Commercial & General Civil Litigation
Tyson & Mendes’ broad commercial litigation work includes trial experience in state and federal courts, representing publicly traded and privately held corporations in commercial litigation throughout the nation. Cases handled include complex real estate litigation, multi-party environmental litigation, class action lawsuits, securities, breach of contract, fraud, business torts, libel actions, false advertising and unfair trade practices. We also represent directors and officers in various shareholder and third party lawsuits. We successfully meet the specialized needs of our corporate clients in all types of commercial litigation.
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a somewhat-splinted United States Supreme Court issued what may be the most significant decision regarding personal jurisdiction in over a generation. While the alignment of the Justices is complex...
On September 14, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order amending Rule 36 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) so that unpublished opinions of the Nevada Court of Appeals can no longer be cited in court briefs. The order is known as ADKT 0504.
What does it mean when the court consolidates cases? When separate actions are filed by separate plaintiffs arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, the issue of consolidation is likely to be raised early on by one of the parties or the court. While the idea sounds simple enough, the wording of the statute itself and the related concepts of “relatedness” and “merger” often creates confusion and doubt among the parties and sometimes the court itself as to what exactly the legal and procedural effect of the consolidation order means and what was intended.
In formulating California’s approach to evaluating the good faith of piece-meal settlements, the California Supreme Court famously stated: “When profit is involved, the ingenuity of man spawns limitless varieties of unfairness.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494-495 quoting River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 986, 993). As set forth below, a sliding scale settlement certainly falls within this paradigm. Although California allows such settlements, there are statutory protections and defense strategies which should be implemented to mitigate the prejudice inherent in such settlements.