District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman

MoginRubin LLP Looks Forward to Trial as D.C. Appeals Court Affirms ATM Operators' Class Certification in Antitrust Case Against Visa and Mastercard

Retrieved on: 
Friday, July 28, 2023
Mastercard, Certification, LLP, Visa, ATM, Sherman, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Payment card

Washington, D.C., July 28, 2023 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- An antitrust case brought by a nationwide class of independent (non-bank) ATM Operators can move forward against Visa and Mastercard after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed the August 2021 decision by a district court certifying the class.

Key Points: 
  • Washington, D.C., July 28, 2023 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- An antitrust case brought by a nationwide class of independent (non-bank) ATM Operators can move forward against Visa and Mastercard after the D.C.
  • Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed the August 2021 decision by a district court certifying the class.
  • The ATM Operators, represented by MoginRubin LLP , a specialty antitrust law firm, allege that Visa and Mastercard network rules violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
  • "The ATM Operators are looking forward to finally moving this case to trial," he added.

NCLA Amicus Brief Blasts FDIC for Depriving Ex-CEO of Jury Trial Rights in Enforcement Action

Retrieved on: 
Monday, April 10, 2023
Exercise, Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Administrative State, S.A, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, FDIC, ALJ, American Revolution, Government, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Congress, Supreme court, Seventh Amendment, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Law of the United Kingdom, NCLA, Court, Magna Carta, Herring Bank, Constitution, Seventh, Appeal, Burgess

NCLA urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to redress the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) unlawful enforcement action against Cornelius Campbell Burgess, which the agency pursued through its in-house administrative court.

Key Points: 
  • NCLA urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to redress the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) unlawful enforcement action against Cornelius Campbell Burgess, which the agency pursued through its in-house administrative court.
  • NCLA argues that FDIC’s allegations must be tried in front of a jury rather than an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
  • FDIC’s current ALJ enforcement regime deprives Burgess of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
  • Burgess petitioned the district court to prevent FDIC from formally approving the ALJ’s recommendations and entering a final order against him.

Antitrust Violation vs. Injury-in-Fact: A distinction that makes a difference

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, February 4, 2023
Nexium, Laboratory, Supreme, Character, Ranbaxy Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Actavis, Government, Risk, Law of the United Kingdom, Policy, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Esomeprazole, Patent, Pharmacy, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Supreme court, FTC, Ridesharing company

But private plaintiffs must make an additional showing: to establish antitrust ‘standing,’ private plaintiffs must prove that the antitrust violation caused harm to them.

Key Points: 
  • But private plaintiffs must make an additional showing: to establish antitrust ‘standing,’ private plaintiffs must prove that the antitrust violation caused harm to them.
  • This distinction is deeply rooted in our system of antitrust enforcement, which permits many types of enforcers but limits standing to those with a cognizable claim of injury.
  • But when courts and litigants miss this doctrinal distinction on the road to resolving a case, it can have significant implications for antitrust law and policy.
  • The brief takes no position on the merits of the case, but instead explains that the district court missed the important distinction between an antitrust violation and an injury-in-fact.

UC Hastings College of the Law Has a New Name: University of California College of the Law, San Francisco

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, January 5, 2023
Government, Education, Union Christian College, Aluva, Legislature, Motion, City, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, SAN, San Francisco County Superior Court, Social justice, Faculty, Court, Law, State, College, UC, Student, Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, History, Yuki people, Plaintiff, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Assembly, Management, Medicine

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 4, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Chancellor & Dean David Faigman has formally announced that as of January 1, 2023, the former UC Hastings College of the Law has a new name—University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

Key Points: 
  • SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 4, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Chancellor & Dean David Faigman has formally announced that as of January 1, 2023, the former UC Hastings College of the Law has a new name—University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.
  • The law school is now called UC College of the Law, San Francisco, or UC Law SF.
  • In July 2022, the Board unanimously chose UC College of the Law, San Francisco as its new name.
  • The UC Law San Francisco community is truly excited for this next chapter of its history.

Groups Commend CVS's Withdrawal of U.S. Supreme Court Challenge To HIV Rights, says Consumer Watchdog

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, November 11, 2021
People, Disability, Thurgood Marshall, View, Affordable Care Act, CVS Pharmacy, Policy, Supreme court, Topical steroid withdrawal, Person, Pharmacy, Center, Marshall, CVS, LLP, Congress, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, HIV, Rehabilitation, Public Citizen, Wheelchair, Multimedia, Law of the United Kingdom, Program, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Supreme, Pharmacist, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, AIDS, Harvard Law School, Consumer Watchdog, Risk, Lawsuit, Pharmaceutical industry, Online gambling, Healthcare, Health insurance, Insurance

"We commend CVS for recognizing the potentially damaging impact of its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key Points: 
  • "We commend CVS for recognizing the potentially damaging impact of its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • The case before the Supreme Court, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al.
  • Download the brief filed by the John Doe plaintiffs at the U.S. Supreme Court here: https://tinyurl.com/b3frvx7p .
  • In a press release issued yesterday CVS announced that it would withdraw its petition in the Supreme Court.

Lincoln Attorneys Announce Reinstatement of Jury Verdict and a $1,031,000 judgment against BNSF

Retrieved on: 
Sunday, November 7, 2021
Safety, BNSF, BNSF Railway, Fear, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, FRSA, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Judgement, Monohon, Washington, Injury, Company, Personal injury, FELA, Online gambling

The case contested the dismissal of the plaintiff, a BNSF employee, allegedly due to a rule violation and insubordination.

Key Points: 
  • The case contested the dismissal of the plaintiff, a BNSF employee, allegedly due to a rule violation and insubordination.
  • The plaintiff respectfully raised his safety concern with a high-level BNSF manager, which BNSF described as insubordination.
  • After a 5-day jury trial in May of 2016, the jury found that BNSF retaliated against Monohon for his reported safety concern.
  • Following the jury verdict, BNSF filed motions with the trial court seeking to take the jury verdict away from Monohon.