California Lawyers Association

Business Law Business Litigation Committee

Updates from the BLS Business Litigation Committee

This federal district court opinion provides guidance on the enforceability of arbitration provisions that appear as part of the terms and conditions of a retail website. Read more
On February 7, 2022, the California Court of Appeal ruled on the narrow issue of whether an amended complaint for penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 [Lab. Code 2698 et seq. Read more
This case gave the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to revisit the issue of whether websites can enforce mandatory arbitration clauses found in hyperlinked "terms and conditions" that users never read. Read more
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit remanded in part and reversed in part the decision of the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of California that entered a pre-filing order upon a finding that a chapter 7 debtor was a vexatious litigan Read more
In its litigation-ending opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (April 1, 2021) No. 19-511, the U.S. Supreme Court reminded litigators that even in the new world of emojis, automation and digitalization, grammar still matters. Read more
The following is an update regarding two decisions issued February 27, 2020 by the California Supreme Court involving hearsay testimony and expert witnesses. Read more
On January 1, 2020, California’s sweeping Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) took effect, sort of. The CCPA’S scope and application were criticized from the get-go, but there was hope that the California Attorney General’s office would promulgate regulations to provide clarity and perhaps limitations to some of the law’s reach and remedies. In October 2019, the AG’s office issued its first draft of those regulations and, like the CCPA itself, the regulations seemed to generate more questions than answers. Read more
On October 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 749 which created Code of Civil Procedure § 1002.5, effective January 1, 2020. The new statute prohibits a provision in a settlement agreement that prevents employees from obtaining future employment with the settling employer. Section 1002.5 applies to prohibit such “no-rehire” provisions in settlement agreements in civil actions. As a result, any provision in a settlement agreement entered on or after January 1, 2020 that prevents employees from obtaining future employment with the settling employer will be deemed void as a matter of law and against public policy. Read more
The following is a profile of the Honorable Mitchell D. Dembin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California. Judge Dembin met with members of the Business Litigation Committee and the Insolvency Law Committee in his chambers at the James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep Courthouse in San Diego and discussed his personal and professional background, his appointment as a Magistrate Judge and his experience on the bench. Read more
Summary: Although a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement under the Bankruptcy Code breaches the contract, such action does not rescind it. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, rejection of the license in bankruptcy does not deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a divided First Circuit and resolved a circuit split. Read more

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.