General – Duane Morris Appellate Review

March 3, 2023 by Duane Morris

California Court of Appeal Allows Good Faith Defense for Wage Statement Disputes

In a significant victory for California employers, the state Court of Appeal issued a decision on February 27, 2023, that provides them with a defense to wage statement penalties recoverable under Labor Code § 226 when they can show a “good faith” belief in their compliance with the Labor Code. See Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (Feb. 27, 2023 Second District, Div. Four No. B256232) __Cal.App.5th __. Note: Duane Morris was counsel for the defendant in this appellate case.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

October 5, 2022 by Duane Morris

Second Circuit Trump Ruling Is a Tale of Two Statutory Interpretations

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, or Westfall Act, amended the Federal Tort Claims Act to extend absolute immunity from personal tort liability to “any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”

Until recently, no federal court had squarely addressed whether the U.S. president is an employee of the government for purposes of the Westfall Act. This question of statutory interpretation controlled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent split decision in Carroll v. Trump.

The majority opinion in Carroll answered the question affirmatively, while the dissent disagreed. Remarkably, both opinions purported to apply the same tools of statutory interpretation to reach these disparate conclusions.

To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys David McTaggart and Kevin Savarese, which was originally published in Law360, please visit the firm website.

June 14, 2022 by Duane Morris

Andrew R. Sperl Appointed Co-Vice Chair of Pennsylvania Bar Association Appellate Advocacy Committee

Duane Morris LLP partner Andrew R. Sperl has been appointed as a co-vice chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Appellate Advocacy Committee. The committee promotes communication and cooperation between lawyers who practice before the state and federal appellate courts and members of the judiciary, and provides the opportunity to identify and address the means to achieving quality practice in all manner of appeals. It seeks to enhance the knowledge and professional capability of lawyers through focused educational programs. The committee also fosters dialogue between the bench and the bar, explores means and methods to improve and advance the appellate process, and may review and make recommendations concerning the rules of procedure that affect the appellate process.

To read the full text of this press release, please visit the firm website.

May 4, 2022 by Duane Morris

Clerk’s Annual Report for the Court of Appeals

The 2021 Annual Report of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, John Asiello, to the Judges of the Court summarizing the work and accomplishments of the court during calendar year 2021 was recently released. It is his last, as he has announced his retirement. As with his prior reports, and those of his predecessors, it is a document crammed full of information that will be of interest not only to appellate practitioners and dedicated court watchers, but to anyone seeking to learn the role and operation of our state’s highest tribunal.

To read the full text of this article co-authored by Duane Morris attorney Thomas R. Newman, originally published in the New York Law Journal, please visit the firm website.

January 5, 2022 by Duane Morris

The Concept of Appealability

Appealability” is a threshold jurisdictional consideration that incorporates a requirement of “appealable paper” and relates to the issue of whether a direct appeal, either as of right or by permission, may be taken to the Appellate Division from the judgment or order in question. Judging by the volume of decisions dismissing appeals on the court’s own motion for lack of appealability, practitioners often overlook it before embarking upon the time and expense of an appeal.

To read the full text of this article co-authored by Duane Morris attorney Thomas R. Newman, originally published in the New York Law Journal, please visit the firm website.

December 30, 2021 by Duane Morris

Pennsylvania Court Rules Business Registration Does Not Grant General Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations

On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down a landmark ruling on personal jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Before this decision, the controlling rule had been that foreign corporations subject themselves to general personal jurisdiction by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. In Mallory, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed that rule and held that a foreign corporation’s registration to do business does not confer general personal jurisdiction over the corporation.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

December 28, 2021February 4, 2022 by Duane Morris

Update: In Recent Wave of COVID-19 Business Interruption Decisions in Federal Appeals, Carriers Enjoy Unanimous Success

Recently, we began to see real decisions being made by the appellate courts on COVID-19 Business Interruption issues. The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have established a uniformly favorable trend for insurance carriers – these courts have affirmed the district court decisions that have ruled in favor of the insurers, and in one case, the Sixth Circuit vacated a district court’s decision that ruled in favor of the policyholder. Since our original blog post on this issue in October, this trend continued in December with a Tenth Circuit decision.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Max H. Stern & Holden Benon, please visit the Duane Morris Insurance and Reinsurance Blog.

November 20, 2021January 10, 2022 by Duane Morris

Insurers Win on COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

The first California state appellate decision on COVID-19 Business Interruption coverage is now in the books, and it’s one more victory for insurers. In The Inns by the Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. D079036 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Nov. 15, 2021), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District found there was no coverage, notwithstanding the absence of a virus exclusion in the relevant policy. The court’s 36-page opinion provides a thorough and careful analysis of several important COVID-19-related business interruption issues.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Max H. Stern and Holden Benon, please visit the Duane Morris Insurance Law Blog.

November 3, 2021 by Duane Morris

Ethical Considerations on Appeal

Most New York attorneys are familiar with Part §130, Costs and Sanctions, of the Rules of the Chief Administrator which requires that every pleading, written motion and other paper served on another party or filed or submitted to the court be signed by an attorney whose signature certifies that attorney’s good faith, informed belief that “the contentions therein are not frivolous.” 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(a). The intent of Part 130.1 is “to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics.” Kernisan v. Taylor, 171 A.D.2d 869 (2d Dept. 1999).

Regrettably, some attorneys do not understand that their ethical obligations do not come to an end when an appealable order or judgment is entered against their client in the trial court. Part 130 and the discretionary monetary sanctions it authorizes the court to impose-up to $10,000 for any single occurrence of frivolous conduct-also applies to motions and briefs filed and submitted to an appellate court.

To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris of counsel Thomas R. Newman, please visit the firm website.

September 13, 2021 by Duane Morris

Motions for Reargument in the Court of Appeals

It is a fundamental tenet of our system of jurisprudence that there must be an end to lawsuits. The law recognizes that “it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation.” Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116, 118 (1956). This principle pervades the judicial attitude toward motions for reargument, which were aptly described almost 70 years ago in Cohen & Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals (rev. ed 1952), at page 694. “A motion for reargument is generally an act of desperation; it is a psychological device for raising hopes which are almost invariably doomed to defeat. The percentage of cases in which a motion for reargument has been granted in the Court of Appeals is very low—unquestionably less than one out of one hundred.”

Nothing has changed. The 2019 Annual Report of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals contains a table showing that during the period 2015-2019 of 131 motions for reargument of appeals, none was granted; of 317 motions for reargument of motions, only one was granted. (2019 Report, Appendix 7).

To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorney Thomas R. Newman, please visit the firm website.