Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

California's Senate Bill 690 eliminates the private right of action for pen register claims under CIPA when violations arise from website or mobile app tracking technologies, leaving enforcement solely to the Attorney General. The bill applies retroactively to claims filed after January 1, 2025, and awaits Governor Newsom's signature with an operative date of January 1, 2027.

California's Legislature has unanimously passed SB 690, a landmark reform that could eliminate thousands of pending class action lawsuits based on website tracking technologies under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The bill removes the private right of action for pen register claims arising from routine web analytics tools, potentially reshaping the data privacy litigation landscape while companion bills simultaneously expand substantive privacy obligations.

A federal magistrate judge blocked an employer from distributing a dispute resolution agreement with a class action waiver to settlement class members between preliminary and final approval stages. The court found that despite the agreement's non-coercive language, the timing created unacceptable risks of confusion that could interfere with class members' settlement rights.

The Ninth Circuit has amended its opinion in a securities fraud class action against a pop culture collectibles manufacturer, clarifying that the company's risk disclosures improperly framed already-realized harms as hypothetical future risks. The court denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, maintaining its partial reversal of the district court's dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Expert reports are often invaluable in civil and criminal cases. In general, these reports provide the trier of fact with an opinion from an expert witness who possesses specialized knowledge, skill or experience on technical or scientific issues in dispute that are beyond the trier of fact’s knowledge or experience.

The Eleventh Circuit's reversal in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates addresses one of the most anticipated False Claims Act decisions in years, ruling that qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause. While this decision aligns with other circuit courts, it leaves critical constitutional questions unresolved, including Take Care and Vesting Clause challenges that could reshape FCA litigation.

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.

When multiple family members seek estate planning services together, can one attorney represent everyone? This article examines the complex ethical boundaries that govern attorney-client relationships in family estate planning, exploring when joint representation is permissible and when conflicts of interest require separate counsel.

A U.S. District Court examined whether a commercial general liability insurer must defend and indemnify a trucking contractor after a municipality sought to recover costs for remediating unlawfully deposited demolition debris. The court analyzed whether the property damage constituted an "occurrence" under the policy's definition of an accident, considering the insured's intentional placement of the debris and applicable policy exclusions.

A Texas Business Court examines the boundaries of derived judicial immunity for court-appointed receivers and the entities they create, addressing whether immunity survives appellate reversal and extends beyond the receiver personally. The decision clarifies when post-closing litigation against receivers may be barred and what parties must plead to overcome immunity defenses.