June 2013

During the recent 2013 Regular Session, the Louisiana Legislature passed a sweeping tax amnesty bill (House Bill 456). The bill provides amnesty for virtually all Louisiana state taxes and will be available to taxpayers through a series of specified amnesty periods in 2013, 2014, and 2015, with benefits decreasing in each of the amnesty periods.…

The Fair Labor Standards Act turns 75 today, June 25. The FLSA is a depression-era piece of legislation. Through the FLSA, Congress intended to raise working conditions and spur hiring.  Congress sought to do this by prohibiting child labor, establishing a minimum wage, and requiring payment of a premium for hours worked over a particular…

Through House Bill 589 of the 2013 Regular Session, the Louisiana legislature amended article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, as of August 1, 2013, requires additional legwork by practitioners who seek to obtain a ruling or dismissal by summary judgment. The new rule requires the moving party to formally admit its evidence into the record for the purposes of that particular summary judgment motion. Thus, unlike in years past, the practitioner may no longer rely upon evidence “on file” in the record or evidence simply attached to the motion itself. Even under the 2012 amendments with similar language to HB589, at least one circuit recently held that the movant must formally admit its evidence in support of the motion at the hearing on the motion.

Article 966(B)(2) now states in pertinent part:

(2) The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (underlined language is added by HB589).Continue Reading Louisiana Legislature Amends Article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure Requiring Additional Legwork by Practitioners Seeking Summary Judgment

A few weeks ago, in a piece entitled “Thorny Roses: Interns and Potential Wage Liability”, I wrote about PBS talk show host, Charlie Rose, and his production company’s $250,000 settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by a former unpaid intern who claimed minimum-wage violations. On Monday, the assault against unpaid internships continued when a…

The question as to whether isolated strands of human DNA are patent eligible subject matter has finally been answered. The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc (1), on Thursday, June 13, 2013. Confirming what many patent practitioners anticipated, the Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and therefore is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because it has been isolated. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the Court ruled that complementary DNA (cDNA), which is synthetically constructed from a DNA segment by removing the introns (the non-coding DNA segments in a gene), can constitute patent eligible subject matter because the cDNA is not naturally occurring. It is important to note that this carved-out exception protects universities, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other research institutions; without the carved-out exception, the ability for such entities to recuperate resources devoted to research and development may have been lost.
Continue Reading You Can’t Patent My DNA: A brief on Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Traditionally, a party seeking injunctive relief from the courts bears the burden of proving four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and (4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest.  See Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Guidry, 724 F. Supp. 2d 612 (W.D. La. July 12, 2010); Mississippi Power & Light v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 760 F. 2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985).  Due to the first element – a substantial likelihood of success on the merits – a court that is asked to rule upon a request for injunctive relief in effect pre-judges the entire case.  Although in most cases this is not problematic (and can potentially lead to the matter being resolved without the need for a full trial on the merits), the presence of a mandatory arbitration clause in the parties’ contract can lead to problems.Continue Reading If a Contract Includes a Mandatory Arbitration Clause, the Parties Should be Aware that Injunctive Relief from the Courts can be Available Without the Necessity of Satisfying the Traditional Four-Element Test

The Kean Miller Connection is a free, two-day law school preparatory program for college students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession.  Attorneys from Kean Miller  along with other legal instructors, provide an intense overview of the law school experience. The goal of the program is to "connect" students with information helpful…

PBS talk show host, Charlie Rose, and his production company recently agreed to pay as much as $250,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by a former unpaid intern who claimed minimum-wage violations under New York State labor laws.

The Complaint, brought on behalf of a potential class of 189 interns, alleged that The Charlie Rose Show used unpaid interns to perform background research to prepare Rose for guest interviews, escort guests through the studio and set, break down the set, and clean up after each taping. The Complaint also alleged that unlawful unpaid internships are prevalent in white collar professions, “especially in fields like politics, film, fashion, journalism and book publishing.”

So, how can an employer avoid Charlie’s folly when bringing on interns?Continue Reading Thorny Roses: Interns and Potential Wage Liability