Rushing McCarl has asked the California Supreme Court to resolve a longstanding disagreement about which orders can be appealed under the collateral order doctrine.
Last week, Rushing McCarl LLP filed a first-in-the-nation putative class action complaint against the makers of the popular Stanley tumbler cups for the company’s failure to disclose that its products contain lead.
When an executive was sued by her former employer for misappropriating trade secrets, she turned the tables by hiring aggressive business litigation boutique Rushing McCarl LLP.
California law has long disfavored or barred noncompetition agreements. Courts have struck down such agreements made with out-of-state employers and voided overbroad confidentiality agreements that amounted to noncompetition agreements. A new law has further strengthened the state’s policy.
Rushing McCarl filed one of the earliest cryptocurrency fraud cases: the matter of Chavez v. Jordan- Jones, Case. Chavez and Rushing McCarl were featured this week in a Forbes article.
Yesterday, managing partner John Rushing of Rushing McCarl LLP argued on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe in the important Ninth Circuit case Doe v. Compania Panamena de Aviacion (Case No. 21-55983). Yesterday’s oral argument illustrates why Rushing, who has a background in entertainment, is one of the premier oral advocates in the nation.
Briefing is complete in the important Ninth Circuit aviation-law case Doe v. Compania Panamena de Aviacion. Rushing McCarl LLP represents a passenger who was sexually assaulted on a Copa Airlines flight. The assault occurred because Copa allowed a felon who was fleeing the United States to board the plane, then did nothing to stop the assault once it was underway.
In Cruise LLC et al v. Ford Motor Company, No. 3:21-cv-05685 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2021), two automobile companies butted heads over this trademark infringement.
The Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez tightened standing requirements for consumer class actions.