eNews

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l Inc. (9th Cir. 17-16096 5/2/19) Wage and Hour. Dynamex should be applied retroactively. Read more

One of the ongoing messages coming from the State Bar, the California Supreme Court, and the California Lawyers Association is giving back to the community. Some of you do that through your work in the public sector or for non-profits. Others contribute to their communities through social organizations independent of the legal practicing. Continuing with my theme of three, this month’s chair message addresses three ways you can give back to your community. Read more

On March 29, 2019, Judge Morrison England of the Eastern District of California denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”) and American International Industries, Inc. (“AI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-02234-MCE-DMC, 2019 WL 1429651 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019). Defendants argued that Plaintiff Sharidan Stiles (“Plaintiff” or “Stiles”)—the inventor, patent-holder, and manufacturer of a disposable beauty styling razor alleged to have been sold at Walmart’s stores from 2006 to 2012 (the “Stiles Razor”)—failed to sufficiently allege claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. Read more

Plaintiff Orion Telescopes & Binoculars [Orion] designs beginner to intermediate market telescopes, contracts with a manufacturer to build them and then sells them. Two manufacturers dominate the supply for telescopes in the United States. Defendant Ningbo Sunny Elect Co. Ltd. [Ningbo] is a telescope manufacturer that also owns its own distributors. Orion sued Ningbo under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for conspiring with the other principal manufacturer [Settling Defendant] to fix prices and monopolize the market for telescopes. Read more

In an effort to strengthen existing consumer privacy laws and address privacy concerns stemming from new technology, California lawmakers proposed “Your Data, Your Way.” This package of legislation seeks to empower consumers with the ability to better control their digital footprint and know its worth. Read more

On April 9, 2019, the California Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary voted 5-3 in support of advancing SB 561 out of their committee. SB 561 would expand the private right of action under the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) beyond damages for data breaches, remove the 30-day cure period for Attorney General (“AG”) enforcement actions, and remove the AG obligation to provide compliance opinions. The bill now moves to the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations. Read more

In late February 2019, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and several state legislators proposed substantial amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100 et seq. (“CCPA”), that, if adopted, would expand the scope of the private right of action under the Act and scale back procedural safeguards enacted in the original statute that would have potentially shielded companies from greater liability. Read more

Greetings! My name is Clayton and I am the 2019 vice chair of the LPMT section’s executive committee. I’m so excited to carry forward the section’s mission of providing meaningful and relevant educational opportunities related to the critical functions of running a successful law practice. Read more

We are excited to announce several upcoming conference conferences we have been working on, in addition to great MCLE articles. Read more

On March 29, 2019 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) announced its Opinion and Final Order against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Impax Laboratories LLC (“Impax”). The Commission ruled that Impax engaged in an illegal pay-for-delay, or “reverse payment” settlement to delay the sale of a generic version of Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Endo”)’s branded extended-release opioid pain reliever, Opana ER. The Opinion reverses the May 18, 2018 Initial Decision in which the Chief Administrative Law Judge dismissed all antitrust charges against Impax after an administrative trial. Read more