The first Monday in October arrives in three weeks — on October 1, 2007. And, as U.S. Supreme Court junkies know, then begins the Court’s October 2007 Term.
Blawgletter counts seven Supreme Court cases that fall within, or near, the zone we think of as "commercial". We offer the following preview:
Preemption
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 06-179: Whether the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act "preempt[] state-law claims seeking damages for injuries caused by medical devices that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration."
Argument date: Pending.
Employment discrimination
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221: Admissibility of evidence that the employer discriminated against non-parties.
Argument date: Pending.
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322: Sufficiency of submitting an "intake questionnaire" to satisfy the requirement of filing a "charge of discrimination" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Argument date: November 6, 2007.
Commodity futures trading
Klein & Co. Futures v. Board of Trade of the City of New York, No. 06-1265: Whether futures commission merchants lack standing to sue under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Argument date: October 29, 2007.
Arbitration
Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989: Does the federal Arbitration Act allow parties contractually to expand judicial review of an arbitration award?
Argument date: November 7, 2007.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Larue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., Inc., No. 06-856: Whether section 502(a)(2) of ERISA allows plan participants to sue on behalf of the plan to recover losses to their individual accounts resulting from a fiduciary breach. How about section 502(a)(3)?
Argument date: Pending.
Securities fraud
Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43: Does engaging in transactions that have "no legitimate business or economic purpose exception to inflate artificially [a] public corporation’s financial statements" subject the sham transactor to liability for securities fraud even if they "themselves made no public statements concerning those transactions"?
Argument date: October 9, 2007.
We can’t wait!
Barry Barnett
