DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
Ever had to explain to a client why a sweet win in the lower courts doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s time to dig in and eat? In City of Martinsville, VA v. Express Scripts, a Fourth Circuit majority opinion used a...more
The Supreme Court ruled on January 15, 2025, that if a plaintiff amends a complaint to remove federal claims after a case has been removed to federal court, the federal court loses its jurisdiction over the remaining...more
In a seminal opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that a case removed on federal question grounds is properly remanded when the plaintiff amends his or her complaint and dismisses the federal claims. What is the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling based on a claim construction error because nothing in the claims or specification of the asserted patent supported the...more
SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Decide Whether Automatic Discovery Stay Applies to Securities Act Cases in State Court; Delaware Court of Chancery Dismisses Stockholder Suit Against FedEx for Failure to Make Pre-Litigation...more
The Ninth Circuit recently clarified what standard applies when a party seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). In so doing, the court allowed two plaintiffs who had previously voluntarily dismissed their class action...more
In two recent decisions — Brown v. Teva Pharmaceuticals and Doe v. Valley Forge Military Academy & College — courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania put limits on the use of so-called “snap removal,” a strategy...more
Addressing patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s decision for failure to address the parties’ claim construction dispute before ruling...more
Consider these facts. A debtor in bankruptcy sued two parties for breach of contract. The debtor assigned its rights and interests in the cause of action to another entity. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing...more
A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more
The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts. Congress...more
In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas that a third-party counterclaim defendant was not permitted to remove class action claims against it under the general removal statute, 28...more
On May 28, the Supreme Court decided Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (2019), ruling 5–4 that third-party counterclaim defendants may not remove class actions from state to federal court. The decision, besides keeping in...more
It has long been established that a state-court plaintiff who is the subject of a counterclaim cannot remove the case to federal court. ...more
On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas — joined by unlikely allies Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions do not...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Defendants can remove lawsuits filed in state courts to federal courts if they meet the statutory requirements for removal under either 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act. In Home Depot U....more
The Lede - As Congress appreciated when it enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), large, multistate class actions are better suited for federal courts, not state ones. Following that logic, the Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a counterclaim defendant’s attempt to remove a would-be class action to federal court, holding that even where that defendant, Home Depot, was not an original plaintiff, there was no right...more