Roundup: 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 11th Circuits
Continuing a trend of anti-class action rulings from courts across the country, the 2nd Circuit decertified a class of plaintiffs pursuing a copyright infringement case against Google Inc.
August 29, 2013 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
2nd Circuit
Connecticut, New York, Vermont
Court decertifies class in Google Books infringement case
Continuing a trend of anti-class action rulings from courts across the country, the 2nd Circuit decertified a class of plaintiffs pursuing a copyright infringement case against Google Inc.
The case centers on the tech company's Google Books Library Project, in which Google scans and digitizes books, then allows users to search for snippets of text from the works. The Authors Guild and several individual writers sued Google for infringement in 2005 and won certification from a district court.
But the 2nd Circuit overturned that decision on July 1, ruling that the lower court should have considered the merits of Google's fair use defense before deciding whether to certify the class. The success or failure of the fair use argument “will necessarily inform and perhaps [moot] the analysis of many class certification issues,” the appeals court wrote.
The court also signaled its agreement with Google's argument that the named plaintiffs did not represent the proposed class because many of them benefit from the Google Books project.
3rd Circuit
Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
For-profit corporations do not have religious rights
In a ruling that sets up a potentially significant circuit split, the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services that private, for-profit corporations do not have religious rights.
The case was just one of several ongoing lawsuits filed by business owners in response to the Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate, which requires employers to provide coverage for various contraceptives. In this instance, Conestoga's Mennonite owners sued the federal government, arguing that the mandate violates their religious beliefs.
The 3rd Circuit, however, held that “the law has long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself.”
Not all courts feel the same, however. In June, the 10th Circuit ruled in a similar case that for-profit companies do indeed have religious freedoms, drawing a parallel to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which gave companies the right to political expression.
5th Circuit
Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas
Dodd-Frank whistleblowers must report to SEC
In the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, many companies emphasized internal reporting procedures in an effort to prevent employees from whistleblowing to the government. But on July 17 the 5th Circuit ruled in Asadi v. G.E. Energy that Dodd-Frank doesn't protect workers from retaliation if they only make reports internally.
Asadi was a GE Energy employee who was fired after internally reporting alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. But according to the 5th Circuit, Asadi was not a whistleblower because he had not gone to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with his claims. Section 922 of Dodd-Frank defines a whistleblower as anyone who gives “information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission.”
11th Circuit
Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Lawyerless FLSA settlement not valid
Companies hoping to settle employee lawsuits without attorney involvement should be aware that such deals may not win court approval, following the 11th Circuit's July 29 ruling in Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc.
Former Mal-Motels employee Candace Nall sued her boss, Mohammad Malik, for allegedly failing to pay her overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The two sides eventually worked out a deal under which Nall agreed to drop her suit in exchange for $2,000.
Although the deal was hammered out with no input from lawyers, Malik hired an attorney to enforce the settlement. Nall's attorney subsequently objected to the settlement, which did not provide for plaintiffs' attorney fees.
A district court upheld the validity of what it called a “fair and reasonable” deal. But the 11th Circuit vacated that decision on appeal, ruling that back wage FLSA claims can be settled only by the Department of Labor or by a court-approved “stipulated judgment”—not by two independent parties.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250