Published on:

By

On October 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. District Court) entered a final judgment and order in the matter of Adavenaixx v. Howard University, approving a class action settlement and release that the parties had executed on May 6, 2024 (which the court had preliminarily approved on June 18, 2024). That judgment came after the court held a final approval hearing the same day at which it granted plaintiff’s motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service award. The court approved over two million dollars to be distributed to a class of Howard University students who were unable to attend in-person classes at the university during the height of COVID-19.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

On August 20, 2024, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas struck down a proposed rule by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that sought to impose a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements. Ryan, LLC v. FTC, –F. Supp.3d – (N.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2024). The decision halts what would have been a significant shift in employment law across the country had the rule taken effect.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

If you’ve litigated a contract dispute in Maryland, you’ve likely referred to the “four corners” rule, which means the reviewing court interprets a contract based on the language within the document itself. If that language is unambiguous, the terms of the agreement control regardless of the parties’ subjective intent. A court considers “parol” or extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the contract itself) only if the terms of the contract are ambiguous. This foundational rule of contract interpretation appears in many cases, so a litigator could hardly be faulted for describing it this way.  See, e.g., Walton v. Mariner Health of Maryland, Inc., 391 Md. 643, 660 (2006).  But, as two recent Maryland Supreme Court opinions make clear, it’s not exactly right.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

On Friday, June 21, 2024, Under Armour announced that, subject to court approval, it had settled a pending securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The settlement closes a case originally filed in February 2017, which had twice been dismissed with prejudice before finding new life after it was reported in the fall of 2019 that the Securities & Exchange Commission and United States Department of Justice had fined Under Armour for the conduct alleged here. That announcement proved the tipping point in the case, as thereafter, Judge Richard Bennett allowed the case to return from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (where the dismissal had been on appeal), reversed himself on the dismissal, and ultimately certified a class and denied summary judgment and Under Armour’s motions in limine. The case was scheduled to begin a two-plus-week jury trial on July 15, 2024.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By and

The Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City (BLLC) is responsible for limiting and/or restricting the number of establishments permitted to sell alcohol in Baltimore City. The BLLC is responsible for processing applications for and transfers/renewals of licenses to sell beer, wine and liquor; conducting period inspections of licensed businesses; collecting all license fees and fines; fining, suspending, or revoking licenses; and licensing and regulating adult entertainment business in Baltimore City. 

Continue reading →
Published on:

By and

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court decided Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense, which gave deference to federal agencies to implement their charging statutes. In its latest term, the Court’s 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo overturned Chevron and dramatically altered the balance of power between federal agencies and the federal judiciary.  

Continue reading →
Published on:

By and

Many business creditors know that their customers are in financial distress before a bankruptcy filing. In this post, we cover two major issues that creditors must be aware of when a business or individual, perhaps a customer, borrower, or supplier, files a petition for bankruptcy protection: (1) the automatic stay and (2) the proof of claim and its firm deadline.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By and

On May 23, 2024, after nearly a year of motions practice, Judge George L. Russell III of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted plaintiff’s motion to remand its putative class action to state court. Serving as local counsel, Silverman Thompson filed the class action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on January 19, 2023. The plaintiff, who has been employed as an hourly, non-exempt worker at Johns Hopkins Hospital (“Johns Hopkins”) for over thirty years, contends that Johns Hopkins has a policy of rounding employees’ hours resulting in illegal withholding of wages, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By and

In fall 2021, Silverman Thompson filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of a provider of inmate communication services for prisons. The suit alleged that just as Silverman Thompson’s client was about to finalize a contract with a county prison, the incumbent service provider and business rival used illegal, anti-competitive tactics to scuttle the deal and secure a renewal of its contract with the prison. After extensive preliminary motions practice, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but gave Silverman Thompson’s client the opportunity to amend. Confident in its claims as drafted by Silverman Thompson, the client elected to stand on the complaint and appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By and

Senate Bill 19 requires the District Court to shield all court records relating to the filing of a Failure to Pay Rent Complaint within sixty (60) days after the final resolution of the nonpayment of rent case if the case did not result in a judgment for possession. Further, upon the filing of a motion by a tenant, the District Court may also shield court records relating to a failure to pay rent proceeding that did result in a judgment for possession if:

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Maryland Offices:
Downtown Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office: (410) 385-2225 Toll Free: (800) 385-2243 Fax: (410) 547-2432 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Baltimore County Office
1 W Pennsylvania Ave #905
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 494-7100 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Washington, D.C. Office
By Appointment Only
1775 I St NW #1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 921-2225 Phone: (202) 539-2444
New York Office
By Appointment Only
40 Exchange Pl #1800
New York, NY 10005
Toll Free: (800) 385-2243
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design