This blog is devoted to complex litigation related issues — recent decisions, relevant commentary, key discovery rulings of general import, substantive law developments, and suggestions on litigation strategies. We will discuss how to minimize exposure to complex litigation and how to manage cases if you have already been sued.
We're monitoring and reporting on developments in complex litigation to help you stay informed in this important and dynamic area of the law.
Blog Contact: Joseph Callow, Litigation Partner
jcallow@kmklaw.com or 513.579.6419
Topics
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Privacy
- Social Media
- Taxation
- Real Estate Impact Fee
- Construction Litigation
- Sanctions
- Electronic Data Discovery
- E-Discovery
- Antitrust
- Federal Rule 23.1
- Federal Rule
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Impact Fee or Illegal Tax?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
- Class Actions Unconstitutional?
- Justice Sotomayor Speaks!
- ERISA and Federal Rule 23... Point 1
- Summary of ERISA "Excessive Fees" Litigation in 15 Minutes
- You Have to Love a Great Opening Line!
- What in the World Is Barratry and Why Do I Care?
Other KMK Blogs
Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
On May 26th, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that, under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, postings to a user’s Facebook “wall” (and, similarly, to the “comments” page on MySpace – although nobody actually uses MySpace anymore) are considered private so long as the user has his privacy settings set such that only “friends” can see his wall postings.
Impact Fee or Illegal Tax?
In The Drees Company, et al. v. Hamilton Township, Ohio, et al., Appeal No. 2009-11-150, currently pending before the Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio, Plaintiffs — including The Drees Company, the Homebuilders Association of Greater Cincinnati, and others — are claiming that an impact fee passed in May 2007 by Hamilton Township on new construction is, in fact, an illegal tax.
"Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
For anyone with a few minutes, I would highly recommend reviewing Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., a recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In this case, which was originally a patent dispute, the court imposed a $8.5 million sanction against Qualcomm as a result of “massive” e-discovery failures, the fundamental root of which was “an incredible breakdown in communication.”
Strategic Defense in Criminal Antitrust Case Can Impact Civil Class Action Case Outcomes
A criminal antitrust case involving two bagged ice producers that pleaded guilty to conspiring "to supress and eliminate competition" was recently concludeded in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. While KMK was not involved in this case, it does bring to mind a few key considerations for companies and their attorneys to weigh when faced with bet-the-company criminal and civil litigation.
Class Actions Unconstitutional?
For a more theoretical and mildly controversial read regarding class actions, follow the argument and articles (like the recent article in the February 8, 2010 issue of Forbes) of Northwestern University School of Law Professor Martin Redish, who is now suggesting that Rule 23 may be unconstitutional.
Justice Sotomayor Speaks!
Justice Sotomayor wrote her first substantive opinion as a Supreme Court Justice, and it is a good read and a good wake up call for class action practitioners.
ERISA and Federal Rule 23... Point 1
In an ERISA case pending in the Northern District of Illinois involving breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow them to proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan under ERISA section 502(a)(2) rather than require them to certify a class under Federal Rule 23. The District Court in Chicago denied that motion based on the defendants' opposition, and suggested that the case proceed, not as a class action under Federal Rule 23, but as a "derivative action" under Federal Rule 23.1.
Summary of ERISA "Excessive Fees" Litigation in 15 Minutes
ERISA class action litigation has become a niche practice. Originally, ERISA class actions were tag-along suits in securities cases. In recent years, plaintiffs have sought to certify ERISA class actions on a broad variety of breach of fiduciary duty claims. One such variety was the "excessive fees" claim — a claim that the plan sponsor and/or administrator breached its fiduciary duty to a class of plan participants by allowing unreasonable or excessive fees to be charged to the class on the investments offered through the Plan.
You Have to Love a Great Opening Line!
Everyone practicing in this area knows that over the past several years, hundreds of "stock drop" class action complaints have been filed around the country against virtually every public company and financial institution — whether they survived the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression or not.
What in the World Is Barratry and Why Do I Care?
"Barratry" dates back to 15th Century Middle English and is defined by Mirriam Webster's Dictionary as: (1) the purchase or sale of office or preferment in church or state; (2) an unlawful act or fraudulent breach of duty by a master of a ship or by the mariners to the injury of the owner of the ship or cargo; and (3) the persistent incitement of litigation. Barratry is a common law crime in some states and a civil tort or equitable defense in others.