FindLaw News -- Personal Injury
News
Personal Injury
- [07/30] Mont. officials await test results in bear attack
- [07/30] Inmate sues man he's convicted of burglarizing
- [07/30] 1,200 homes evacuated in LA Co. as fire spreads
Privacy & Security
- [07/28] US military investigates contractor work force
- [07/26] UAE cites BlackBerry national security concerns
- [07/13] Case of kids found on Facebook revives disputes
Pharmaceuticals
- [07/15] Drug maker Novartis' Q2 profit up 19 percent
- [07/13] Vivus weight loss drug faces safety questions
- [07/09] FDA review spotlights heart risk of diabetes pill
Case Summaries
Class Actions
[06/25]
Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.
[06/24]
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.
[06/24]
Brown v. Kelly
In a class action by persons allegedly arrested pursuant to an unconstitutional New York anti-begging statute, the district court's class certification order is affirmed in part where the citywide plaintiff class met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in certifying a statewide defendant class because the defendant class representatives did not meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the district court also erred in certifying a statewide plaintiff class because the certification of this class was contingent on the bilateral certification of both a statewide plaintiff and a statewide defendant class.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
At The Cifarelli Law Firm, LLP, we represent clients throughout Southern California, including the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Diego, Riverside, Santa Monica, Long Beach and Pomona; and other locations in Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as San Francisco.







