Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  14274-14280 displayed

1  2036 2037 2038 2039 2040  3627

---

Chapter Thirteen Trustee

Service of pleadings in Converted Cases
Please be sure to review the Court's listing of parties served when filing a Chapter 13 related document in a case that has converted to another chapter. The Court removes the Chapter 13 Trustee as an active party in the case upon conversion. Trustees do not receive emails from ECF or the BNC, nor does the information appear on a case activity report.

If you do not see the Chapter 13 Trustee listed as a party served on the Notice of Electronic Filing or on the Court's matrix listing then you need to make sure you serve the Trustee via paper.

11-29-2006

---

Wade, Clark & Mulcahy, Attorneys At Law

WCM Granted Summary Judgment in Declaratory Judgment Action
Partner David Tavella was granted summary judgment in a Declaratory Judgment Action involving a truck that overturned. In the case of Rivera v. Waste Management, plaintiff was driving a truck hauling waste from a transfer facility owned by Defendant Waste Management. Plaintiff, claiming that a Waste Management employee improperly loaded the waste onto the truck, sued Waste Management for negligence. Waste Management claimed it was an additional insured under the General Liability Policy issued to the trucking company. We represented the trucking company’s General Liability carrier.

After completion of document discovery, but before depositions, we moved for summary judgment. We argued that the automobile exclusion applied to exclude coverage. Waste Management argued that the auto exclusion was not applicable, as Waste Management did not own or operate the truck. We argued, however, that the exclusion applies to the circumstances of the accident, not the status of a purported insured.

11-29-2006

---

Quarles & Brady

Quarles & Brady Attorney Lawrence Jost Ranked As One Of Top 10 Super Lawyers In Wisconsin
Forty-nine attorneys from the Milwaukee office of Quarles & Brady LLP have been recognized by their peers as Wisconsin Super Lawyers by Law & Politics. Attorneys named are: Wayne E. Babler, Jr., Jean C. Baker, Patricia K. Ballman, John T. Bannen, Andrew M. Barnes, Darryl S. Bell, Kathryn M. Buono, Gerald E. Connolly, Frank J. Daily, James F. Daly, John W. Daniels, Jr., Bruce C. Davidson, Jeffrey O. Davis, Robert H. Duffy, Julianna Ebert, Matthew J. Flynn, James D. Friedman, Conrad G. Goodkind, Kathleen A. Gray, Kenneth V. Hallett, Lawrence J. Jost, David B. Kern, David L. Kinnamon, Michael H. Lappin, Fredrick G. Lautz, Ely A. Leichtling, Michael S. McCauley, Thomas P. McElligott, Sally C. Merrell, Mary Pat Ninneman, Michael J. Ostermeyer, W. Stuart Parsons, Nancy K. Peterson, Joseph E. Puchner, Robert D. Rothacker, John A. Rothstein, Patrick M. Ryan, Rachel A. Schneider, Carl R. Schwartz, Thomas A. Simonis, Walter J. Skipper, Rebecca A. Speckhard, Paul J. Tilleman, Eric J. Van Vugt, Arthur A. Vogel, Jr., Ronald L. Wallenfang, David D. Wilmoth, Brian D. Winters and Michael D. Zeka.

Thirteen attorneys were selected as Wisconsin Rising Stars 2006. They are: Jennifer M. Clements, Catherine A. Faught, Cristina D. Hernandez-Malaby, Patricia M. Hutter, Bernard J. Kearney III, Autumn M. Kruse, Benjamin T. Kurten, Ryan P. Morrison, Patrick S. Nolan, Jeffrey D. Peelen, Sean M. Scullen, Hoyt R. Stastney and Judith A. Williams-Killackey.

11-29-2006

---

Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP

Richard Glovsky Named to Deval Patrick/Tim Murray Transition Committee
Richard Glovsky, a partner at Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP, was named to the Transition Committee created by Governor-elect Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor-elect Tim Murray. Dick will serve as a member of the Civic Engagement working group.

The main charge of the individual working groups is to conduct Community Meetings across the state over the next several weeks. The feedback received from these public meetings and from the Patrick/Murray Transition Committee website, will help formulate the new administration’s agenda.

Dick is an active member of the Anti-Defamation League and currently serves as it’s National Education Chair. In the past, he has also served as the organization’s National Civil Rights Chair and as the New England Regional Board Chair. Dick is currently a director of the New England Committee of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

11-29-2006

---

Hiscock & Barclay, LLP

Robert Purcell Joins Hiscock & Barclay Firm as Partner
Robert E. Purcell joins the Syracuse office of Hiscock & Barclay, LLP as a Partner in the Intellectual Property & Technology practice group.

Purcell (Jamesville resident) brings 30 years of extensive experience in the intellectual property field with a concentration on procurement, maintenance, licensing, and enforcement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights in the United States and worldwide. Purcell has serviced clients as lead or co-lead counsel in over one hundred lawsuits, including trials, appeals and arbitration proceedings. He represents a wide variety of technology and industries clients ranging from data storage systems and medical devices, to casino games and archery equipment.

Before joining Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Purcell practiced as an attorney for Wall Marjama & Bilinski, LLP in Syracuse as well as other intellectual property law firms in New York City and Denver. Purcell is a member of the New York State Bar Association, American Intellectual Property Law Association and the International Trademark Association.

11-29-2006

---

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today in Important Case on Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (No. 05-1120), a case involving the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

Along with Massachusetts, eleven other states, including California, and three cities petitioned the Court for review of EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles under CAA Section 202(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)). This section requires EPA to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles "which in [EPA's] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA's decision (68 Federal Register 52922, September 3, 2003) was based primarily upon a legal memorandum written by EPA's then-General Counsel that reversed the opinion of his predecessors and rested upon a number of policy considerations that EPA had found did not support regulation of GHGs under the CAA, including scientific uncertainty concerning the impact GHG emissions may have on global climate change. EPA also cited the Supreme Court precedent barring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from regulating tobacco products (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)).

In essence, EPA had found that the CAA's broad pronouncements for it to set automotive emissions standards did not provide authority to address climate change, in part because doing so would result in standards that could be inconsistent with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, due to the fact that the only practical way to reduce automotive GHG emissions was to improve fuel economy. EPA also pointed to other CAA provisions mandating that the agency further study nonregulatory measures for reducing multiple air pollutants, including CO2. EPA also said that, given the nature of GHGs in the atmosphere - that they exist in relatively homogeneous concentrations everywhere and persist in the atmosphere for decades - relying upon the CAA's existing framework for regulation of air pollutants (establish a national standard for allowable concentrations of a pollutant in the ambient air and then require the states to implement control measures in areas that are not attaining that standard) would prove unworkable; according to EPA, the whole world would need to be deemed out of compliance with the standard and would not be able to achieve it, until worldwide emission controls had been developed.

Last year, a three judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the petitions, with two judges (Randolph and Sentelle) issuing separate opinions that nevertheless concurred in the result, and one (Tatel) issuing a dissent (Massachusetts v. EPA, 415 F.3d 50). Judge Randolph, who wrote for the court, bypassed the question of standing and found that the agency properly exercised its discretion in deciding not to regulate GHG emissions due to policy considerations. Judge Sentelle, on other hand, concurred in the result, but argued that the petitioners could not establish Article III standing because they could not demonstrate a particularized harm to themselves as a consequence of EPA's decision. And, in his dissent, Judge Tatel said that EPA had incorrectly ignored the plain language of the statute (that it had to develop automotive emissions standards for any air pollutant found to cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare), due to policy considerations that cannot substitute for the agency's endangerment determination.

At today's oral arguments in the Supreme Court, the Justices reportedly expressed widely divergent views on whether the petitioners had sufficiently established standing. Indicating their belief that they had not, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia expressed doubts that limiting automotive emissions could reduce global GHG emissions by as much as 2.5%, with Scalia suggesting that, even if it could, such a reduction might not merit regulation, unless it would also result in preservation of 2.5% of the coastline that petitioners said was imperiled by rising sea levels. Justice Souter responded with a question about whether such a precise mathematical correlation between reductions in emissions and the consequences of climate change was actually necessary. While the Deputy Solicitor General representing EPA maintained that petitioners had to show that regulation of automotive GHG emissions would be likely to reduce the impacts of climate change, Justice Kennedy, who is seen a as a key swing vote on the Court, reportedly questioned this conclusion.

The case could be particularly important to California because EPA may be awaiting the Court's decision before deciding on California's request for a waiver of federal preemption for the mandatory automotive GHG emissions standards issued by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) for model year 2009 and beyond. ARB originally requested waiver of federal preemption for these standards on December 21, 2005 and Governor Schwarzenegger recently renewed this request to EPA on October 24, 2006. Although EPA has never before denied a California request for waiver of federal preemption for California's more stringent automotive emissions standards, a Supreme Court decision in its favor might embolden EPA to deny ARB's request in this instance.

11-29-2006

---

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

Alicia Kabiri Joins Eckert Seamans in Washington, D.C
The national law firm of Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott, LLC today announced that attorney Alicia Kabiri has joined the firm.

Alicia A. Kabiri is a member of the firm’s Business Division and a member of the Hospitality Practice Group. Ms. Kabiri represents hotel owners, lenders, developers, real estate investment funds, franchisors, and management companies in matters involving management agreements, franchise agreements, financing and joint venture transactions and all legal matters affecting hotel operations, including liquor licensing, contracts and general advice on day-to-day operations. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Kabiri was Vice President, Legal for Wyndham Worldwide and Vice President, General Counsel for Century 21 Real Estate (both formerly Cendant companies). Ms. Kabiri also served as Vice President, Assistant General Counsel for Interstate Hotels & Resorts (and its predecessor MeriStar Hotels & Resorts). In these in-house roles, Ms. Kabiri represented the nation’s largest franchise organization and independent hotel management company in the negotiation of franchise and management agreements as well as day-to-day hotel operations.

11-29-2006

---

25383 matches |  14274-14280 displayed

1  2036 2037 2038 2039 2040  3627