Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

A federal court dismissed a securities fraud class action against a payment technology company, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately demonstrate that alleged misstatements about routing volume caused the stock price decline following DOJ antitrust disclosures. The court held that expert opinions cannot substitute for well-pleaded facts when establishing loss causation, and that a 6.6% price drop followed by quick recovery was insufficient to support the claim.

California businesses facing a wave of class action threats under the state's Invasion of Privacy Act may soon find relief as lawmakers advance a revised bill aimed at curbing aggressive demand letters. With over half a billion dollars already extracted through settlements, the legislative push to eliminate private enforcement of the pen register provision has gained momentum in committee, though significant work remains before the summer recess deadline.

The Ninth Circuit's reversal in Cocom v. ABM Aviation provides crucial guidance for California employers on drafting enforceable arbitration agreements. This ruling clarifies how courts should interpret arbitration scope language and distinguishes problematic unlimited agreements from properly limited employment-focused ones. The decision offers practical lessons on avoiding unconscionability challenges while maintaining effective arbitration programs.

When a death occurs on navigable waters or involves a seaman, the legal framework shifts dramatically from familiar Texas wrongful death law to federal maritime statutes. This analysis examines how the Jones Act, Death on the High Seas Act, and general maritime law create fundamentally different rules for who can recover, what damages are available, and how claims must be pursued compared to Texas state law remedies.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), answers a narrow but important arbitration question: when a federal court with jurisdiction over a lawsuit stays...

Chicago Office Managing Partner Bill O'Neil shares his journey from aspiring trial lawyer to firm leader, revealing how the discipline of daily routines, family commitments, and courtroom performance intersect to create career-defining moments. Through a personal lens spanning from coaching his daughter's basketball team to high-stakes litigation, O'Neil demonstrates how the mindset of persuasion and leadership extends far beyond the courtroom.

The Supreme Court of Ohio reinforced the "Sham-Affidavit" Rule and affirmed a judge’s rejection of an expert affidavit that contradicted the expert's previous report.

When does a litigant's persistence cross the line into sanctionable conduct? A Commercial Division decision examines the consequences faced by a plaintiff who continued litigating claims after a closely related action rejected the same core theory of liability, resulting in fee-shifting sanctions for frivolous conduct.

The Supreme Court's Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II decision has eliminated a critical preemption defense for freight brokers, exposing them to state law negligence claims for hiring unsafe motor carriers. This ruling creates unprecedented litigation risk and insurance cost implications for both U.S. and Canadian freight brokers operating in interstate commerce, prompting the Transportation Intermediaries Association to petition for federal safety selection standards.

Florida is emerging as a favorable venue for defamation lawsuits because its long-arm statute makes it easier to bring out-of-state publishers into court—but plaintiffs still must clear the same substantive legal...

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell addresses whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts state tort claims alleging failure to warn about cancer risks not required by EPA. This landmark ruling resolves a circuit split and has significant implications for product liability litigation involving FIFRA-regulated pesticides. The decision clarifies the scope of federal preemption when EPA has affirmatively evaluated risks and approved product labeling.

A New Jersey court recently examined the critical role of reasonable reliance in fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims involving a commercial real estate transaction. The case centered on a buyer's allegations that they were misled about the number of apartment units that could be developed on a property site, raising important questions about when purchasers can legitimately rely on seller representations versus their own due diligence investigations. The court's analysis provides valuable guidance