how the court reconciled any conflicting evidence supporting class certification.