|
|
|
Govt asks justices to stay out of immigration case
Legal Topics |
2011/11/11 17:36
|
The Justice Department on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a lawsuit involving Arizona's immigration law, saying lower courts properly blocked tough provisions targeting illegal immigrants.
The state law is a challenge to federal policy and is designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, the department's solicitor general said in a filing with the justices. Arizona says the law is an effort to cooperate with the federal government.
One provision requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally. In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of that and other key provisions in the Arizona law.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to overturn the judge's decision and wants Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that the issues are of compelling, nationwide importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court likely to overturn Calif. law on livestock
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/10 17:39
|
The Supreme Court seemed ready Wednesday to block a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation's food system.
The court heard an appeal from the National Meat Association, which wants a 2009 state law blocked from going into effect. California barred the purchase, sale and butchering of animals that can't walk and required slaughterhouses under the threat of fines and jail time to immediately kill nonambulatory animals.
But justices said that encroached on federal laws that don't require immediate euthanizing.
"The federal law does not require me immediately to go over and euthanize the cow. Your law does require me to go over and immediately euthanize the cow. And therefore, your law seems an additional requirement in respect to the operations of a federally inspected meatpacking facility," Justice Stephen Breyer told a California lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/10 17:39
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (CV 11 5399 RS) filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010 through and including November 4, 2011 (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased DMND securities during the Class Period, you have until January 6, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its earnings by improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers; (2) the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business would be delayed; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif high court hears debate over worker breaks
Headline Legal News |
2011/11/09 16:57
|
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion.
The case was initially filed eight years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by chain restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.
The case has generated immense interest among labor-law lawyers and a variety of industries grappling with defining responsibilities for meal and rest periods.
Lawyers for the workers argue that not ordering the breaks is a passive way to take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues at busy times.
Brinker's attorney countered that requiring businesses to control the breaks of workers is unmanageable and that taking such breaks should be left to the discretion of employees.
The court's decision is due in 90 days, with the resolution possibly worth millions of dollars to lawyers and companies enmeshed in class-action lawsuits hinging on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saxena White P.A. Files a Securities Fraud Class Action
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/08 17:17
|
Saxena White P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited common stock on the New York Stock Exchange between April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive.
The action charges Agnico-Eagle and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company concealed material adverse problems present at its Goldex Mine which eventually forced the Company to shut down the mine and write off a $260 million investment in the mine.
On October 19, 2011, Agnico-Eagle issued a press release titled, "Agnico-Eagle's Goldex mine to suspend production during investigation and remediation of water inflow and ground stability issue; book value of Goldex to be written off." The Company announced that it was suspending mining operations and gold production at its Goldex mine in Val d'Or, Quebec effective immediately. This unexpected closure forced Company to take a $260 million write off of its investment. This news shocked the market, resulting in an 18.54% decline in the value of Agnico-Eagle's stock on October 19th after the news was revealed. On that day, the shares of Agnico-Eagle closed at $46.51, down $10.59, on unusually high New York Stock Exchange volume.
You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. If you purchased the shares of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited between the period of April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.
If you purchased Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited during the Class Period of April 29, 2010 and October 19, 2011, inclusive, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than January 6, 2012. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
www.saxenawhite.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court looks at warrantless GPS tracking
Areas of Focus |
2011/11/08 17:17
|
The Supreme Court has expressed deep reservations about police use of GPS technology to track criminal suspects without a warrant.
But the justices appeared unsettled Tuesday about how or whether to regulate GPS tracking and other high-tech surveillance techniques.
The court heard arguments in the Obama administration's appeal of a court ruling that threw out a drug conspiracy conviction because FBI agents and local police did not have a valid search warrant when they installed a GPS device on the defendant's car and collected travel information.
The justices were taken aback when the lawyer representing the government said police officers could install GPS devices on the justices' cars and track their movements without a warrant.
The court has previously ruled there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds conviction in Pa. murder case
Legal Topics |
2011/11/08 17:17
|
The Supreme Court used its first opinion of the new term on Tuesday to uphold the murder conviction of a man in a Pennsylvania grocery store shooting.
The high court on Tuesday upheld Eric Greene's conviction in the 1993 shooting death of the owner of a grocery store in North Philadelphia.
Greene had complained that the confessions of some of the men who were with him at the time of the shooting should not have been introduced at his trial since they were not testifying. The introduction of those redacted confessions violated his right to confront his accusers, Greene said.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided a similar case in 1998 that would have supported Greene's claim.
The Supreme Court, which heard arguments on this case in October, unanimously agreed with the lower court. The 1998 decision in Gray v. Maryland came after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Greene's case, noted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the term's first opinion of an argued case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
