To read more about the items below, click the link above for a PDF of the newsletter.
- Congress intended the Federal Employers’ Liability Act to be the exclusive vehicle for compensating claims by injured railroad workers against their employers. (BNSF Railway v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court)
- Limits on personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants apply fully to class actions. (Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc.)
- EPA’s proposed revisions to Clean Water Act regulations—which very broadly define “waters of the United States”—impose appropriate limits and rein in overly expansive federal regulation. (In re Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’)
- To bring an antitrust claim, it is not enough to prove injury; the plaintiff must also show that its injury was caused by some anti-competitive aspect of the defendant’s alleged conduct. (Pulse Network, LLC v. Visa, Inc.)
- A nationwide class should not be certified in an employment discrimination case if the plaintiffs cannot point to a company policy or practice that caused a common harm to the class.
(Moussouris v. Microsoft)
- In products-liability litigation, a manufacturer’s duty to warn should not extend to products made by others, particularly in those States in which a manufacturer can be held strictly liable regardless of its knowledge of potential safety risks. (Whelan v. A.O. Smith Corp.)
- The U.S. Supreme Court puts off for another day deciding when, if at all, the plaintiffs’ bar may bring claims alleging securities-law violations in connection with tender offers directed to the shareholders of public corporations. (Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian)
- The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules abandons a proposed change to Rule 30(b)(6) that would have obliged a company, when called upon to produce a deposition witness to address the company’s knowledge, to give opposing counsel a role in identifying the witness. (In re Proposed Amendment to Rule 30(b)(6))