|Litigation Update: Approval of Massive NFL Concussion Settlement Upheld: First Major Battle Nearing End but More to Come|
|Friday, May 6, 2016 |
|By Jack Luckett
This case began in July 2011 when 73 retired professional football players sued the NFL for failing to protect them from the chronic risk of head injuries in football. The NFL removed the case to federal court and more lawsuits followed. In January 2012 these case were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Anita Brody. The consolidated case now includes claims by over 5,000 retired players. After the initial pleading phase, the NFL filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Collective Bargaining Agreements applied and required arbitration. While the Motion was pending, Judge Brody ordered mediation.
In late 2013, the parties reached a settlement totaling $765 million to compensate retired |
|Rob Rickman to Host 3rd Installment of Law in the Workplace Seminar|
|Thursday, May 5, 2016 |
|Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC Invites You to Attend
The Final Say So On New Overtime Regulations
Part of a Quarterly Luncheon Seminar Series
Join Us Thursday, May 19th!
The Department of Labor has submitted its final proposed rule regarding changes to overtime regulations. The new regulations will significantly increase the number of workers that will be eligible for overtime, and are anticipated to go into effect this summer. Come learn about the new regulations and how they might affect your business.
• Rob Rickman
To RSVP, please email email@example.com |
|Director Karin Zaner to Speak at Houston Bar Association Health Law Monthly Luncheon|
|Monday, April 25, 2016 |
|Karin M. Zaner will be a panel speaker at the Houston Bar Association Health Law Section monthly luncheon on May 11, 2016. The discussion topic is Disruptive Physician Issues and CLE credit for attendees will be given. |
|Attorney Karin Zaner to appear on an episode of Humanities in the Spotlight|
|Thursday, April 7, 2016 |
|Karin Zaner will be featured on the April 29, 2016 episode of Humanities in the Spotlight, a panel discussion series produced by the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Liberal Arts, which will be broadcast live on Austin’s public television station KLRU. Karin graduated from UT’s prestigious Plan II program before attending UT Law. Respected Dallas craniofacial surgeon and fellow Plan II alumnus David Genecov will also be on that night’s panel. The discussion will focus on the immense value of a background in humanities to their respective professional careers in health care. |
|Litigation Update: The Texas Supreme Court Rules in favor of The Golf Channel over the Stanford Ponzi Receiver—Ruling will Likely Limit Future Clawback Suits in Similar Cases|
|Wednesday, April 6, 2016 |
Like many other Ponzi schemes, R. Allen Stanford’s operated by selling Certificates of Deposit and paying an initial group of victims a high return using subsequent investors’ money, all the while taking large portions of the investment funds for himself and his various entities (the “Stanford Entities”). While the Ponzi scheme’s perpetrator and many of his associates were sentenced to prison, hundreds of civil suits were filed in various courts that related to and stemmed from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.
More than seven years ago, Ralph Janvey (“Janvey”) was appointed Receiver for the Stanford Entities and tasked with recovering as much money as possible from the $7.2 billion Ponzi |
|Andrea Johnson "AJ" is a Featured Speaker at University of Houston's Table Talk|
|Monday, March 21, 2016 |
Andrea Johnson "AJ" will be a featured speaker at the University of Houston's 19th Annual "Table Talk"
|Litigation Update: WATER RIGHTS UPDATE: LANDOWNERS SCORE WIN AGAINST WATER AUTHORITIES – BUT QUESTIONS REMAIN|
|Monday, February 29, 2016 |
|In 2013, in the Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Glenn and JoLynn Bragg decision, the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals, for the first time in Texas history, ruled that the regulation of groundwater violated a property owner's rights under the Texas Constitution. This decision has potentially far reaching implications and was quickly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Water rights advocates and local water authorities eagerly watched to see if the Supreme Court would uphold the lower court's ruling. However, to the surprise of many water rights experts, the Supreme Court made news for failing to consider this issue on appeal, thus, leaving the issue of groundwater regulation murky and uncertain.
The State owns the rivers, |
|A Glimmer of Hope for the Energy Industry?|
|Monday, February 29, 2016 |
By now, it is no secret that the energy industry has been ravaged. Every street corner with a gas station displays a reminder of sagging oil prices. And if $30 per barrel oil was not bad enough, energy companies have another woe to add to the list—opportunistic plaintiff’s attorneys that have focused their cross hairs squarely on oilfield pay practices.
|The Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Court Split Related to Class Action Suits In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez|
|Tuesday, February 16, 2016 |
|In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Supreme Court recently decided a previous split between the Federal Circuit Courts. Specifically, the Court considered the issue whether a case is moot and beyond the judicial power of Article III of the Constitution when the representative plaintiff in a class action receives an offer of complete relief via an Offer of Judgment. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg issued on January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court held 6–3 that an Offer of Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 does not moot a plaintiff's claim.
In order to fully appreciate the Supreme Court’s decision and the issue that divided the Federal Courts of Appeals, it is worth examining the prior case law addressing this |
|Litigation Update: 5th Circuit Adopts Presumption Favoring Federal Jurisdiction in CAFA Cases. |
|Friday, January 22, 2016 |
|On January 7, 2016, the Fifth Circuit adopted a presumption in favor of retaining federal jurisdiction in class actions removed under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The decision is good news for class action defendants. It places the burden of proving CAFA exceptions squarely on plaintiffs, narrowing CAFA's already limited exceptions, and making it more likely that class actions will remain in federal court. Look for the plaintiff's bar to respond with pleadings explicitly tailored to remain within the CAFA exceptions.
CAFA makes federal jurisdiction mandatory over certain large, high-dollar class action lawsuits, with limited exceptions. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d). The local controversy exception divests federal |