Homepage

Homepage2020-02-10T19:42:13+00:00
607, 2020

Buckles, Clasps, and Other New Tools for Trademark Enforcement

July 6th, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|

Business that use trademarks or service marks now have a more powerful remedy against others who use those marks, or confusingly similar ones, without consent. A new United States Supreme Court decision, issued April 23, 2020, removes the requirement of proving willful infringement to recover lost profits. Plaintiffs in trademark Continue Reading

105, 2020

Kim v. Reins: Another PAGA Wrench Thrown Into the Settlement Finish Line for Employers

May 1st, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|

On March 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Kim v. Reins. The Court held that an employee does not lose standing to pursue a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) if the employee settles and dismisses his or her individual Continue Reading

December 2020

Monthly Litigation Law Tip

California labor laws require that employers retain employee records for certain periods of time, generally for three years after the employment ends. But, the statute of limitations for employment-related claims can be longer than three years, so employers should err on the side of retention and seek advice if they are unsure about applicable timelines.

702, 2020

CCPA Blog Series: Post No. 1—Introducing the CCPA

February 7th, 2020|Categories: Litigation Articles|Tags: , , , , |

The CCPA is a hot topic among California businesses, but you may be wondering exactly what it is or how it may affect you and your business. We have your answers. This is the first post in a series of blogs about the CCPA and how it is changing the Continue Reading

1912, 2019

Good For the Goose and Gander: Is California’s Ban on Non-Competes Limited to Employment Contracts?

December 19th, 2019|Categories: Litigation Articles|

So-called “non-compete” agreements have been banned under California Business and Professions Code section 16600 for many years, predominantly in the employer and employee context. After differing interpretations of Section 16600 arose between state and federal courts in California, in 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that any contractual restraint on Continue Reading

912, 2019

You Want To Scrape My What?!?! Public LinkedIn User Profile Data Can Be Gathered And Used By Third Parties

December 9th, 2019|Categories: Litigation Articles|

Who controls access to user data available online such as LinkedIn profiles? In hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. the Ninth Circuit recently addressed this question, holding that LinkedIn does not have the right to control access to data publicly available on its website.

HiQ Labs provides “people analytics” to employers Continue Reading

1410, 2019

California Supreme Court Deflates Ascertainability Requirement for Class Certification

October 14th, 2019|Categories: Litigation Articles|

Recently, in Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., the California Supreme Court relaxed the ascertainability requirement for class certification in a significant ruling for class action plaintiffs.

In Noel, a consumer filed a putative class action under California unfair competition and false advertising laws alleging that a $59.99 Rite Aid inflatable outdoor Continue Reading