The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that when state law authorizes a city to regulate ambulance services through a licensing, permitting, and franchising ordinance, the city’s enforcement of such an ordinance is immune from federal antitrust laws under Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Ellis v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, __ F.4th __; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2719 (Jan. 31, 2022), is an example of how federal courts evaluate complaints alleging local governments’ violation of federal antitrust laws.

On October 4, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 389 (“AB 389”), the first amendment to California’s Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act (“EMS Act”) specifically addressing emergency ambulance service contracting. The new law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2022, represents a significant departure from existing practice and creates new contracting options and opportunities for California counties and fire agencies.

In Anderson v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., No. 19-17520 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2021), plaintiff investors brought a class action against defendant stockbrokers for allegedly violating federal securities laws and state-law fiduciary duties when they convinced the investors to switch from commission-based accounts to fee-based accounts even though the latter were not suitable for them and their low-trade, “buy-and-hold” investment strategies.

Last month, the Sacramento Superior Court entered judgment on behalf of our client, the California Fire Chiefs Association, Inc. (“CalChiefs”), and issued a peremptory writ of mandate against the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (“EMSA”), in California Fire Chiefs Association Inc. v. California Emergency Medical Services Authority, No. 34-2019-80003163.

“Me-too” evidence – that an employer engaged in similar misconduct with employees other than the plaintiff – is often admitted in gender discrimination cases as circumstantial proof of the employer’s intent or motive in the present case.  The recent decision Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University of California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, reminds us that “me-too” evidence must be closely related to the plaintiff’s theory of the case and issues to be admissible.

On August 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court granted the City of Oakland’s petition for review in Zolly v. City of Oakland, No. S262634, and denied requests for an order directing depublication of the Court of Appeal opinion, Zolly v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal.App.5th 73 (2020).

COVID-19 significantly impacts, even if temporarily, how private and public sector entities do business. Whether enterprises are dealing with disruptions to their supply chains or retooling their operations to provide emergency medical gear and equipment, business leaders are exploring collaborative efforts with other organizations, including competitors.

In Uber Techs. Pricing Cases, 46 Cal.App.5th 963 (2020), plaintiffs—several taxi companies and taxi medallion owners—filed a class action lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) alleging that the ride-sharing company engaged in predatory pricing in violation of California’s Unfair Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043 (“UPA”) and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”).