Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Preemption

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the plaintiff’s state law claim that defendant falsely advertised its Vitamin E supplement as promoting cardiovascular health. Read More

Though the federal Copyright Act preempted the California Resale Royalty Act insofar as it granted artists a right to royalties on the resale of their work, it did not preempt the CRRA's attorney fee provision, which was not inconsistent with the Copyright Act.  Read More

Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim was pre-empted by FDA regulations governing how the defendant should calculate the protein content of its product, but plaintiff’s similar false advertising claim was not preempted because it accused the defendant of misrepresenting the source of the protein in the product. Read More

While FDA regulations governing nutrition facts panels preempt state law as to facts stated within the panel, the regulations do not govern or preempt state law as to the rest of the product label; so a state may require that packaging on the remainder of the product meet stricter standards than is required for the facts listed in the nutrition… Read More

While FDA regulations governing nutrition facts panels preempt state law as to facts stated within the panel, the regulations do not govern or preempt state law as to the rest of the product label; so a state may require that packaging on the remainder of the product meet stricter standards than is required for the facts listed in the nutrition… Read More

California statute extending state wage laws governing public works to cover delivery drivers of ready-mix concrete is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and does not violate concrete companies’ equal protection rights. Read More

In determining whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) preempts a state court class action alleging fraud in connection with securities transactions, a district court should not dismiss the action without first allowing the plaintiff leave to amend—as it might do so to eliminate class claims and by that or other means avoid SLUSA preemption. Read More

1 2