Gibbons Law Alert
In a precedential opinion issued on May 31, 2012, the Third Circuit in Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, et al., reversed an order granting final approval of a nationwide class action settlement on the ground that the class representative plaintiffs could not adequately represent the interests of the entire class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
A few weeks ago, we reported on the recent decision of the People of the State of New York v. Harris, Index No. 080152/2011, (Crim. Ct. Apr. 20, 2012). There, the Court denied defendant Malcolm Harris’s motion to quash the District Attorney’s subpoena requiring the production of defendant’s user information, email addresses, as well as any Tweets posted for a four-month period from Twitter, Inc., all in connection with criminal charges pending against Mr. Harris due to his alleged involvement in an Occupy Wall Street protest. You can read our most recent blog post on this case from May 23. Twitter subsequently moved to quash the Court’s order on May 7, 2012, on the basis that the order imposes an undue burden upon it pursuant to Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2711) (the “SCA”), which provides that “[a] court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if. . . compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.” Twitter argues that compliance with the Court’s order compelling the production of defendant’s Twitter user information imposes an undue burden for at least three reasons.
Howard D. Geneslaw, Esq., a Director in the Gibbons Real Estate Development practice group, will speak at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s (NJICLE) annual program “Land Use Basics” on June 13, 2012. Mr. Geneslaw’s topic will be redevelopment law. The all-day program is designed to provide practitioners with a roadmap for navigating the land use maze. All of the speakers serve on the Board of Directors of the Land Use Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.
The revised Philadelphia Zoning Code will be effective before your Labor Day barbeque is over, and there is a smorgasbord of changes to digest. For instance, let’s take “notice,” a contentious issue the new Code seeks to resolve with procedural safeguards and requirements. A frequent area of conflict under the current (soon to be former) Code centered on interactions between developers and neighbors during the zoning/use approval process. Many times, a developer would complain that it did not know which neighborhood civic association represented a particular area, or that a civic association’s meeting schedule resulted in delays in the zoning hearing and approval process. Conversely, neighbors would charge that they were not given adequate notice of applications filed or permits issued with enough lead time to have meaningful input into the process. The revised Code seeks to balance the property owner/developer’s interest in certainty, both in terms of time required to complete the application process and identification of potentially interested parties, against the neighbors’ need for notice of the application and an opportunity to participate.
If you’ve been following this blog, then you know that the Monique da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe SA and MSL Group case, in which Magistrate Judge Peck authored the first opinion approving the use of predictive coding, is very contentious. You can read our latest entries discussing this controversial case from March 2 and May 16. It appears there is no sign the tension will abate anytime soon.
In Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., the Federal Circuit recently reviewed an appeal from the Middle District of Georgia that found defendant Cipla (an Indian company) in contempt for violating an earlier injunction and finding co-defendant Velcera in contempt for acting in concert with Cipla to violate that injunction. The case arose from Cipla’s alleged infringement of Merial’s patents directed to flea and tick protection compositions, and Cipla’s underlying challenges to the District Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.
In a recent decision of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield Judicial District, captioned Urban Girls, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Bridgeport, the Court was confronted with an interesting set of issues involving the intersection of the alleged lapse of a nonconforming use and the resulting loss of the right to utilize a liquor permit. The Court found that the Zoning Board of Appeals applied the incorrect standard by following the Bridgeport zoning regulations, which had not been amended to reflect amendments to the State’s zoning laws. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a determination on whether there was an intent to abandon the nonconforming use, which would be determinative on the status of the liquor permit.
On May 30, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel issued a third report on social media cases. This report follows the Board’s August 2011 and January 2012 reports on the subject, which we previously discussed. The guidance contained in the three social media reports is applicable to most private sector employers, unionized or not.
On June 6, the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology, along with Seton Hall University School of Law, will host a timely and informative program, “Cybersecurity Insurance and Cybersecurity Risk Management.” The evening features two expert panels who will examine the developing cyber-risk insurance market. Panelists will address the potential legal liability for businesses victimized by cyber crimes, as well as the availability and scope of coverage for cyber-risk insurance policies.
In a consolidated appeal pitting a putative class of third-party payors of drugs prescribed for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a putative class of individual patients prescribed such drugs, against Schering-Plough and affiliated entities, the Third Circuit in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action affirmed the district courts’ dismissals of both actions for lack of standing. The Third Circuit held that both plaintiffs, who brought federal and state statutory and common law causes of action, failed to allege a plausible nexus between Schering’s allegedly illegal marketing campaign and the doctors’ decisions to prescribe various drugs for unapproved uses.