Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

January 29, 2014

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupBrrr! It’s cold out there, but that’s not news. The Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law. Some highlights from the past week include the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance of a CERCLA suit and rulings in favor of Applebees and Citigroup in suits by employees:

Supreme Court to decide whether CERCLA rule trumps states’ repose statutes: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether CERCLA’s discovery rule preempts North Carolina’s statute of repose in a case brought by a group of landowners suing over toxic contamination. CTS Corp. wants the high court to reverse a divided 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ finding that the reference to states statute-of-limitations preemption in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, includes North Carolina’s 10-year statute of repose. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al., No. 13-339, Jan. 10. (Environmental)

Applebee’s server must arbitrate wage claims despite one-sided agreement: A dispute resolution agreement between Applebee’s and its employees is not substantively unconscionable, so a server for the restaurant chain must submit his wage-and-hour claims to individual arbitration, a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled. On Dec. 11 U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania acknowledged that such agreements that contain collective and class-action waivers favor employers, saying, “This current state of legal affairs is lamentable.” (Employment)

Citigroup wins dismissal of employees’ ‘holder’ suit: A New York federal judge has dismissed two lawsuits alleging that Citigroup employees held on to their company stock to their detriment in reliance on misrepresentations regarding the bank’s exposure to mortgage-backed securities. U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York tossed both lawsuits in December, saying the “holder” claims are preempted by federal securities law. (Derivatives)