Carlton Fields

In Hejamadi v. Midland Funding LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, on remand from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed whether the defendants waived their rights to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ putative class action claims alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The financial service industry has been on a quest to automate processes for some time. Many computer processes work without much human interaction, if any at all. However, because there are still many processes performed by hand and keyed in after the fact, there are still errors. In the quest for efficiency, accuracy, and transparency, blockchain may be the next big thing.

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Siples v. BR Exploration – Daubert, causation testimony, toxic exposure - Lozman...

In a defined benefit plan, participants usually accrue a monthly benefit based on a formula that typically considers their last three years’ salary before retirement and years of service with their employer. For example, the formula might read 2% of your average W-2 compensation for the last three years before retirement, for every year of service up to 35 years. The maximum defined benefit under this formula would be 35 years times 2%. This would yield 70% of their average final three years of compensation. For a single person retiring at the end of 2024 with a pay of $110,000 in 2024, $100,000 in 2023, and $90,000 in 2022, the final three-year average would be the sum of these three numbers, $300,000 divided by three, which equals $100,000. With 35 years of credited service, that individual would receive 70% of $100,000 as a benefit or an annual pension of $70,000 per year. When a participant reaches retirement age, the promised benefit is paid out monthly until his or her death.

Ga v. Shafer - elections, federal officer removal, pretrial habeas Ga v. Clark - elections, federal officer removal, special purpose grand jury, federal question

Keeping the season spooky for data brokers, the enforcement division of the California Privacy Protection Agency announced on October 30, 2024, that...

The arbitration award stemmed from the pro se complaint of Joseph Ruzindana for wrongful termination against his former employer, FCA US. In the...

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Schleider v. GVDB Operations - removal, remand, federal officer - USA v....

Penn State recently agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle allegations of False Claims Act violations related to its cybersecurity controls after a...

In Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama addressed whether, under Alabama law, “reinsurance falls within the limited category of insurance agreements to which the tort of bad faith applies.” The case involved claims brought by plaintiff Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. (AMIC), a nonprofit joint insurance company owned by several municipalities, against its reinsurer Munich Reinsurance America Inc. AMIC obtained contracts for reinsurance from Munich under which Munich covered and would be responsible for paying a portion of claims received by AMIC that exceeded a base amount noted in the reinsurance contracts. AMIC alleged that Munich wrongfully declined reinsurance coverage for the full amount due under five separate insurance claims submitted to AMIC, and Munich underpaid the claims by approximately $1.9 million.