-
Jul 5, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Jonathan Ellis |Louis Greenstein |John Moran
In SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 603 U.S. __ (2024), the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) from seeking civil penalties in certain enforcement actions when the Commission chooses to proceed in-house before its own administrative law judges (ALJs), rather than in federal court.
-
Jun 5, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Jeffrey Ehrlich |Jonathan Ellis |Brent McKnight
On June 3, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau imposed a new set of regulatory obligations on nondepository consumer-financial companies that are currently subject to a court or administrative order enforcing a host of federal or state consumer-protection laws. The Bureau’s new rule creates a public registry of such orders dating back to January 1, 2017. It requires covered entities to submit the orders and information about them to populate the registry.
-
Aug 16, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | Jonathan Ellis
Numerous homeowner associations have declarations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the storage items on their property, regardless of where the items are stored and whether such items are visible to third parties. Such storage items may include boats, trailers, sheds, construction equipment, and junk.
-
Aug 15, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Jonathan Ellis
Numerous homeowner associations have declarations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the storage items on their property, regardless of where the items are stored and whether such items are visible to third parties. Such storage items may include boats, trailers, sheds, construction equipment, and junk.
-
Jul 24, 2023 | 
lexblog.com | Edwin Childs |Michael J. Podberesky |Jonathan Ellis |Gretchen Heinze Townshend
The U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split by holding that, in a False Claims Act action, (1) the government may seek dismissal of a qui tam case in which the government initially declined to intervene over the relator’s objection so long as it later intervened in the litigation, and (2) district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which says the government has broad latitude to seek dismissal.
-
Jul 17, 2023 | 
mondaq.com | Yasser Madriz |Jonathan Ellis |Michael Francisco |Ryan Frankel
The personal jurisdiction landscape for corporations changed a
few weeks ago. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,
decided June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a
Pennsylvania statute that conditions an out-of-state
corporation's right to do business in the commonwealth
requiring the corporation to consent to general jurisdiction in the
commonwealth's courts did not violate the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Jul 14, 2023 | 
jdsupra.com | Jonathan Ellis |Michael Francisco |Ryan Frankel
The personal jurisdiction landscape for corporations changed a few weeks ago. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., decided June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania statute that conditions an out-of-state corporation’s right to do business in the commonwealth requiring the corporation to consent to general jurisdiction in the commonwealth’s courts did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Jul 13, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Yasser Madriz |Jonathan Ellis |Michael Francisco |Ryan Frankel
The personal jurisdiction landscape for corporations changed a few weeks ago. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., decided June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania statute that conditions an out-of-state corporation’s right to do business in the commonwealth requiring the corporation to consent to general jurisdiction in the commonwealth’s courts did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Jul 12, 2023 | 
mondaq.com | Frederick Schutt |John Thomas |Jonathan Ellis |Michael Francisco
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the de
minimis standard that many lower courts have applied for
decades to determine when Title VII permits employers to refuse an
employee's request for religious accommodation. In its
unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, the Court
"clarified" that employers may refuse such a request only
when it would cause "substantial increased costs" to the
conduct of its business.
-
Jul 10, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Frederick Schutt |Jonathan Ellis
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the de minimis standard that many lower courts have applied for decades to determine when Title VII permits employers to refuse an employee’s request for religious accommodation. In its unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, the Court “clarified” that employers may refuse such a request only when it would cause “substantial increased costs” to the conduct of its business.
