The Third Circuit Court of Appeals interprets settlement agreements like contracts: absent ambiguity, the four corners control.
This week, the appellate court ruled that, even in the face of changing technologies, a court can't redefine the terms of a clearly-written settlement.
The entire class needs to be properly protected for valid class certification. For starters, class representatives need to have the interests of the whole class in mind. Proper notice to potential class members is also crucial to a valid class action case.
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a settlement between Sprint and a class of its customers last week, claiming that the $17.5 million settlement didn’t adequately protect absent class members.
If a divorced man fails to remove his ex-wife as a beneficiary of his 401(k) plan, does she get the proceeds, despite the fact that she may have waived those rights in divorce?
And if she gets the proceeds by virtue of the operation of the plan, can the estate sue her to recover those proceeds?
Do employees waive their rights to bring a class action lawsuit when they sign mandatory arbitration agreements?
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals says yes, in a recent opinion. Employees who consent to mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment agreements must arbitrate any controversy instead of litigating it.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a Pennsylvania state law - the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act - requiring American-made steel in public works projects unless there wasn’t a sufficient amount available.
A Delaware corporation, Mabey Bridge & Shore Inc., had challenged the law, but a lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Transportation. Mabey then appealed the case to the Third Circuit, arguing that the law was pre-empted by the federal Buy American Act and violated the Commerce, Contract and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
A diamond may be forever, but it shouldn't be so expensive.
So says the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated a $295 million antitrust settlement against South African company De Beers, the world's largest diamond supplier and self-proclaimed "world's diamond experts."
The multi-million dollar settlement is part of an agreement by De Beers to remedy injuries suffered by U.S. jewelry makers, retailers and consumers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994.
We lawyers have lots of dirty little secrets.
While the non-lawyers in our lives thought that we spent law school learning how to practice the law, we really spent three years “learning how to think” and realizing what high school would have been like with legal access to alcohol.
What we didn’t learn while mainlining caffeine to keep up with cliques and study groups, (which, let’s admit, were one and the same), were the nuts and bolts of the law, like how to draft wills or business contracts.
Moving company's suit against a school district for unjust enrichment barred
Wayne Moving & Storage of New Jersey, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 09-3890, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and an award of $830,071.18 plus interest, in plaintiff's suit against a school district under a theory of unjust enrichment for unpaid moving services.
Denial of a motion to dismiss or stay the litigation, for misappropriation of trade secrets of a technology for manufacturing a chemical used in manufacturing nylon, in favor of arbitration
Invista S.A.R.L. v. Rhodia, SA, 09-2514, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to either dismiss or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, in plaintiff's suit for interference with contract, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets, in connection with a technology for manufacturing a critical intermediate chemical used in manufacturing nylon.
