Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 319: Spotlight on Torts (Part 3 – Strict and Vicarious Liability)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 513: Grappling with AI as a Law Student and Lawyer (1L Summer Series)
Podcast - Part II: The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Wire Fraud Litigants Beware: Fourth Circuit Ruling Protects the Banks — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Balch’s Consumer Finance Compass: How Standing Can Make or Break Certification for Class Action Lawsuits in Debt Collection
Podcast - Persistence and Determination
Podcast - Part I - The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Podcast - Walking Tall
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 317: Spotlight on Torts (Part 2 – Intentional Torts)
Key Discovery Points: A Judicial Approach to Handling AI-Generated Evidence
Master the First Moves in Litigation for Courtroom Advantage – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Podcast - The Seeds of Corruption
Key Discovery Points: Don’t Get Caught with Your Hand in the Production Cookie Jar
Key Discovery Points: BYOD Case Law Covering Subpoenas and Employee Handbooks
Feeling Disillusioned with AI? You’re Not Alone
Current Regulatory, Legislative, and Litigation Developments on ADA Website Accessibility for Consumer Finance Digital Platforms — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Key Discovery Points: Petty Finger Pointing Over Search Terms Results in Wasted Time
The Trend of Threatening Physicians for Personal Gain
Podcast - Seek Out Feedback
The Three C’s for Addressing Prior Inconsistent Statements
In the last month, we have gained additional insight into the future of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulation and how class action litigation might be shaped by...more
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., district courts have begun to respond by declining to follow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s interpretation of...more
A federal district court in New Hampshire granted certification to a nationwide class and issued a preliminary injunction (PI) on July 10 that prevents the U.S. government from implementing Executive Order 14160. EO 14160...more
At the end of its 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts do not have equity power to issue so-called “universal” (also known as “nationwide”) injunctions. At issue in...more
The Northern District of California recently dismissed, with prejudice, a purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (Royal Caribbean), alleging a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)...more
Labcorp v. Davis brought a pivotal question to the fore: Can a court certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that includes uninjured members? The case had the potential to significantly affect forum...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 27 invalidating universal injunctions as the remedy imposed by three federal district courts that had determined that President Trump’s Executive Order limiting...more
SCOTUS Says: Hobbs Act Does Not Bind a District Court to the FCC’s Interpretation of a Statute - On May 1, 2025, the American Arbitration Association’s new amendments to the Consumer Arbitration Rules officially went into...more
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., marking a major shift in how federal courts may respond to challenges against nationwide policies—especially in immigration law. The case...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., –– S. Ct. ––, 2025 WL 1773631 (U.S. June 27, 2025), restricting the use of “universal injunctions” by federal district courts, is receiving extensive attention...more
Last Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. covering three separate lawsuits that were consolidated for purposes of argument and decision, held that Federal Courts may not grant a universal...more
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) has fundamentally altered the federal litigation landscape by severely restricting courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions. This ruling requires...more
The Administrative Order Review Act (better known as the "Hobbs Act") grants "exclusive jurisdiction" to the federal courts of appeals to "determine the validity" of most FCC orders and rules and certain other agency orders....more
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. In so ruling, the Court granted the...more
In a new 6-3 opinion, the US Supreme Court has cast further doubt into TCPA litigation. The decade-old underlying case, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation et al., was filed after the defendant...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., holding that the federal Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an opinion that could dramatically change the landscape of class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)....more
We’ve written previously about courts’ differing approaches to ascertainability — an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that class members must be identifiable. A pending petition for certiorari in Career Counseling, Inc. v....more
The May Monthly Minute brings you up-to-date on mental health parity enforcement relief, as well as smoker surcharge and prohibited transaction litigation. Nonenforcement of 2024 Mental Health Parity Regulations - Earlier...more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is a federal statute that governs various telemarketing practices. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Facebook v. Duguid (narrowing the interpretation autodialer), the...more
Delivered in digestible, insightful bites, McGlinchey’s Litigation Byte is a monthly roundup of financial services decisions and cases nationwide that impact your business....more
In Cunningham v. Cornell University,1 the Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs who bring a prohibited transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) are only...more
by Alex Smith The Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the pleading standards for ERISA prohibited transactions claims in a case involving Cornell’s 403(b) plan to resolve a federal circuit court split. Under...more
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral argument this week in Labcorp v. Davis (No. 24-304) to determine “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more
Much like Blockbuster Video rental stores (of which you might be surprised to learn there is still one remaining), the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) was quietly slipping into obsolescence with the advent of the Internet...more