To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Is there standing to bring a lawsuit when an employee’s personal information is mistakenly circulated to all employees at the company? A recent decision addressed exactly this question. In
McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs.,
LLC, No. 19-4310, 2021 WL 1603808 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2021), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court in finding that the harm plaintiffs alleged (an increased risk of identity theft) was too speculative and remote to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing. However, the court did not completely shut the door on this theory of harm, holding that an “increased risk” of identity theft could, under certain circumstances, qualify as an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing. In doing so, the Second Circuit aligned with a number of its sister circuits which had previously recognized the potential validity of this approach.
Douglas Durst with 114 West 47th Street and 1133 Sixth Avenue (Getty, Google Maps)
Built in 1989, the 25-story office building at 114 West 47th Street represented a generational shift for the Durst Organization.
It was the last building developed by brothers Seymour, Roy, and David Durst, and the first major project involving Seymour’s son, Douglas, and David’s son, Jonathan “Jody” Durst.
The Midtown building is now 60 percent occupied by Bank of America, which has its Private Wealth Management division based there. Three blocks south, the bank is also a major tenant at Durst’s 44-story 1133 Sixth Avenue, completed in 1970.
Bank of America, along with Citi Real Estate and Wells Fargo, last month put together a 10-year, $1.1 billion refinancing for the two office buildings, which have been securitized in a single-borrower commercial mortgage-backed securities deal.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 29, 2021, District Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant salesforce.com, Inc.’s ( Salesforce ) motion for transfer of venue to the Northern District of California ( the NDCA ) where it is based pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
This case involves two patents to inventor Michael Kaufman that are directed to automatically generating user interfaces for large or complex databases. Kaufman sued Salesforce in August 2020, alleging that Safesforce s customer relationship management products infringe the patents. Salesforce is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in the NDCA, where over 9,000 of its employees work. Its products are sold nationwide.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 27, 2021, United States District Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. ( Leviton ) motion for a new trial based on the Court s exclusion of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.
In a prior patent lawsuit, Defendant Pass & Seymour, Inc. ( P&S ) and Leviton entered into a Settlement and Licensing Agreement that required P&S to pay Leviton royalties on any products that infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,463,124 ( the 124 patent ), which is directed to an improved ground-fault circuit interrupt circuit breaker. Leviton sued for breach of that agreement and sought unpaid royalties. P&S counterclaimed that the 124 patent was invalid as being obvious. The jury agreed. However, during trial, Leviton was precluded from presenting evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness even though the Court allowed the jury to consider testimony supporting P&S s arguments regarding obviousne
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Debtors who ignore instructions from the Bankruptcy Court do so at their own peril, as a recent case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates. In
In re Francis, the First Circuit reminds debtors and practitioners that “the road to a bankruptcy discharge is a two-way street, and a debtor must comply (or at least make good-faith efforts to comply) with lawful orders of the bankruptcy court.”
[1] Otherwise, debtors risk dismissal of their petition and denial of a discharge.
The debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and shortly thereafter was informed that his case was subject to dismissal because his liabilities exceeded the then-current secured debt limit. The debtor moved to convert his case to Chapter 11, which the bankruptcy court granted. The debtor then failed to comply with a court order obligating him to file certain documents. As a result, the Trustee moved to convert the case t