Daniel Woofter represents the qui tam plaintiffs in related appeals pending before the D.C. Circuit, with oral argument set for April 1st. The Opening Brief in United States of America ex rel. O’Connor v. U.S. Cellular Corp., No. 23-7401, and the Opening Brief in related appeal No. 23-7044 were filed in October of last year. The Reply Brief in No. 23-7401 and the Reply Brief in No. 23-7044 were filed January 19 of this year.

Recently the Firm filed a Brief in Opposition to the Cert. Petition in Hasbro, Inc. v. Markham Concepts, No. 23-565 (U.S.), a copyright case arising from a dispute over authorship of the popular Game of Life.

Photo by Randy Fath.

Last Friday, the firm filed a second Cert. Petition from state habeas in Escobar v. Texas, No. 23-934 (U.S.), a capital case in which the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Firm’s previous Cert. Petition on behalf of Mr. Escobar, vacated the judgment, and remanded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of the State’s confession of error.

On February 21st, the firm filed the Reply Brief in In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., No. 23-929 (2d Cir.), a case alleging a conspiracy among large banks to manipulate a precious metals price benchmark so they could reap supracompetitive profits in both the spot and futures markets for silver bullion.

Last Wednesday, Daniel Woofter filed the Opening Brief in The Wonderful Company LLC v. Nut Cravings, Inc., No. 23-7540 (2d Cir.), in a case alleging trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act.

On December 7, 2023, the Firm filed a cert. petition in Gordon v. May, No. 23-629 (U.S.), asking the Supreme Court to resolve an entrenched circuit split over the standard that a state prison must meet to appeal the denial of his federal habeas petition.

On December 3, 2023, the firm filed the Cert. Petition in Rafay v. Jackson, No. 23-636 (U.S.), in a case that was the subject of the inaugural episodes of the acclaimed Netflix documentary series “The Confession Tapes,” as well as an episode of Dr. Phil, in which Daniel Woofter appeared on behalf of his client.

The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy story describing the aftermath of the Firm’s Amicus Brief on behalf of former SEC officials in a Second Circuit securities case.

Photo by Waldemar

On December 20, 2023, the firm filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of institutional investors in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165 (U.S.).

On October 18, 2023, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the firm’s clients in a securities class action appeal against Facebook arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

On September 13, 2023, the firm filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of former SEC officials urging a Second Circuit panel to rehear an important securities fraud case.

Today, the firm filed a reply brief in support of its cert. petition challenging Trump-era steel tariffs.

On August 30, the firm filed its cert. reply brief in Laydon v. Cooperative Rabobank, No. 23-80, a case asking the Supreme Court to address the territorial scope of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Today the Eleventh Circuit denied Apple’s petition for rehearing in Apple v. Corellium, a copyright case in which Kevin Russell successfully represented the defendant on appeal.

Today, the firm partnered with Pomerantz LLP to file the opening brief in an appeal in a securities fraud case involving generic pharmaceutical makers.

Photo by James Yarema

Last week, the firm filed a cert. petition asking the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit conflict over the test for determining when a claim seek an impermissibly extraterritorial application of U.S. law.

On Monday, the firm filed a cert. petition challenging Trump-era steel tarrifs.

Today Daniel Woofter filed the reply brief in United States ex rel. Evans v. Southern California Intergovernmental Training and Development Center, No. 22-16715, before the Ninth Circuit.

This morning the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Apple v. Corellium, affirming dismissal of Apple’s principal copyright claims against the firm’s client.

Yesterday, the firm filed an opposition to a cert. petition seeking summary reversal of a South Carolina Supreme Court decision invalidating the arbitration clause in the home purchase agreements of a class of homeowners.