The California Supreme Court has five civil cases scheduled for its April calendar, each addressing important questions of labor and insurance law. Independent Contractors or Employees – Class Actions: In Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., S206874, the court will address the determination of whether and when common issues dominate in a class action in … Continue Reading
In Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (Sonic II), the California Supreme Court addressed an employee’s waiver of access to an administrative hearing, in this case a Berman hearing, in an arbitration agreement imposed as a condition of employment. The unanimous court concluded that a categorical rule prohibiting such waivers is preempted by the Federal Arbitration … Continue Reading
On Friday morning, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its opinion in one of its most high-profile pending cases. The Court held in Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer that the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) preempted the Illinois "Click-Through" Act, also known as the "Amazon tax" – becoming (according to lone dissenter Justice Lloyd … Continue Reading
Few issues have sparked so much debate in so many local governments then how to regulate the medical marijuana industry. Proponents have filed numerous challenges to various attempts by cities and counties, but now the legal, if not the political issue, has been resolved. In the lead case – City of Riverside v. Inland Empire … Continue Reading
As we last noted here, the expansive interpretation in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc. of implied preemption of state law medical device claims has been under en banc review. The en banc opinion was released late last week. It is, to put it mildly, a substantial adjustment from the view of implied preemption laid out by … Continue Reading
As we have briefly explored here, the Ninth Circuit has broadly construed Buckman implied preemption of state law claims pertaining to food, drugs, and medical devices, which are regulated under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Of particular note, the court held in PhotoMedex that Buckman “limits the ability of a private plaintiff to pursue … Continue Reading
As we noted here, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc. is making its way through en banc review. Stengel, which involved both Riegel express preemption and Buckman implied preemption of state law claims regarding medical devices, was re-heard by the full Ninth Circuit on September 19, 2012. An audio recording of the … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 349-50 (2001), recognizes that any attempt by a plaintiff to enforce the FDCA is preempted by federal law, because Congress entrusted all such enforcement efforts to the sole discretion of the FDA. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit’s PhotoMedex opinion held that … Continue Reading
As the summer got started, and his first year on the bench nearly completed, Justice Liu produced four unanimous opinions on wide ranging issues of California law, including arbitration, preemption work product and environmental regulations. This makes a total of six opinions by Justice Liu in civil cases. The other two, Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. (re … Continue Reading
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently shrank universe of state law claims pertaining to Class III medical devices that remain untouched by Riegel express preemption or Buckman implied preemption. In Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court ruled that a state law failure-to-warn claim premised on FDA regulations was impliedly preempted by the Supreme Court’s decision … Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for May, including four civil cases. Brown v. Mortensen: The Court will address whether the Federal Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) preempts causes of action for the improper disclosure of medical information under California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court recently decided that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208), which requires auto manufacturers to install lap-and-shoulder seatbelts on seats next to a vehicle’s door frames, but allows manufacturers to choose between simple lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats (such as middle seats or those next to a … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court, voting 6-2, ruled on Tuesday that the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) bars state-law product liability claims against vaccine manufacturers. [See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, FKA Wyeth, Inc. .pdf]. The Act, designed to ensure a stable vaccine supply by limiting vaccine manufacturers’ potential tort liability, created a special, … Continue Reading
US Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Preemption Defense for Generic Companies this Term Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), the Eighth Circuit (in Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 588 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2009)) and the Fifth Circuit (in DeMahy v. Actavis, Inc., 593 F.3d 428 … Continue Reading
The Court has recently granted review in two civil cases: Ralphs Grocery v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, S185544, in which the Court of Appeal, formerly 186 Cal.App.4th 1078, held that the state cannot force the owner or possessor of real property that is not a public forum to give an uninvited group (in … Continue Reading
Pineda v. Bank of America addresses the controlling statute of limitations over a claim to recover penalties for the late payment of final wages and whether such penalties can be recovered under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203. For more details on Pineda, see the Employment – Compensation & Benefits update page. Conservatorship of Roy … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court has granted review to again address preemption, this time in the timely area of consumer protection and banking. In Parks v. MBNA American Bank, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment on the pleadings, finding that Civil Code § 1748.9, a state consumer protection law which mandates specific notice requirements regarding the … Continue Reading
In its weekly conference, see list of actions, the California Supreme Court granted review in: Jankey v. Lee, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not preempt Civil Code § 55, which entitles the prevailing defendant to attorney’s fees upon defeating a claim for injunctive relief under the … Continue Reading
As part of Appellate Strategist’s ongoing evaluation of the “short list” of potential nominees to replace retiring Justice Stevens, we turn now to one of the nominees who was also on the short list to replace Justice Souter – Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Wardlaw is a California … Continue Reading
Many states have enacted statutes automatically invalidating, under one set of circumstances or another, contracts which seem to require mandatory arbitration of disputes. In a 5-0 decision today (with two justices not participating), the Illinois Supreme Court cast such statutes in doubt, holding that two clauses of the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act were preempted by … Continue Reading
In conference today (see list of actions), the Court granted review in Brown v. Mortensen, in which the Court of Appeal found that the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted the restrictions imposed by the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. See B & P 17200/Class Actions/Commercial update page. In addition, the Court also requested supplemental briefing … Continue Reading
The Illinois Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it will release seven opinions [pdf] on the morning of Thursday, April 15th, including two civil cases: No. 106511, Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Company, LLC, which presents the issue of whether the clauses of the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act invalidating any contractual provision limiting a resident’s … Continue Reading
In 2003, Congress enacted the latest version of the Medicare Act. It contained far broader language than previous versions on what State law claims it preempted: “The standards established under this part shall supersede any State law or regulation (other than State licensing laws or State laws relating to plan solvency) with respect to MA … Continue Reading