In this episode of In That Case, Shook attorney Henry Adams discusses Ohio v. EPA, a case examining the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act and its regulation of interstate pollution through the Good Neighbor Rule. The conversation explores the legal and procedural challenges surrounding the EPA’s rejection of multiple state implementation plans (SIPs) and the subsequent federal implementation plan (FIP) and the broader implications for administrative law and agency power. The hosts break down key arguments from the majority and dissenting opinions, highlighting the complexities of regulatory decision-making and judicial oversight.

Case: Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Henry Adams.

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

In this episode of In That Case, Kansas City attorney Joseph Zaleski unpacks the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 administrative law decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court ruled that a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil administrative enforcement action seeking civil penalties violated the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. Joe explores the historical precedents, the public rights doctrine, and what this decision means for the future of administrative enforcement, particularly in environmental law and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement. Listen for an insightful discussion on how this ruling could reshape the scope of federal administrative enforcement in the future.

Case: SEC v. Jarkesy

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Joseph Zaleski.

Click here to learn more about Shook's Toxic Tort and Exposure Litigation practice.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

In this episode, Shook attorney, Edward Danielyan delves into the California Supreme Court's ruling in Quach v. Commerce Club, a case that redefines the boundaries of arbitration in employment disputes.

Case: Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc.

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Edward Danielyan.

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

In this episode, Shook attorney Edward Danielyan reports on the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Stein et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan et al., a False Claims Act lawsuit involving allegations of Medicare fraud through upcoding tactics. The analysis sheds light on whistleblower incentives, procedural nuances, and the implications for future qui tam actions.

Case: Marcia Stein, et al v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al, No. 22-15862 (9th Cir. 2024)  

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Edward Danielyan.

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

In this episode, Shook attorney, Henry Adams dives into Briskin v. Shopify, a Ninth Circuit case examining whether California courts have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit filed against Shopify, a Canada-based company, who allegedly violated California’s Consumer Privacy Act by failing to disclose the collection of data from California consumers. We explore the complexities of personal jurisdiction in the digital age, focusing on how back-end software companies like Shopify navigate legal challenges tied to data and state privacy laws.

Case: Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023)

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Henry Adams.

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

Shook Associate Polly Tran, together with other attorneys from the Orange County Office, take a brief look into the case of Thaler v. Hirshfeld. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming that artificial intelligence cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent. The court emphasized that the Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons and rejected arguments to expand this definition to include AI, leaving the possibility of amendment to Congress in the future.

Case: Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 558 F. Supp. 3d, 238 (E.D. Va. 2021).

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Polly Tran

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

Shook Associate Polly Tran, together with other attorneys from the Orange County Office, has brought attention to a case involving hiQ Labs versus LinkedIn, which centers around web scraping and the collection of data from public profiles on LinkedIn. Despite LinkedIn's efforts to prevent web scraping, the Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled in favor of hiQ Labs. They interpreted the phrase "without authorization" in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act narrowly, affirming the preliminary injunction against LinkedIn. This decision was based on the understanding that data on platforms like LinkedIn are publicly available, and the data scraping company utilized bots to gather information from LinkedIn.

Case: hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019)

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Polly Tran

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

Shook Orange County lawyers take a brief look into recent AI developments including the differences between traditional and generative AI. Shook Associate, Polly Tran, highlights a case where an appellant's use of fictitious AI-generated legal citations led to dismissal and sanctions by the Missouri Court of Appeals. The attorneys discuss the importance of adhering to court rules and the duty of candor, even when people represent themselves.

Case: Kruse v. Karlen, No. ED111172, Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District (Mo. App. E.D. Feb. 13, 2024).

Click here to learn more about Shook attorney Polly Tran

Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

In the fourth episode of “In That Case,” Shook's latest podcast series, Orange County lawyer Brandon Gilligan discusses Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.

This case is about a couple who faced exorbitant fines from the EPA for filling in a lake on their own land. Neighbors complained it was a protected wetland and notified the EPA. Let’s listen in as Shook lawyers discuss why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple. The United States Supreme Court, 21-454, May 25, 2023.

Click here to learn more about Brandon Gilligan.
Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com

Should an online retailer be responsible for the labeling of every product it sells? In our third episode of our podcast series In That Case, Shook attorney Tom Wynsma discusses with his colleagues, Lee v. Amazon, Inc., a Prop 65 case. Let’s listen to how the court made its decision impacting the world’s largest online retailer.

California Court of Appeal) 76 Cal.App.5th 200 (2022)

Click here to learn more about Tom Wynsma.
Click here to learn more about Shook's Orange County office.

Please follow us on social media at:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/shook-hardy-&-bacon/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2CCKQXQ2BCWaBr29mAwWiQ
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shookhardybacon/

www.shb.com