- Posts by Adam J. ZapalaPartner
Adam J. Zapala is a Partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, where he focuses on complex litigation, including antitrust, employment & civil rights, privacy & cybersecurity, qui tam/false claims, consumer protection and ...
A federal court judge has upheld privacy-related claims related to the collection and sale of consumer viewer data by Vizio. CPM is co-lead counsel in the class action lawsuit, which alleges that the TV maker failed to inform consumers that it is gathering their viewing histories, including what shows they watch, IP addresses, zip codes, product model numbers, hardware and software versions, chipset IDs, region and language settings, and other data.Read More ›
On December 21, 2015, Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the Federal Court for the Northern District of California appointed Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP. (“CPM”) lead counsel for the indirect purchasers in a class action alleging that a number of companies illegally conspired to inflate the prices consumers and businesses paid for resistors.Read More ›
Op-Ed Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an important piece in today’s New York Times about the correlation between increasing economic inequality and the decline in union membership. In addition to the article’s substance, what was noteworthy was Mr. Kristof’s mea culpa for previously “disdain[ing]” unions for their perceived corruption and nepotism. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?ref=opinion. He admitted that he was wrong.Read More ›
The Legislature has enacted several changes to the California Labor Code designed to protect employee-whistleblower activity. Many of these changes relate directly to areas in which CPM practices. The Legislature’s changes are beginning to pay real dividends to whistleblowers who expose the corporate wrongdoing of their employers.Read More ›
On November 6, 2014, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld bans on gay marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The ruling in the consolidated appeal overturns four district court decisions that found the bans unconstitutional. Significantly, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion contradicts decisions from four other federal circuit courts of appeal finding similar bans unconstitutional and is the first time a federal circuit court has upheld a gay marriage ban after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional). The United States Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear appeals from decisions finding the bans unconstitutional, but the Sixth Circuit’s decision creates a “circuit split,” making Supreme Court review likely.Read More ›