Month: October 2015

Headline: Law Firms are not sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 Sanctions Issue Presented: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 can apply to a law firm rather then an individual as the statute reads. Brief Summary: An…

Headline: Ninth Circuit panel reversed district court judge’s denial of plaintiffs’ remand motion, holding that the actions of plaintiffs in filing separate suits in San Diego Superior Court when a similar, but not identical, set of cases was pending in a coordinated state proceeding in…

Headline: Where a plaintiff files an action containing class claims as well as non-class claims, and the class claims do not meet the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement while the non-class claims, standing alone, do not meet diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requirements, the amount involved in the…

Headline: In a proceeding to set aside a verdict, Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) bars juror testimony that other jurors engaged in premature deliberations or made up their minds about the case before deliberations began when such testimony is offered to demonstrate that the jury engaged…

Headline: When bringing Sherman Antitrust claims Twombly’s “plausibility” standard for pleading sufficiency calls for alleging enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement. Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Antitrust, & Trade Law Issues Presented: Whether the plaintiff in…

Headline: Plaintiff-class failed to plead sufficient plus factors, in conjunction with parallel conduct, to infer the plausible existence of an illegal horizontal agreement between business competitors. Area of Law: Antitrust, Sherman Act § 1, Illegal Horizontal Agreements, Civil Procedure and pleading requirements under Bell Atlantic…

Headline: The Ninth Circuit panel, applying California’s choice-of-law doctrine, affirmed the district court’s ruling that California law – which prohibits the enforcement of unilateral attorney’s fees clauses in contracts – governs the enforceability of the contract’s unilateral attorney’s fees clause, where the contract contains a…

Headline: Netflix does not violate the Video Privacy Protection Act when it exposes its customers to their own ‘viewing history’ on a mandatory basis. Area of Law: Video Privacy Protect Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3 Issue Presented: Whether Netflix violates the Video Privacy Protection…