Jeffery Wheat on LinkedIn: Bafford v. Admin Comm Northrop Grumman Pension Plan (2024)

Multiple choice: A) The law applies equally to all, regardless of status or power.B) Let justice be done though the heavens fall.C) A contract must be fair & equitable to all parties involved.D) The truth will emerge, no matter how well it is hidden.#commerciallitigation #businessdispute #transactions

This content isn’t available here

Access this content and more in the LinkedIn app

Hint: “To state a prima facie case for employment discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff must prove that (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified, with or without a reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job he seeks; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. Braunling v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 220 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000).”

This content isn’t available here

Access this content and more in the LinkedIn app

1

Big #CopyrightLaw case! 🎵 📜 In Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, the Supreme Court considered the Copyright Act's statute of limitations & #Damages provisions. 🧐 #IntellectualPropertyLaws considered:- 17 U.S.C. §507(b) - 3-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims- 17 U.S.C. §504 - damages and profits provisions📝 The case involved Sherman Nealy, who sued Warner Chappell Music in 2018 for infringing his copyrights going back to 2008. Nealy argued his claims were timely under the "discovery rule," where the 3-year clock starts when the plaintiff discovers the infringement.📅 Back in 1983, Sherman Nealy & Tony Butler formed Music Specialist, Inc., which recorded & released one album & several singles. However, their collaboration ended a few years later, & Nealy went to prison for drug-related offenses from 1989-2008 & 2012-2015.🎤 Unbeknownst to Nealy, Butler entered into an agreement with Warner Chappell Music to license works from the Music Specialist catalog. Warner Chappell then licensed these works to various artists & television shows, including:- Flo Rida's hit song "In the Ayer" (interpolating "Jam the Box") 🎧- Black Eyed Peas and Kid Sister recordings 🎶- "So You Think You Can Dance" television show 📺💼 In 2018, after his release from prison, Nealy sued Warner Chappell for copyright infringement, claiming he held the copyrights to Music Specialist's songs. He sought damages & profits for the alleged infringements dating back to 2008 (10 years before filing suit). #InfringementClaims⏰ Nealy argued that his claims were timely under the "discovery rule," asserting that he only learned of Warner Chappell's infringing conduct in 2016, less than three years before he filed the lawsuit. #DiscoveryRuleThe key facts in this case revolve around the ownership of the copyrights, the alleged infringing activities, & the timing of when Nealy discovered the infringements. These factors played a crucial role in determining the applicability of the discovery rule & the extent of damages available. 🗝️ ⚖️ The Court assumed the discovery rule applied & held that a copyright owner can recover damages for ANY timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. There is no separate 3-year limit on damages. #Claim #Infringement🏆 This decision is a pretty significant win for copyright holders! It means they can potentially recover damages for infringements occurring more than 3 years before filing suit, as long as they didn't discover the infringement until within the 3-year window. #CopyrightOwners #MonetaryRelief💰 Under §504, copyright holders can seek either actual damages & the infringer's profits, or statutory damages for timely claims.The Warner Chappell decision provides clarity on the scope of monetary relief available for older infringements & reinforces the value of the discovery rule for copyright plaintiffs. 👍

10

1 Comment

Hint from State v. Deer “We generally consider a crime to be made up of two parts: (1) the actus reus and (2) the mens rea. State v. Eaton, 168 Wash.2d 476, 480, 229 P.3d 704 (2010).”

This content isn’t available here

Access this content and more in the LinkedIn app

4

1 Comment

A Latin brocard found in Roman law but defined by Sir Edward co*ke; read R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) to learn more.

This content isn’t available here

Access this content and more in the LinkedIn app

2

Big win today. 🏆 So big. Career highlight. 🤫 #ineededthat #haventsleptindays #EntrepreneurLegalSupportSeattle

5

🚨 The U.S. has partially intervened in a whistleblower lawsuit against Study Across the Pond, LLC & its CEO John Borhaug. 📜 The complaint alleges:👉 The defendants violated the False Claims Act by knowingly causing foreign universities to pay them incentive compensation for recruiting U.S. students receiving federal aid, in violation of the Higher Education Act. 🎓💰👉 To hide these payments, the defendants advised universities to execute sham contracts, withhold information from auditors, & make false statements to the Dept. of Education. 🙈🤐👉 As a result, the universities submitted false claims & false statements to obtain tens of millions in federal student aid. 💸The U.S. seeks treble damages & penalties under the #FalseClaims Act & recovery under unjust enrichment. The case is pending in the District of Massachusetts. 🏛️#WhistleblowerLaw #Fraud #FederalAid #Compliance #Lawsuit #ContractDisputeLawyerSeattle

4

A Procedural Tour De Force! False Statements Cost Attorneys Big in Robinhood Class Action 🤥💸 #RobinhoodCase #CR11SanctionsThe laws applied by Division III in this case:1. Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.86 RCW2. Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), chapter 19.190 RCW, specifically RCW 19.190.060(1) & RCW 19.190.070(1)(b) 3. RCW 4.84.250 - the minor claims statute allowing attorney fees to prevailing party4. RCW 4.84.185 - the frivolous claim statute allowing attorney fees for frivolous actions5. CR 11 - court rule on signing pleadings allowing sanctions for filings not well grounded in fact or law6. CR 41 - court rule regarding voluntary dismissals7. Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.3(a)(1) prohibiting lawyers from making false statements to a tribunal8. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005)Factual Synopsis & Procedural History:Isaac Gordon filed a class action lawsuit in Washington state court against Robinhood Financial, LLC, alleging Robinhood's refer-a-friend text messaging practices violated the CPA & CEMA. Robinhood removed the case to federal court (Eastern District) under the CAFA.During discovery, it was revealed that Gordon received the text message at issue from the brother of one of his attorneys, & that Gordon & two of his attorneys had manufactured the claim. Gordon & his attorneys tried to hide this through false & misleading statements.Once this was uncovered, Gordon voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Robinhood moved for the dismissal to be with prejudice. The federal court dismissed Gordon as class representative, decertified the class, & remanded Gordon's individual claim to state court (Spokane County) finding it lacked jurisdiction since the claim was "frivolous from the start." 🙄Back in state court, the judge initially granted Gordon's ex parte motion to dismiss without prejudice. On reconsideration, the court dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for the frivolous claim & litigation misconduct. 🤕Robinhood moved for attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250, RCW 4.84.185, & CR 11. The trial court awarded nearly $750,000 in fees on all three grounds. 💰 💰 💰On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that (1) RCW 4.84.250 does not apply to class actions, even if the class rep's individual claim is small; (2) Gordon's claim was not frivolous under RCW 4.84.185; but (3) CR 11 sanctions were warranted for the false statements & claim manufacturing. The court remanded for the trial judge to determine a sanction amount necessary to deter future misconduct. ⚖️

8