Currently, California law requires the employer to pay the employee a meal period premium of one hour’s wages at the employee’s “regular rate of compensation”. (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7) Last week, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument centering on the meaning of “the regular rate of compensation” with respect to meal and rest period premiums.

Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

(Asserting Failure to Cooperate as a Defense in Colorado Litigation)

(Whether Courts Should Assess Objective Reasonableness of Insurer’s Decision to Withhold Consent to Settle From Perspective of Insurer or Insured) 

(Insurer’s Seven-Month Delay in Providing Insured With Copy of Policy Incorporating Rejection of UM/UIM Coverage Does Not Provide Insured With Fair Opportunity to Reconsider Rejection)

On March 3, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit that has significant implications for the payment processing industry. The complaint alleges that BrightSpeed Solutions, Inc. and its founder and former chief executive officer, Kevin Howard, knowingly processed payments for companies that purported to offer technical-support services and products over the internet, but actually tricked consumers into purchasing expensive and unnecessary software or services.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), acting on behalf of other White House offices and the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), is requesting comments on a new Technical Support Document that would substantially increase the numerical values used to calculate estimates for the Social Cost of GHG.