In the Court of Appeal’s first major ruling following AT&T v. Concepcion’s groundbreaking Federal Arbitration Act pre-emption decision,, it evades the issue of whether AT&T overruled the California Supreme Court’s seminal employment decision relating to arbitration provisions, Gentry v. Superior Court. However, the decision, Brown v. Ralph’s Grocery, _ Cal.App.4th_ (July 12, 2011) does provide the first glimmer of hope for the fate of employment class actions in a post-AT&T world, finding unequivocally that AT&T’s preemption decision does not apply to actions brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).
[Read More]

The Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Preemption When it Comes to Generic Drugs
By BAHAR DEJBAN, ESQ.

Two years after deciding that failure to warn claims against drug manufacturers are not preempted in the Wyeth v. Levine case, the Supreme Court essentially created an exception for generic drug manufacturers on June 23, 2011 with its decision in Pliva Inc., et al. v. Mensing. The Court explained the disparity between the two decisions by explaining that the federal statutes and regulations that apply to brand name drug manufacturers differ from those that apply to generic drug manufacturers and in Wyeth, it was possible for the brand name manufacturer to comply with both state and federal law.
[Read More]

In United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 196 Cal.App.4th 57 (June 2, 2011), a group of employee-drivers filed thirty-two coordinated actions against their employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), alleging that they were not provided meal and rest breaks by UPS, among other violations, in accordance with California law. The plaintiffs sought compensation pursuant to Labor Code section 226.7, which provides:
[Read More]