103 Year-Old Supreme Court Precedent Cited to Reduce Damages in Class Action from $91.4 Million to $12.8 Million

* Taylor Lodise is a law clerk in the Litigation practice group.

In one of several related class-action lawsuits against the maker of a drink marketed under the brand name Joint Juice, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, applied case law from 103 years ago to reduce statutory damages in a consumer class action from the $91.4 million seemingly required by a New York statute to just $8.3 million plus pre-judgment interest of $4.5 million. The August ruling was based on Fourteenth Amendment due process protections as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1919 case St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Williams (“St. Louis”). Read More ›

California Court Considering Awarding $141.5 Million Over Falsely Marketed Health Drink

Juice Joint facing catastrophic liability after jury decides against it on the merits

Faced with a series of class-action lawsuits over its Joint Juice drink, Premier Nutrition Corp. has lost the first jury trial and is now fighting back against what could be a devastating financial blow if it loses a post-trial motion scheduled to be heard next month in the Northern District of California. The company was found by a jury to have falsely touted the health benefits of the drink, so the issue is no longer whether the claims were defensible, but how much the marketer will have to pay to the class of purchasers. Read More ›

Supreme Court OKs TCPA Lawsuits Covering 2015-2020 Despite Constitutional Issue

Class action attorneys score a victory Read More ›

New York Law Journal Publishes Article on College Athletes and Fashion Brands by Andrew Lustigman and Scott Shaffer

The New York Law Journal published an Expert Opinion article authored by attorneys Andrew Lustigman and Scott Shaffer, entitled “Are College Athletes the Next Fashion Stars?”.  Read More ›

Supreme Court to Determine What Constitutes an Automated Telephone Dialing System

Supreme Court Limits the SEC’s Ability to Obtain Disgorgement of Revenues

Highest court affirms the right of the SEC to recover fraudulently obtained profits Read More ›

Supreme Court Rules Willfulness Not Required For Disgorgement of Trademark Infringement Profits

Resolving a circuit split, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) has held that willfulness is not a precondition for disgorgement of an infringer’s profits from the infringement in a trademark infringement case. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., the Court considered willfulness as but one of the factors that may be considered in deciding whether or not to award an infringer’s profits to a trademark holder, rejecting the premise that a showing of willfulness is required before an infringer’s profits may be awarded. Read More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Limiting SEC’s Ability to Recover Disgorgement

Oral arguments held in Liu v. SEC Read More ›

Supreme Court Makes Class Arbitration Decision More Difficult

5-4 decision rejects traditional principles of contract interpretation Read More ›

Supreme Court Holds Parties’ Contracts Determine Who Decides Issue of Arbitrability

The Supreme Court has unanimously vacated a Fifth Circuit decision concerning arbitrability. The court held that courts my not override a contract that tasks arbitrators with determining whether a claim should be arbitrated or litigated, even in the case that the quest for arbitration is “wholly groundless.” Read More ›