Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum

February 24th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The Authors Amber is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a trial lawyer who has extensive experience representing and advising clients in traditional labor relations, such as collective bargaining, representation elections, decertification elections, unfair labor practice charges, arbitrating grievances, contract administration and interpretation, and union avoidance strategies. Amber’s litigation experience includes regularly representing clients in wage and hour collective and class actions, trade secrets and post-employment restrictive covenant disputes, and complex employment discrimination. As a part of Amber’s partnership with clients to avoid litigation, she frequently conducts and coordinates sensitive corporate investigations, and provides training presentations for clients on a multitude of topics. Kurt helps businesses of all sizes solve their complex labor and employment challenges. He counsels clients on all aspects of labor-management relations, including representation elections, collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts, and also advises clients in strategic employment and human relations matters. Kurt litigates labor and employment cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts around the country and before the NLRB and EEOC. Kurt is a recognized thought leader in the area of traditional labor-management relations. He has been recognized as a leader in Labor and Employment by Chambers USA Virginia and as a 2022 Top 10 Labor Lawyer by Benchmark Litigation. [...]

Read More

Modernizing Our Court System (but Don’t Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel

February 15th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Podcasts|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it." This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ... Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and [...]

Read More

Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , |

Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected [...]

Read More

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery [...]

Read More

Lost Profits in Commercial Litigation: Proving and Defending Damages

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Lost Profits in Commercial Litigation: Proving and Defending Damages Leveraging Calculation Methodologies, Documentation, Expert Evidence, and Effect of COVID Lost profits are often the single most substantial aspect of the plaintiff's claim as well as one of the most contentious, challenging types of damages to prove and are particularly susceptible to attack.In the duel of experts over lost profits damages, both sides will want to analyze and present complex financial documentation as clearly and concisely as possible. Plaintiff's experts must put forth damages studies that are credible and can withstand cross examination from the opposition.In determining how best to counter the plaintiff's damages claim, defense counsel faces a delicate balancing act between defending against liability and discrediting the plaintiff's numbers as presented through a defense expert.Listen as our panel discusses the framework, bases, and aspects of lost profit damages calculations and how to prove or defend against lost profit damages. Outline Framework for lost profits damages Evidence/documentation Quantification of lost profits damages Presentation of lost profits damages Defending against lost profits damages A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Derrick Boyd Founding Partner Boyd Powers Williamson Cameron Byrd Attorney Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing Dr. Allyn Needham, Ph.D., CEA Partner Shipp Needham Economic Analysis The panel will review these and other crucial issues: What evidence [...]

Read More

Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Standards for Expert Witnesses in Design and Defect Claims

February 1st, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Standards for Expert Witnesses in Design and Defect Claims Raising or Defending Daubert Challenges to Admitting Expert Testimony In most construction suits, both sides rely on experts to provide opinions and testimony supporting or against claims of liability and damages. Such expert testimony often involves determining fault for design and construction defects, schedule delays, and worker inefficiency. Expert opinion and testimony impact all parties in a construction dispute, including property owners, developers, financial institutions, design professionals, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors.The Daubert/Frye ruling and the body of law on challenging expert opinions and testimony continue to evolve for construction disputes in both state and federal courts. Courts permit testing expert of testimony and an expert’s foundational methodology or technique to ensure that it is relevant and reliable.Listen as our panel of construction litigators discusses the applicability of the Daubert/Frye standards to the presentation of expert testimony in construction disputes, analyzes what is required to successfully raise or defend a challenge to the admission of expert testimony, and provides guidance for using experts in construction cases. Outline Dispositive motions in the Daubert hearing: the Daubert challenge Frye standards: how they differ from Daubert standards Application to construction cases Application to scheduling, construction defects, and damages Future impact of Daubert/Frye on construction claims Lessons from court rulings A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. [...]

Read More

Rule 23(c)(5) Subclasses: Certification, Due Process, Adequate Representation, and Settlement

February 1st, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , |

Rule 23(c)(5) Subclasses: Certification, Due Process, Adequate Representation, and Settlement Plaintiffs can define and propose subclasses to address unique issues or to resolve potential intra-class conflicts of interest. Counsel opposing certification will want to emphasize the intra-class conflict as reason to deny certification and show how subclasses render class treatment unmanageable.Due process requires adequacy of representation for all class members, including subclasses. Circuit courts have overturned settlements if they see conflicts of interest among subclasses and the failure of class counsel to ensure independent representation of subclasses.Listen as this experienced panel of class action litigators guides both plaintiff and defense counsel through the effective use of subclasses to resolve the case. Outline Statutory basis of subclasses Types of cases and issues best suited for subclasses Resolving conflicts of interest among subclasses A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Wystan Ackerman Partner Robinson & Cole James Francis Co-Founder Francis Mailman Soumilas Kristen Simplicio Partner Tycko & Zavareei The panel will review these and other key issues: What are the tell-tale signs that a subclass is needed or required? When can subclasses be created? Can there be subclasses within subclasses or is predominance destroyed? What are the due process concerns with subclasses and subclass representation? What should defense counsel consider when deciding whether to oppose certification of [...]

Read More

Modern Removal and Remand Strategies: Forum Defendant Rule; Snap Removal; Effect on Pleadings, Motion Practice

January 27th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Modern Removal and Remand Strategies Forum Defendant Rule; Snap Removal; Effect on Pleadings, Motion Practice A defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court can "remove" the case to federal court if there is a diversity of citizenship, except if a "properly joined and served" defendant is a citizen of the forum state. With the advent of electronic filing, defendants now have instantaneous notice of suits and may remove the case before being served, thereby sidestepping the forum defendant rule. Although several U.S. Circuit Courts have approved the practice, a debate remains on whether this practice should be approved.Plaintiffs have their own toolbox to anticipate removal strategies and take preemptive actions to make removal difficult and remand likely. Since all parties can play the literal-reading-of-the-statute card, plaintiffs have seized on ways to bring the "real" parties into the dispute in such a way as to prevent removal.If the case comes to a stop in federal court after removal, the parties must be aware of how the change in forum impacts the rest of the case: deadlines, motions, pleadings, what must be answered, and what is stayed.Listen as this experienced panel of litigators discusses which removal and remand planning and strategies can make the most difference. Outline Statutory authority and procedural requirements Strategies for plaintiffs Avoiding federal question Avoiding diversity, pre- [...]

Read More

Resolving Insurers’ and Insureds’ Settlement Dilemmas When Policy Limits Are Insufficient: Multiple Insured and Multiple Claims

January 27th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Resolving Insurers' and Insureds' Settlement Dilemmas When Policy Limits Are Insufficient: Multiple Insured and Multiple Claims Liability insurers, depending on the jurisdiction, may have to accept a policy limit settlement demand when liability is reasonably clear and the amount of the judgment "likely" will exceed the policy limit. Unique problems arise when an insured faces multiple claims from a single occurrence, liability is clear, and the policy limits are insufficient to settle all claims. Options for dealing with the issue exist, but all potentially expose the insurer to bad faith claims. The panel will explore different approaches, the jurisdictions that follow them, and solutions that offer insurers the best protection from extracontractual claims.Equally vexing is the situation in which more than one insured, such as both the owner of a vehicle and its driver, are covered under one policy. A claimant might demand the policy limits but release only one of the insureds. In such a situation, the insurer could face bad faith claims from one insured for refusing to settle and from the other for agreeing to settle.An interpleader action may not be the answer. Interpleading policy limits can leave the insurer vulnerable to accusations of artificial exhaustion, abandonment of the duty to defend, and a bad faith claim that the insurer shirked its duty to use policy funds to limit the [...]

Read More

Litigation Privilege, Attorney Immunity and Ethics: Defending Retaliatory Suits and Ethics Complaints

January 27th, 2023|Categories: HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Litigation Privilege, Attorney Immunity and Ethics: Defending Retaliatory Suits and Ethics Complaints When attorneys seek to gain an advantage by disclosing or threatening to disclose embarrassing secrets, illegal activity, deny facts known to be true, or otherwise cause fear to the opposing party, they are more frequently being sued for defamation, bad faith, intentional interference with contractual or beneficial relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, or the like.Sometimes these types of activities are absolutely privileged and sometimes they are only entitled to partial immunity. Much depends on when and where the statements are made and how state courts define “litigation.”Regardless of civil liability, such conduct can lead to ethics complaints. Model Ruel 4.1 attempts to set some boundaries, but it offers no bright line rule. Landry’s Inc., et al. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al (Tex., No. 19-0036, June 15, 2021), and Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn 582 (2022), are just two illustrations of the risks lawyers face if they utilize these tactics.Listen as our experienced panel of litigators assists counsel in understanding the judicial proceedings privilege and attorney immunity and the limits of MR 4.1. Outline Statutory authority and procedural requirements Strategies for plaintiffs Avoiding federal question Avoiding diversity, pre- and post-filing Federal question issues as counterclaims; Home Depot v. Jackson Amending the complaint Strategies for defendants Contractual forum selection Snap removal [...]

Read More

Construction Builders Risk and CGL Insurance: Scope of Coverage, Covered Losses, Exclusions, AI Endorsements

January 26th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , |

Construction Builders Risk and CGL Insurance: Scope of Coverage, Covered Losses, Exclusions, AI Endorsements: Mitigation Construction- Related Disputes; Key Challenges for Claims Under Builders Risk Vs CGL Coverage Counsel to builders and developers must consider are who is covered, what property is covered, what limits and sublimits apply, and when/how coverage applies. Because builders risk policies are not standardized, coverage varies dramatically between insurers. Coverage disputes often arise over the types of costs recoverable, calculation of economic damages, and the coverage exclusions and exceptions.For liability disputes, CGL coverage must be adequately placed to cover construction risks during the course of construction as well as after. Typical issues include who is covered, the scope of coverage, and exclusions and conditions that apply.Counsel often must also navigate the interplay between builders risk policies, CGL policies, including wrap policies, and professional liability policies. These issues are influenced by the language of the policies and the parties’ contractual obligations to each other. Attention to the details is necessary to ensure coverage is triggered when necessary.Listen as our authoritative panel guides you through the characteristics of builders risk and CGL insurance policies and how these policies are used to mitigate developer and contractor risks. Outline Builders risk policies Contractual requirements Scope of coverage Troublesome exclusions and conditions Common issues and practice pointers CGL policies [...]

Read More

Allocating CERCLA Liability: Divisibility or Section 113 Equitable Contribution

January 26th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Allocating CERCLA Liability: Divisibility or Section 113 Equitable Contribution Assessing Harm, Proving Divisibility of Harm Defense Absent a Bright-Line Test, and Apportioning Costs The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. significantly changed the landscape for divisibility under CERCLA. However, there is no bright-line test for determining divisibility, and the courts have taken different approaches in evaluating this issue.In decisions involving the Fox River in Wisconsin and the Upper Columbia River in Washington state, as well as opinions from courts in Rhode Island and South Carolina, judges and parties have wrestled with the critical question for divisibility: is the harm "theoretically capable of apportionment"?If a court answers this question with a yes, the party seeking to limit its liability succeeds. If the answer is no, that party must try again under a much less favorable equitable allocation approach. These and other opinions addressing the divisibility/apportionment divide continue to guide courts, litigants, and pre-litigation parties as they attempt to settle or otherwise resolve responsibility at contaminated sites.Listen as our authoritative panel examines the statutory language and what the Burlington Northern decision and its progeny mean for divisibility. The panel will also review cases applying this problematic technical issue and offer practice pointers on which circumstances lend themselves to a divisibility defense and how to present it. Outline Divisibility defense [...]

Read More
Go to Top