06.20.18
On September 23, 2016, the California Legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, Assembly Bill 72 (AB 72 or the Act), creating a new regime for the regulation of “surprise bills.”
In an increasing number of cases, courts have used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) to certify classes seeking injunctive and declaratory relief that includes, among other things, an injunction ordering the defendant to “reprocess” past claims for healthcare benefits.
A putative class action plaintiff may not launch a new class action lawsuit after an earlier court denies class certification if the applicable statute of limitations has run, says the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling in China Agritech v. Resh.
As the President nominates the virtually unknown Kathy Kraninger as Director, the Acting Director gets a reprieve while taking a wrecking ball to the status quo at the agency formerly known as the CFPB.
As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) withdraws from enforcement, activity continues in the courts and with certain other regulators.
Federal efforts to reduce the restrictions placed on cannabis businesses that operate legally under state law are picking up, with new legislation proposed and indications from the administration that it will let states take the lead with regard to enforcement.
A payday lender in South Dakota scored a victory in its lawsuit against the state’s banking regulator when a federal court judge agreed that the South Dakota Division of Banking exceeded its authority by revoking the plaintiff’s operating licenses.
How will digital innovations impact the financial system? Speaking at the Decoding Digital Currency Conference sponsored by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lael Brainard discussed cryptocurrencies, digital currencies and distributed ledger technologies.
06.18.18
A Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim based on the failure to provide and maintain accurate wage statements as required by the California Labor Code does not require proof of injury, a California appellate panel has ruled.