About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (Fall 2024)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0142 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2024 Citations AGENCY 3D Generally W.D.Wash.2022. Cit. generally in sup. Consumer, personally and as representative of a proposed class, sued seller, which was a full-service pharmacy, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allowing telemarketing companies to make autodialed calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to his and other consumers' cell phones without their consent. This court denied seller's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether companies were seller's agents such that seller was vicariously liable for their actions under common-law agency principles described in the Restatement Third of Agency. Williams v. PillPack LLC, 644 F.Supp.3d 845, 851. Introduction S.D.N.Y.2023. Intro. quot. in sup. Company and its wholly owned subsidiary sued bank, seeking, among other things, a refund under a state statute of funds that a former employee of subsidiary fraudulently wired from subsidiary's account with bank to a group of international cybercriminals. This court denied in part bank's motion to dismiss, rejecting bank's argument that subsidiary authorized the wire transfers within the meaning of the statute such that company and subsidiary were responsible for the fraudulent transfers. The court cited the Restatement Third of Agency in reasoning that agency law contemplated a consensual relationship between a principal who provided assent to an agent for the agent to affect the person's legal relationships and to act on their behalf, in contrast, subsidiary's former employee misappropriated security credentials for fraudulent purposes without subsidiary's consent. Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 650 F.Supp.3d 62, 83. Cal.App.2023. Intro. quot. in sup. Representatives in two California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions against employer for alleged violations of the Labor Code filed a motion to intervene in a third overlapping PAGA action against the same employer, after representatives learned of an imminent settlement of the third action that included a release that would extinguish all PAGA claims against employer. The trial court denied the motion, finding that representatives had no standing to intervene. While vacating and remanding on other grounds, this court concluded that the trial court was correct to deny the motion to the extent it sought mandatory intervention, because representatives could COPYRIGHT (02024 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most