Ohio Supreme Court Holds Municipal “Fracking” Regulations Cannot Conflict with State Rules

sboxermanFeatured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy

by Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP, with Katharine Newman, Sidley Austin LLP

Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court weighed in on the battle being waged between state and local governments over oil and gas development, ruling that Ohio cities and municipalities may not use home rule to regulate oil and gas operations if local regulations directly conflict with Ohio state law. The decision represents a significant victory for the oil and gas industry and is likely to serve as important precedent in disputes raising similar issues in other states.

In State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., the court ruled 4-3 that Munroe Falls’ ordinances, enacted between 1980 and 1995, were in direct conflict with Ohio’s 2004 law, R.C. 1509, which provides statewide, uniform regulation of oil and gas operations. R.C. 1509 preserves local regulation over public spaces and permit authority for heavy traffic, but expressly prohibits a local government from using its powers to impede or obstruct oil and gas activity. Continue reading

Five Lessons: Ninth Circuit Upholds Decision to Block Idaho Healthcare Merger

amurinoFeatured Expert Column – Antitrust/Federal Trade Commission

Andrea Agathoklis Murino, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati*

On February 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling blocking the merger of St. Luke’s Health Systems, Ltd. (St. Luke’s) and Saltzer Medical Group (Saltzer), and handed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) yet another victory in its efforts to halt consolidation in the healthcare sector.  This opinion is instructive both because of what it reveals on the macro-level about merger review today, and for what it may portend in future healthcare consolidation cases. Continue reading

New Jersey High Court Confirms Proper Test for Defining “Independent Contractor”

body_TabakmanMEGuest Commentary

by Mark E. Tabakman, Fox Rothschild LLP

A November 2014 I authored for Washington Legal Foundation, New Jersey Supreme Court Set to Rule on Definition of “Independent Contractor”, analyzed questions that had been certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court on whether an individual was an independent contractor under New Jersey wage-hour laws. My reading of the tea leaves was that the Court would adopt the test already engrafted into the New Jersey Unemployment Law. That is in fact what the Court did.

On January 14, 2015, the Court in Hargrove v Sleepy’s, LLC (“Hargrove”) (Dkt. No. A-70-12) resolved the issue of when an individual may be properly classified as an independent contractor under the New Jersey Wage Payment Act (“WPA”) and the New Jersey Wage Hour Law (“WHL”) and held that the “ABC” test governs. Under the ABC test, services performed by an individual are deemed to be employment unless the following is shown:

(a) that the individual has been and will continue to be free from control…;

(b) that the services provided are either outside the usual course of business…or performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise…; and,

(c) that the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

The Court noted that both of New Jersey’s wage and hour laws neither defined “employee” or “independent contractor” nor set forth the standards to be utilized in such analyses. The Court then examined the plain language of the laws and the implementing regulations of both laws, and concluded that deference should be given to the position of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”), as it was the Agency charged with interpreting and enforcing these laws. On that basis, the Court concluded that the same test, under both laws, should be utilized to determine whether or not an employment relationship existed.

In holding that the ABC test governs, the Court rejected the common law “right to control” test and the “economic realities” test because the “right to control” test, as the Court noted, is incompatible with the legislature’s goal of ensuring economic security and the “economic realities” test, as the Court noted, could lead to inconsistent results.

By requiring that each element be satisfied, the ABC test (which NJDOL supports and utilizes) facilitated, as the Court explained, “greater income security” for workers—the underlying purpose of both laws at issue. The ABC test presumes that an employment relationship exists and places the burden on the employer to prove differently. The last prong (i.e. independently established business), is where the issue is joined most of the time and where (often) most of the cases flounder for the putative employer. Accordingly, the Hargrove decision has decidedly and emphatically increased the coverage and protection of New Jersey’s wage and hour laws in favor of “employees.”

Businesses in New Jersey that presently utilize or are considering use of independent contractors would be well advised to work with experienced employment counsel to ensure compliance with the Court’s holding.

Seventh Circuit Sheds Light on Foreign Reach of Federal Antitrust Laws

Dugan_Brady-WEB135AlfanoFeatured Expert Contributor – Antitrust & Competition, U.S. Department of Justice

Sitting in for Featured Expert Contributor Mark J. Botti on this post are Squire Patton Boggs partner J. Brady Dugan and associate Peter C. Alfano, both in the firm’s DC office.

Whether U.S. antitrust laws reach wholly foreign conduct is a question that has been addressed by all levels of the federal court system over the past decade, including by the U.S. Supreme Court.1 Nevertheless, it is a question as to which many companies, in the U.S. and abroad, may feel there is not a clear answer. Consider, for example, a corporation that purchases a product in the U.S. that was finished or assembled overseas. If the finished product includes a component that the assembler purchased at a price that had been inflated by an overseas price-fixing conspiracy among the component manufactures, can the U.S. purchaser of the finished product sue the component seller in U.S. court for treble damages? Can the overseas assembler recover damages from the overseas component manufacturer in the U.S.? Or to put it another way, can a foreign corporation that manufactured and sold a product overseas, to an overseas assembler, be sued for price-fixing in the U.S. by a U.S. customer of the foreign assembler? It will come as no surprise that the answers to these questions are very fact-specific. But recently, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision that helps clarify the law. Continue reading

WLF Developments You May Have Missed During the Holidays

new yearHere’s some things you may have missed from Washington Legal Foundation during the December 2014 holidays season.

WLF Amicus Briefs:

  • King v. Burwell (On December 29, 2014, WLF asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that, if upheld, would allow IRS to appropriate billions of dollars a year without authorization from Congress.)
  • In re: Deepwater Horizon (On December 24, 2014, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, urging it to remove the court-appointed Claims Administrator who evaluates all claims filed by those seeking to recover economic losses suffered as a result of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. )

WLF Publications

WLF Legal Pulse Posts

Struggle over Federal Environmental Law Preemption of Public Nuisance Suits Heats Up in Kentucky

faulkFeatured Expert Column − Complex Serial and Mass Tort Litigation

by Richard O. Faulk, Hollingsworth LLP*

It’s been a long wait for those who believe the federal Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance claims under state common law.

When the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Connecticut v. American Electric Power in 2011, it refused to rule on the preemption issue—leaving the question for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to resolve on remand.1 Before that could happen, however, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints—and the opportunity vanished.2

When a federal district court granted dismissal of a public nuisance claim in Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, the opportunity rose again. Hopes were high that the Third Circuit would affirm the dismissal, but alas, the court reversed. Nevertheless, the case rose to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. Numerous amicus curiae briefs were submitted to support the petition, but the Supreme Court denied review. Many were left wondering whether the Supreme Court’s remand of the issue in AEP truly reflected the Court’s interest in the issue—or whether it was simply a matter of appellate housekeeping. Continue reading

A Key Ruling for Food Labeling Class Action Defendants Issued on “Reasonable Consumer” Standard

Smith_JamesGuest Commentary

by James D. Smith, Bryan Cave LLP

In what seems likely to become a defining case on appeal, Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh granted summary judgment this week in a long-running food labeling class action. The plaintiff in Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK (N.D. Cal.), alleges that 10 Dole products are misbranded because their labels say the products contain “All Natural Fruit.” Mr. Brazil contends this is false because the products contain ascorbic acid (commonly known as Vitamin C) and citric acid (found in citrus). Both of those ingredients, of course, are naturally occurring compounds; many food manufacturers add them because of their natural preservative effects. The 10 products include diced apples, pears, oranges, and grapefruit packed in juice. For the past two years, Mr. Brazil and his counsel have pressed this litigation, alleging that the product labels somehow deceived him because neither he nor any other reasonable consumer would believe that fruit packed in juice contains Vitamin C or citric acid.

The procedural history is long, but readers interested in food labeling class actions in the Northern District of California may want to review Judge Koh’s earlier substantive rulings. By the time she granted summary judgment on December 8, Judge Koh had narrowed the case to a single injunction class. As an aside, Judge Koh’s November 6, 2014, order decertifying the damages class nicely shows why a hedonic damages regression analysis—which many food labeling class action plaintiffs try to rely on to show class-wide damages—isn’t feasible in these types of cases. This most recent ruling in Brazil is noteworthy because it explains that a named plaintiff’s subjective interpretation of a label isn’t sufficient to meet the burden of proving that the label is likely to mislead consumers under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).

Granting summary judgment, Judge Koh concluded “there is insufficient evidence that the ‘All Natural Fruit’ label statement on the challenged Dole products was likely to mislead reasonable consumers and that the label statements were therefore unlawful on that basis.” That plaintiff did not attempt to use consumer surveys to establish that the labeling statements could mislead a significant portion of the public or of targeted consumers. Instead, he relied on informal FDA statements that “natural” means nothing artificial or synthetic “has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.” (Emphasis added.) As we’ll see, that plaintiff’s failure to establish that consumers would not normally expect ascorbic acid or citric acid to be in the food doomed his claims. Continue reading