Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  12853-12859 displayed

1  1836 1837 1838 1839 1840  3627

---

Ransmeier & Spellman, P.C.

Jeff Zellers Appointed Chair of Hospital Board
R&S is pleased to announce that Attorney Jeffrey J. Zellers was recently appointed Chair of the Board of Trustees of Concord Hospital, Inc. Jeff's term runs for two years. Jeff also serves as the Chair of Concord Hospital’s Governance and Nominating Committee and Chair of the hospital’s Compensation Committee. Concord Hospital is a non-profit regional medical center providing more than $16 million in charity care to the communities it serves. Jeff has also been appointed to the Board of Capital Region Health Care Corporation, Capital Region Health Services Corporation and Capital Region Health Care Development Corporation.

12-27-2006

---

Ransmeier & Spellman, P.C.

Big Win in Federal Court
Ransmeier & Spellman litigation attorney Garry Lane recently successfully defended Southwest Airlines Co. in a federal lawsuit claiming Southwest had discriminated against a passenger based on race. The week-long trial received national publicity in newspapers, magazines, radio and television (and even made the Jay Leno show). The eight person jury ruled in Southwest's favor and completely vindicated the company and its employees. Plaintiff had sought both compensatory and punitive damages. After the jury verdict, the plaintiff decided not to appeal the decision.

12-27-2006

---

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

Complete Victory for Coca-Cola in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation
Quinn Emanuel recently obtained dismissal of several high profile Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act (“ATS”) lawsuits brought against the firm’s client, Coca-Cola, and several of its foreign affiliates.

In one case, union members once employed by an independent Coca-Cola bottler in Turkey brought suit in federal district court in New York, alleging that Coca-Cola and its bottler were liable for alleged abuses suffered by the union members at the hands of the Turkish police.


On November 3, 2006, the district court in New York dismissed the claims against Coca-Cola and its independent bottler on forum non conveniens grounds. In holding this, the court first found that there was an available and adequate alternative forum where the dispute could be adjudicated — namely, Turkey. Second, the court found that, on balance, the links with the plaintiff’s chosen forum were minimal compared with the contact of the controversy with Turkey, and that the central dispute concerned Turkey more than the United States; thus, the balance of the private and public interest factors central to the forum non conveniens analysis weighed heavily in favor of dismissal.

In another recent case, labor rights organizations brought suit in federal district court in Florida on behalf of a Colombian labor union and its members. The plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola was liable as a co-conspirator for purported paramilitary actions taken against the labor union’s members. In similar litigation against other American corporations not represented by Quinn Emanuel, the plaintiffs’ representatives had successfully maintained jurisdiction under the ATS based on such vicarious liability.

On September 29, 2006, the district court in Florida dismissed with prejudice all claims against Coca- Cola and several of the company’s independent Colombian bottlers. In dismissing the suits on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, the court adopted Quinn Emanuel’s argument that a heightened pleading standard must apply to allegations of conspiracy or vicarious liability under the ATS, and held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy this standard because they could not sufficiently tie an employee or agent of the beverage manufacturer to the alleged paramilitary abuses.

Coupled with other ATS decisions, these victories draw an increasingly bright line under which American companies are safe from jurisdiction under the ATS for misconduct allegedly committed by third parties overseas.

12-27-2006

---

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Copyright Law in Victory for HBO
The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of HBO in a copyright infringement action based on its critically acclaimed series, “Six Feet Under.” Rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims that similarities between its screenplay and the series were the result of copying, Judge Fletcher’s opinion lays out a procedure for evaluating copyright infringement claims in television and film contexts, and gives media and entertainment companies a welcome response to its earlier decision in Metcalf v. Bochco, which had left in doubt whether summary judgment would ever be upheld if any similarities — however trivial or common — existed between two works. In distinguishing Metcalf, the Ninth Circuit panel in this case essentially limited its application to disputes where access in fact has been established or conceded.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion also reaffirmed and clarified that no amount of access to copyrighted materials can overcome a lack of substantial similarity and held that invocation of the “inverse ratio” rule does not automatically justify access-related discovery where no actionable similarities exist. Quinn Emanuel’s strategy of moving for summary judgment without any depositions, expert discovery, or damages discovery cleanly set up the legal issue. The Ninth Circuit’s validation of the district court’s own assessment of the works at issue — without reference to experts — confirmed that these types of cases can be successfully defended without exposing senior media executives to the hassle and distraction of sitting through depositions, probing whether and how their departments may have had access to a plaintiff’s work. The Complaint, summarily dismissed by Judge Carmac Carney, had asserted a panoply of claims and sought more than $50 million in damages.

12-27-2006

---

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

Victory for Financial Services Firm in Theft of Business Suit
Quinn Emanuel recently won another injunction for a major financial services firm. On a Friday afternoon in late September, a major high-net-worth client broker, responsible for managing approximately $128 million in client assets, resigned from the client’s Dallas office to join a competing firm. He recruited a key sales assistant and began soliciting clients to transfer their accounts to his new firm. Quinn Emanuel immediately filed papers in the Southern District of New York to stop the former employee from siphoning off the firm’s clients and employees. On the basis of those papers alone, the judge issued a temporary restraining order and directed that a preliminary injunction hearing be held in one week’s time.

The broker responded aggressively, filing two separate motions to dismiss on various grounds. First, he argued that the court should dismiss the action or transfer it to a Texas court because the dispute had an insufficient nexus with New York. The broker lives and works in Dallas, does not service any clients in New York, and the alleged wrongdoing occurred in Texas. Next, he argued that the restrictive covenant on which our client relied was actually not a contract, because the former employee had only certified his agreement through a website, and had not physically signed a document. Finally, he contended that because there was no contract, there was no agreement to arbitrate before JAMS in New York, and thus the parties were required to arbitrate in Texas under the NASD’s mandatory arbitration provisions.

The court rejected the broker’s arguments, and found that Quinn Emanuel’s client had established that a contract did in fact exist, and that his consent to arbitrate before JAMS in New York gave the Southern District court jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the broker from soliciting his former employer’s clients and employees for sixty days.

12-27-2006

---

Post & Schell

Joseph Article in Journal of Health Care Compliance
Partner John N. Joseph has authored an article for the Journal of Health Care Compliance November-December 2006 issue entitled, "Internal Investigations by Health Care Organizations.

12-27-2006

---

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP Named Among Top 30 Law Firms for Client Service in BTI Survey
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP is again recognized for its outstanding client service and is named to BTI Consulting Group’s Client Service Thirty. "We are able to deliver excellent client experiences to the degree that we listen to and focus on our clients’ needs,” said Brad Keil, the firm's CEO and Policy Committee Chair. "Superior client service is a key measure of our success and we're honored to know that clients acknowledge and value our longstanding commitment to them through this goal."

BTI compiled their Sixth Annual Report based upon individual interviews with more than 250 corporate counsel-at-large and Fortune 1000 companies. These interviews measured client satisfaction and strength of client relationships by key attributes, such as client focus, value for the dollar, keeping clients informed, breadth of services, technical and international capabilities and unprompted communication. From these responses, BTI ranked 238 law firms by their overall commitment to client satisfaction.

12-27-2006

---

25383 matches |  12853-12859 displayed

1  1836 1837 1838 1839 1840  3627