Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court confirmed in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018) that claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) are subject to “concurrent jurisdiction,” meaning they can be asserted either in federal or state court and that a

Creative and aggressive plaintiffs’ lawyers are forever on the hunt for new theories under which to bring potentially lucrative class action lawsuits utilizing plaintiff-friendly state consumer protection statutes (with California being the most favored forum). The dietary supplement industry has been in the plaintiffs bar’s cross-hairs for more than a decade now. As the case

Richard Robinson was a truck driver who tried to sue his former employer for civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney’s General Act (“PAGA”). Unfortunately for him, his employer settled another PAGA action while his case was still pending, and despite opting out of the other settlement, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case

On July 8, 2020, the California Court of Appeals held that when an employee fails to initial a specific part of an arbitration agreement, but still signs it, the agreement is still enforceable.

Plaintiff Joseph Martinez brought a series of employment claims against his former employer, BaronHR, Inc., which moved to compel arbitration. Martinez opposed

On September 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The significance of the result is two-fold. First, substantively, it is a reminder to financial services firms of potential liability under California labor law when advisors are required