 |
 |
 |
June 2011 Newsletter |
 |
|
|
 | Court of Appeal Finds Green Water Drop on Bottled Water is Not Greenwashing
by ROXANNA TABATABAEEPOUR, ESQ. |
|
On May 26, 2011 the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District issued its ruling in Hill v. Roll International Corp., 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 653 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. May 26, 2011). In upholding the lower court’s decision to sustain Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action as it did not meet the reasonable consumer standard applicable to its claims under the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.), FAL (Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq.), and CLRA (Civ. Code §1750, et seq.), and did not demonstrate how amending could cure this defect.
[Read More] |
|
|
Class Actions After ATT Mobility v Concepcion
By ROBERT DREXLER, ESQ. |
|
On April 27, 2011, the U.S Supreme Court issued its much-awaited ruling in ATT Mobility, LLC v Concepcion (“Concepcion”). The holding was not favorable to consumers because it found that the California Supreme Court ruling in Discovery Bank v Superior Court, 36 Cal 4th 148 (2005), which outlawed class action bans in California in many consumer contracts, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) because Discovery Bank stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. The 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Scalia, was split along predictable lines, with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito joining the majority opinion and Justice Thomas filing a concurring opinion.
[Read More] |
|
| What Will the California Supreme Court’s Decision in Brinker Mean for the Future of Meal and Rest Break Cases?
By LAUNA ADOLPH, ESQ. |
|
According to the EEOC, employment lawsuits have risen to their highest level in history, with nearly 100,000 claims filed in 2010. That number reflects a 31% increase from just four years ago. In California, a significant number of employment cases allege violations of the state’s meal and rest break requirements. In fact, many consider meal and rest break cases the “lawsuit du jour” for both individual and class actions. As such, it is no surprise that so many are eagerly awaiting the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), pet. for review granted (October 22, 2008).
[Read More] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
