“The Court’s decision today has significant implications for civil and administrative procedure and will provide clarity to the lower courts and litigants on this important issue,” said John Hueston, who argued the case before the Supreme Court in November 2018. “We are thrilled with the result for our client.”
The question presented in the Supreme Court appeal was whether Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and mandatory claims-processing rules in general—were susceptible to equitable tolling. This question of first impression resulted in split rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeal.
The Hueston Hennigan team argued that Rule 23(f), which provides a party with 14 days from the entry of a class certification order to file a petition for permission to appeal with the court of appeals, is an emphatic and mandatory claim-processing rule that is not subject to judge-made exception. Hueston Hennigan further argued that the Ninth Circuit had improperly created “broad and unprecedented equitable exceptions” to excuse the plaintiff’s late 23(f) petition, by essentially nullifying Rule 23(f)’s deliberately narrow 14-day interlocutory appeal window. As Hueston Hennigan argued, Rule 23(f) was specifically crafted “to minimize the disruption and delay in the context of class action cases.”
This appeal arose after Hueston Hennigan successfully obtained class decertification at the district court, and Class Plaintiff/Appellee Lambert missed the deadline set forth in Rule 23(f), to file a petition for permission to appeal the order in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless found that Rule 23(f) was subject to equitable exceptions, and then applied those exceptions to excuse Lambert’s late filing and reverse the district court. Hueston Hennigan sought certiorari of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which the Supreme Court granted in June.
Nutraceutical was represented at the U.S. Supreme Court by John Hueston, Joseph Reiter and Michael Todisco.
See Law360 article, “Missed Appeal Deadline Can’t Be Extended, Justices Rule.”
See Law360 article, “Justices Weigh Missed Deadline In Nutraceutical False Ad Suit.”
The article highlight’s the firm’s handling of a “long-running saga of litigation involving media mogul Sumner Redstone, a trademark suit for Walt Disney subsidiaries, and a constitutional challenge to a California law on behalf of IMDb.”
Practice group leader Rob Klieger is optimistic about the future and expects the practice to keep growing. “We seem to have incredibly good fortune, in that for every case that concludes, we seem to have two more that come in,” he said.
“Our media and entertainment group fits really well into all the other practices that we have,” Moez Kaba said. “The foundational premise of our law firm was that we want to take on the most challenging, most interesting cases. … That’s been our drive.”
Click here to read article.
Hueston Hennigan is pleased to share its 2018 Year in Review.
Included in this report are highlights from our year: a selection of our work, cutting across practices and sectors; the national accolades we have received; and a brief overview of the incredible talent we welcomed in 2018.
Click here to read the full 2018 Year in Review report.
As noted in the Daily Journal, on Monday, February 4, 2019, Judge Mitchell L. Bekloff of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted Hueston Hennigan’s application for a preliminary injunction against a California state agency. The decision, in the closely watched case, holds that the pricing notifications to the state pursuant to California Senate Bill 17 are protectable trade secrets and may not be disclosed in response to a California Public Records Act request.
The Hueston Hennigan team included Moez M. Kaba, Varun Behl, and Samantha Schnier.
Click here to read full article. (Subscription required).
Additional recognitions include:
“Top Ten Lists for 10 Years or More”
– Brian Hennigan
“Top 100 Lawyers”
– John Hueston
– Brian Hennigan
“Top 50 Orange County”
– John Hueston
Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Since Super Lawyers is intended to be used as an aid in selecting a lawyer, we limit the lawyer ratings to those who can be hired and retained by the public.