Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
In a decision issued on June 27, 2025, Trump v. CASA, Inc. (a 6-3 ruling), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal District Courts lack authority to grant universal injunctions. In CASA, the United States District Courts for...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., finding that the trial court lacked the inherent authority to dismiss a California’s Private...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, resolving a dispute among the appellate courts and concluding that Private Attorneys General Act...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., concluding that trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on the grounds that it is...more
California employers lost the chance last week to have trial courts act as gatekeepers for the onslaught of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative suits alleging wage and hour violations. Previously, some trial...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court held that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike (dismiss with prejudice) claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on manageability grounds. The...more
In a case of first impression, last week, the Second District California Court of Appeal held that judges have inherent authority to limit, and even strike, unmanageable PAGA claims. ...more