Home

NEWS

News

The Norton Law Firm, a litigation boutique representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation throughout California and across the country, announces the elevation of Josephine K. Petrick from Counsel to Partner, effective January 1, 2025. Petrick joined The Norton Law Firm in January 2023. As a California State Bar-Certified Appellate Specialist and complex litigator, […]

Read More

Law360 recently sought insight from The Norton Law Firm partner Esther Kim Chang and featured her commentary in two articles: “The Top Patent Damages Awards Of 2024” and “Patent Litigation Trends To Watch In 2025.” Esther is a registered patent attorney admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a trial-experienced litigator, specializing in patent and trade […]

Read More

On December 12, 2024, President Biden granted clemency to The Norton Law Firm’s long-time client, Michael Binday.  In 2014, Mr. Binday was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment following a conviction for mail and wire fraud based on the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit’s now-invalidated “right-to-control” theory of fraud.  For nearly a decade following […]

Read More

During its 2024-25 term, the United States Supreme Court will decide in Kousisis v. United States whether breaches of contract can satisfy the “property” element of the mail and wire fraud statutes.  The Supreme Court should—and as attorneys David W. Shapiro and Gil Walton anticipate will—say they cannot. In “Justices Should Squash Bid To Criminalize Contract Breaches,” an expert analysis/opinion piece […]

Read More

October 22, 2024 (Oakland, CA) – The Norton Law Firm is pleased to announce its office move to Oakland’s historic Rotunda Building.    “We sought a larger space for our team, which is now 18 lawyers and five professional staff,” said Fred Norton, co-founder of The Norton Law Firm. “We moved into our new offices […]

Read More

In Cook v. University of Southern California Cal. App. 5th 312, 340 (2024), reh’g denied (June 13, 2024) the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that the arbitration clause in an employment agreement between an employee, Pamela Cook, and an employer, the University of Southern California, was unconscionable. This decision could have an important impact on future attempts to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in pre-existing agreements.

Read More

In Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024), reh’g denied (June 3, 2024), review filed (June 28, 2024) the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Division, made several important findings regarding arbitration agreements. The court held that unless the parties’ arbitration agreement expressly selected California’s arbitration provisions, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California Civil Procedure section 1281.97 (part of the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”)). The Court also found that a superior court order allowing a party to withdraw from arbitration per section 1281.97 is immediately appealable as it is the functional equivalent of an order denying arbitration.

Read More

In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that, when a district court grants a motion to compel arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. While at first blush this question may appear highly technical, it resolves a deep circuit split among the federal courts of appeals and will have widespread impact on arbitration practice.

Read More

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated a district court order approving a $5.2 million class action settlement between a plaintiff and Tinder, Inc., the mobile dating app. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the plaintiff was subject to binding arbitration, while thousands of other class members were not, she was not an adequate representative of the putative settlement class.

Read More

The California Supreme Court decided Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. S274671, 2023 WL 4553702 (Cal. July 17, 2023), in which it unanimously held that, when an employee is required to arbitrate his or her individual Labor Code claims against an employer, the employee still has standing to pursue a representative action on behalf of other employees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq. 

Read More