We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,850

In re American Express Merchants' Litigation - plaintiffs survive three rounds in the Second Circuit, but can they survive the Supreme Court?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2012

On February 1, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided In re American Express Merchants' Litigation, No. 06-1871-cv, (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2012) ("AMEX III"), holding, for the third time, that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement between American Express and plaintiff merchants was unenforceable because it would effectively preclude plaintiffs from vindicating their federal statutory rights under the Sherman and Clayton Acts


Delaware Chancery Court considers scope of Section 220 books and records demand made where sole purpose is to investigate a potential derivative suit
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 13 2011

In Graulich v. Dell, Inc., 2011 WL 1843813 (Del. Ch. May 16, 2011), the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected a stockholder’s demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”


RIM defeats Sherman Act Section 2 claims at pleading stage
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • December 28 2011

In “the latest installment in a contentious litigation”, defendant Research In Motion recently obtained an order granting its motion to dismiss plaintiff Eatoni's claims that RIM violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and equivalent portions of New York’s Donnelly Act


Court of Appeal reminds litigants that settling with named plaintiff does not necessarily end putative class action
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 3 2012

If a defendant in a putative class action settles with the class representative prior to class certification, does the defendant nonetheless have to respond to pre-settlement discovery requests to identify absent class members?


Court of Appeal rules that denial of a landowner's application to develop property can be a compensable regulatory taking
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

The Fourth Appellate District recently held that a local agency's denial of an application to develop a 2.85 acre parcel in the middle of a developed residential area can constitute a compensable regulatory taking under the Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104 case


CEQA does not require identification of significant effects of the environment (sea level rise) on a project; assertion of new claims barred in EIR required to be revised by judgment in a prior case
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

The Second Appellate District recently held that CEQA does not require identification of significant effects of the environment on a project, only significant effects of a project on the environment


Cal Supreme Court reverses horrific decision on administrative exemption but declines to provide much guidance on how exemption should be applied
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • December 29 2011

This morning, the California Supreme Court issued the long-awaited decision in Harris v. Superior Court, addressing how to interpret the administrative exemption under California law


Court clarifies CEQA rules regarding infeasibility and deferral of mitigation
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

In 2005, the Board of Trustees of the California State University certified an environmental impact report and approved a project for the expansion of San Diego State University to increase student enrollment from 25,000 students to 35,000 students by 2024


Map Act 90-day statute of limitations applies to ordinances adopted under authority of the act
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

Plaintiffs were owners of condominium units designated "Below Market Rate" ("BMR") under the BMR Condominium Conversion Program created by the City and County of San Francisco ("City") under the authority of the Subdivision Map Act ("SMA"


Third Circuit issues decision in New Jersey gift card escheat suit
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2012

On January 5, 2011, the Third Circuit issued its decision in New Jersey Retail Merchants Association v. Sidamon-Eristoff, Case No. 10-4551 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2012