By Jeremy K. Robinson, CaseyGerry – The Los Angeles Daily Journal
On July 29, in Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., S246490 the California Supreme Court announced the test for class “ascertainability” under California law: a class is ascertainable when it “defines the class in terms of objective characteristics and common transactional facts that make the ultimate identification of class members possible when that identification becomes necessary.”
By Jeremy K. Robinson, CaseyGerry – The Los Angeles Daily Journal
On July 3, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals shook the world of online commerce. In Oberdorf v. Amazon.com,
In 1983, Richard Gerry argued an aviation case before the United States Supreme Court. That was before I was born.
I started as a lawyer with Casey Gerry in 2011, a few months before the terrible September 16, 2011 Reno Air Show crash which killed the aircraft pilot and 10 spectators, injuring 69 more.
By Jeremy K. Robinson and David S. Casey, Jr., CaseyGerry – The Los Angeles Daily Journal
The financial crisis of the late 2000s, aka the “Great Recession,” was supposed to be a wake-up call that the nation’s big financial institutions were out of control.
By Adam B. Levine, CaseyGerry – The Los Angeles Daily Journal
New laws hitting the books this year are far-reaching and cover the environment, eating out, gun safety, employment law, driving and much more.
By Frederick Schenk, CaseyGerry – As Published in Living Safer Magazine
A high stakes class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of former players against the National Football League has raised awareness about the dangers associated with multiple concussions, including the potential for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease.
By Adam B. Levine, CaseyGerry – The Daily Transcript
New year, new laws…as we begin 2019, consumers should be aware of new legislation going into effect in California this year.
By Jeremy K. Robinson, CaseyGerry — as Published in the Daily Journal
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed both the critical importance – and difficulty – of defining the product market in antitrust cases.
