A recent decision from the Northern District of California — Lopez, et al. v. Apple — highlights the continued impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in shaping.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The past few days have been trying ones for Texans suffering due
to the loss of electric power in their homes and business.
Already we have received several subrogation assignments arising
from claims involving burst water and sprinkler piping. Other
claims involve damage due to lack of heat to inventories and other
property.
The question presented is whether a subrogated property carrier
has any recourse against those responsible for the brownout, either
or both the electrical utility or the Electric Reliability Council
of Texas, Inc (ERCOT).
On February 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court
decided
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC
1
(
Donohue). In that case, the court held that (1)
employers cannot round time in the meal period context and (2) time
records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable
presumption of a meal period violation. Accordingly, the
court s decision has significant implications for employers
who rely on time keeping systems that round time during employee
meal breaks.
California s meal period laws are governed primarily by
California Labor Code section 512 and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4. Pursuant to these regulations,
an employee is entitled to a 30 minute meal break no later than the
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
It is well known that a security of payment adjudication decision can be challenged in Court for jurisdictional error. This article looks at what needs to be proven in order to prevent an adjudication decision being enforced before the Court makes its determination.
The recent Supreme Court decision in
Karam Group Pty Ltd v Earthmoving Contractors Pty Ltd deals with the common circumstance where an interim injunction is sought while an alleged jurisdictional error of an adjudicator is determined by the Court. The case deals with whether or not recent views of the High Court preclude an injunction so that money would flow regardless, leaving a respondent to bear the risk of non-repayment should it ultimately be successful in its challenge of the decision.
Satish Kumar Gupta and Others
(Essar Steel case) held
that allowing claims apart from those covered in a resolution plan
to survive after the approval of a resolution plan militates
against the rationale of Section 31 of the IBC. The Supreme Court
held that the successful resolution applicant should be given an
opportunity to take over and run the business of the corporate
debtor on a clean slate. Accordingly, a resolution applicant should
not be suddenly faced with undecided claims which would
throw into uncertainty the amounts payable by a resolution
applicant to take over the business of the corporate debtor.