TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims

September 19th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Since 2003, when Congress opened the door for human-trafficking victims to sue for civil damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA), the TVPRA and similarly drafted state statutes have allowed for human-trafficking victims to seek civil damages against any party that has benefited from their trafficking. Given this expansive inclusion of third-party liability, more and more businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry, are ultimately the ones left to pay for the criminal acts of human traffickers. In this article, the authors, Coryne Leyendecker and Pamela Lee discuss the evolving litigation around human-trafficking claims and offer guidance on how businesses can build a foundation for their own defense while simultaneously helping prevent human-trafficking crimes from occurring in the first place.

Read More

International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation

September 15th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The Authors Benjamin Daniels advises financial institutions and global corporations about litigation and dispute resolution. As a member of the Business Litigation Group, Ben provides creative and ardent advocacy during litigation, enforcement actions, investigations, crisis management, and white-collar defense matters. Ben’s clients often face complex, cross-border disputes. He has deep experience with the interplay between domestic and international courts, including discovery disputes and Hague convention proceedings. He also represents clients in international arbitrations and mediations. Jenna Scoville is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group. She focuses her practice on all aspects of general business litigation and dispute resolution, as well as government enforcement matters, and appellate work. She helps companies respond to a variety of business disputes, including claims for breach of contract, unfair trade practices and fraud. Jenna also has extensive appellate experience. Prior to joining the firm, she clerked for the Honorable Peter W. Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation "At a time when litigants have increasingly relied on U.S. federal courts [...]

Read More

The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal

September 14th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , |

The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the [...]

Read More

Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation

September 9th, 2023|Categories: ELP|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Last year the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz law firm filed the first class action against L’Oréal and Softsheen-Carson for injuries, primarily to Black women, allegedly caused by hair relaxers and straighteners. Now, many cases are consolidated in multidistrict litigation. Listen for unique insights from a leading plaintiff attorney.

Read More

The Light and Dark Sides of Auto-GPT

August 2nd, 2023|Categories: ELP, Podcasts|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Businesses must understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies. Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, as we explore this emerging field.

Read More

The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

June 30th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Podcasts|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives? 

Read More

Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification

June 28th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification Leverage the Latest Court Decisions to Challenge Class Membership and Defeat Certification. Class certification proceedings often focus on whether common issues predominate over individual issues. Recent decisions, however, highlight the importance of raising arguments beyond those afforded by Rule 23(b)(3)--including arguments arising from other subsections of Rule 23 and those originating in the case law. Join our panel as they discuss recent developments concerning several such avenues for defending against certification, including: Ascertainability. Ascertainability demands that class action plaintiffs present a mechanism for identifying prospective class members before the class is certified. Panelists will explain the federal circuit split on ascertainability issues, discuss recent decisions denying class certification on this ground, and provide insight regarding which arguments seem to be well received in different jurisdictions. Typicality and adequacy. Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements prevent certification if the claims of the named plaintiff(s) are subject to unique defenses not applicable to the class as a whole. Panelists will discuss recent case law in which class action defendants have used these requirements to their advantage and provide litigation strategies for setting up such arguments on class certification. Article III standing. Our panel will discuss the different approaches to applying Ramirez v. TransUnion L.L.C. and Spokeo v. Robins and consider the avenues available to challenge class certification on Article [...]

Read More

The IRS and Rules About Rules

June 24th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Podcasts|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Administrative Procedures Act outlines the rules of rule making for federal agencies. Lately it has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. Listen to learn more about recent trends in tax litigation. Get an article, too.

Read More

Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU?

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Guest Writer Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU? By Nils Lölfing Abstract: In this article, the author discusses increasing risks that artificial intelligence system providers, developers, and users will face from a liability directive proposed by the European Union Commission. The AI Liability Directive proposed by the European Union Commission puts additional liability risks on providers, developers and users of specifically high-risk artificial intelligence (AI)  systems. If enacted, it could become a game changer for fault-based liability regimes in the European Union, as it introduces a presumption of causality to prove fault and a right of access to evidence from companies and suppliers regarding high-risk AI systems. This will help victims enforce non-contractual civil law claims for damages caused by an AI system. What this is about and how it increases the liability risk exposure of actors in the AI systems supply chain will be discussed in this article. Background On September 28, 2022, the EU Commission published its  proposal for a Directive to establish new fault-based liability  rules for AI systems (AI Liability Directive), along with a reform for the existing rules on the strict liability of manufacturers for defective products. The current article focuses on [...]

Read More

The Blueprint for an “AI Bill of Rights”

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Artifical Intelligence, Tech Law News from Law Street|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Authors Peter Schildkraut is a co-leader of the firm's Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry team and provides strategic counsel on artificial intelligence, spectrum use, broadband, and other TMT regulatory matters. Mr. Schildkraut helps clients navigate the ever-changing opportunities and challenges of technology, policy, and law to achieve their business objectives at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and elsewhere. He is the author of "AI Regulation: What You Need To Know To Stay Ahead of the Curve. James W. Kim is a nationally recognized expert in procurement law that regularly advises companies that do business with the US government, with a focus on professional services organizations and the life sciences industry. He is a regular speaker and author on procurement and drug pricing matters and his work is regularly featured in nationally-distributed industry print and digital media. Mr. Kim provides clients with strategic counsel related to US government funding and US market access, including assistance with more than $5 billion in procurement and grant awards and regulatory counsel related to more than $40 billion in successful M&A transactions. Marne Marotta works with clients facing complex challenges to develop and implement dynamic government relations strategies. Drawing from her experience in the Senate and the executive branch, she provides clients with strategic guidance and counseling, devises and implements comprehensive advocacy campaigns, [...]

Read More

Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions in Class Action Litigation: Deposing or Defending Corporate Witnesses, Rule 30

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , |

Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions in Class Action Litigation: Deposing or Defending Corporate Witnesses, Rule 30 Class action plaintiffs rely on Rule 30(b)(6) depositions as a strategic tool to question corporate representatives about specific topics and bind the corporation to the testimony. There are frequent disputes over the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice's adequacy and now Rule 30 requires the parties to meet and confer about various aspects of the deposition. There are also frequent disputes over whether the corporation fulfilled its obligation to select an appropriate deponent and properly prepare the deponent for deposition. From the defendant's perspective, preparation for and defense of a corporate deposition directly impacts the case's success and potential future cases. Counsel must strategically determine who should represent the corporation at the deposition, how much preparation is adequate, and how to deal with privilege issues. Melanie Conroy Partner Pierce Atwood Michael McCarthy Shareholder Greenberg Taurig Robert Neary Of Counsel Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LIVE Webinar June 29th 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What are some best practices for crafting a deposition notice that adequately identifies the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition? What is the best way to employ the "meet and confer" requirement? What strategies are effective when questioning the corporate representative and handling objections during the deposition? [...]

Read More

Excluding Epidemiological Evidence Under FRE 702 in Toxic Tort, Medical Device, and Pharmaceutical Cases

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , |

Excluding Epidemiological Evidence Under FRE 702 in Toxic Tort, Medical Device, and Pharmaceutical Cases Strategies for Exposing an Expert's Serious Methodological Deficiencies In every toxic tort, medical device, and pharmaceutical product liability case, a threshold issue is whether the product, device, or substance is even capable of causing the alleged harm in some part of the population. To establish this, lawyers rely first and foremost on epidemiological experts and research, the "gold standard" of general causation evidence. Causation, however, is a continuum, and no single study can prove causation. If the plaintiff's epidemiological testimony and related studies are excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, the litigation will most likely end, or at least be significantly narrowed. Thus, admissibility under FRE 702 and Daubert is fiercely litigated in most cases. Courts are increasingly taking a "hard look" at experts' methodologies and assessing whether the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. For example, courts are analyzing experts' logic, asking if their final opinions exceed the limits of applicable studies, and being sensitive to when experts are "cherry-picking" the evidence to fit the desired conclusions. Christopher Campbell Partner DLA Piper Stephen McConnell Partner Reed Smith Sarah Carrier Attorney DLA Piper Christian Castile Attorney Reed Smith CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford [...]

Read More
Go to Top