This post was originally published as a Seyfarth legal update.
Seyfarth Synopsis: A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which purports to prohibit employers from requiring job applicants and workers from signing arbitration pacts. The panel further concluded
Introduction
The Supreme Court of California, interpreting California Penal Code section 632.7, recently held in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. that cellular or cordless phone conversations cannot be recorded by nonparties or the parties to the call without consent of the parties. This decision overturned the Court of Appeal’s previous ruling that consent is only required
On Thursday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan, Josh Salinas and
Darren Dummit presented Hot Topics and Trends in California Consumer Class Actions.
They reviewed the latest consumer class action law developments affecting companies that do business in California. It is no secret that resourceful plaintiff’s attorneys target companies
On Thursday, April 15, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan, Josh Salinas and Darren Dummit will present Hot Topics and Trends in California Consumer Class Actions.
Seyfarth attorneys will review the latest consumer class action law developments affecting companies that do business in California. It is no secret that resourceful plaintiff’s attorneys
On September 11, 2020, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision with two crucial holdings limiting the scope of California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Business and Professions Code sections 17600, et seq.
In Mayron v. Google LLC, No. H044592, 2020 WL 5494245 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2020), one of the first cases
Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas recently published an article titled “Avoiding California’s Consumer Law Pitfalls Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic” for Law.com.
COVID-19 has created unprecedented challenges, including in the area of consumer class action law. This article discusses the new traps and areas of uncertainty the pandemic has caused for businesses navigating California
On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Price gouging is illegal in all California communities during the declared state of emergency.
Executive Order N-44-20 makes it unlawful to increase the price of food items, consumer goods, or medical and emergency supplies
Confusion and uncertainty abound in the business world, with many business owners unable to meet a variety of contractual obligations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and related government shut downs, employee limitations, and supply chain disruptions. Naturally this never-before-seen set of circumstances are leading to questions from both sides of the contract around
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, at 12 p.m. CT, Seyfarth attorneys will review the latest consumer class action law developments affecting companies that do business in California. It is no secret that resourceful plaintiff’s attorneys target companies conducting business in California with expensive and time-consuming putative class actions alleging violations of federal or state consumer
Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 5, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in NEI Contr. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pac. Sw., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16885 (9th Cir. June 5, 2019), upholding the district court’s decertification of a class whose class representative lacked standing on its individual claims.
NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc. (“NEI”) sought to bring a class action based on allegations that Hanson Aggregates, Inc. (“Hanson”) violated California Civil Code section 632.7 for recording phone calls without the consent of the individuals placing the calls. The district court, after initial certification, decertified the class, observing that the individualized inquiries required to determine if each class member consented to the recording would predominate over questions of fact common to all class members. The court also found that NEI did not have standing to bring its individual claims.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds Decertification of Class in Unauthorized Customer Call Recording Suit Where the Class Representative Did Not Have Standing