Caleb J. Bowers

A veteran Morgan Lewis & Bockius labor and employment lawyer who spent 20 years with the firm before going to Sidley Austin for just under a year has returned to his old firm in Los Angeles. Jason Mills, who had previously been both an associate and a partner with Morgan Lewis, will resume advising the firm's clients on complex employment litigation matters and occupational safety and health administration proceedings. Mills is a nationally recognized OSHA practitioner and litigates a full spectrum of employment claims across all levels of the workforce, representing clients in state and federal trials, arbitrations and administrative proceedings, according to Morgan Lewis. Mills’ work has included wrongful termination, discrimination and workplace dispute matters, and he regularly defends employers in wage-and-hour putative class actions and represents employers in defending federal and state OSHA citations, including workplace incident investigations and whistleblower matters, the firm stated. “For what I do being an employment trial lawyer and then also an OSHA lawyer, it’s just a really good spot for me to be,” Mills said about his decision to return to the firm. “It’s just a perfect place for me to be and it’s the perfect platform for me to be in. I do feel like I’m kind of returning home, and that’s really what’s going on.” Mills said he had left for Sidley Austin simply because he wanted to explore a new opportunity, but soon learned that his heart was with Morgan Lewis: “I think you realize with the 20 years of history, that means a lot." Firm leadership expressed high hopes for Mills’ return. “As employers across the world navigate evolving national, state and regional guidance and regulations while responding to intensified workplace safety oversight, they rely on trusted advisers with both courtroom experience and practical insight,” Morgan Lewis Chair Jami McKeon said in a statement. “Jason’s return strengthens our already deep bench in labor and employment and reflects growing client demand for trial-tested advocates who can guide them through high-stakes disputes as well as day-to-day compliance challenges.” Mills also has a military background, having served as a judge advocate with the U.S. Marine Corps. before entering private practice, where he defended more than 250 courts martial and trying numerous jury cases, including while he was in the midst of a seven-month tour in Iraq. “Jason is a top-tier trial lawyer whose clear-eyed, business-focused counsel helps clients manage risk and protect their employees,” David McManus, leader of Morgan Lewis’ global labor and employment practice, said in a statement. “With regulators taking a more assertive approach, employers face increasing pressure to maintain compliant, transparent, and effective workplace reporting and safety program.” Mills’ OSHA experience is expected to further strengthen the firm’s ability to defend clients in this landscape, McManus stated. “He’s a tremendous colleague and friend, and we are thrilled to welcome him back to Morgan Lewis,” McManus said in his statement. Mills, who will mostly be based out of the Los Angeles office, but who will spend occasional time in Washington, D.C., said he looks forward to trial work but also expressed pride in the firm’s OSHA practice, saying Morgan Lewis has one of the best OSHA teams in the country. Most of his clients will be Fortune 500 companies and large businesses with “big employment work or big workforces” who are in need of defense work, he said. Sidley Austin did not return a message seeking comment about Mills' departure.

Dec 5

3 min

Individuals who were injured in a mass shooting at the 2024 Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl parade and the event's organizers asked a Missouri federal court to toss an insurer's bid to escape coverage, arguing that the carrier's suit should be dismissed due to a related state court case. In separate motions to dismiss filed Friday, the shooting victims and event organizers said The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co.'s consolidated coverage dispute should be dismissed in favor of a parallel consolidated state court action in Jackson County, Missouri, involving the same parties and the same insurance policy. "Both the consolidated federal actions and the consolidated Jackson County actions ask the same questions — what are Cincinnati's obligations under the policy?"  the event organizers said. "This overlapping inquiry, being litigated among the same parties in different forums, creates parallel proceedings." The event organizers include the Greater Kansas City Sports Commission, or GKCSC, which was the named insured under a special event commercial general liability policy issued by Cincinnati, as well as O'Neill Events and Marketing; Flyover Event Co. LLC; and the city of Kansas City, Missouri. The victims, including Erika Reyes, Kathleen Martinez, Esmeralda Ortiz, James Lemons and Abigail Salas-Zarate, contended that resolution of the state court action will fully resolve the federal action and that the state court has priority to hear the case under the doctrine of abatement. The dispute stems from the shooting that occurred during the February 2024 event celebrating the Kansas City Chiefs' win over the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LVIII. One person was killed in the shooting, and 23 others were injured. Four suits were filed by the victims against the GKCSC in Missouri state court between March and June of this year, according to court filings. The GKCSC in turn filed a third-party complaint against Cincinnati and the other event organizers. Between May and July, Cincinnati filed four separate suits in the Western District of Missouri, seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the event organizers against the state court suits. The federal court suits were consolidated in September, and the state court suits were consolidated Oct. 22, according to court filings. Both sets of defendants argued Friday that dismissal of the federal action is warranted under the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine, which gives federal courts broad discretion to decline jurisdiction. "This court has repeatedly applied the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine where parallel actions are pending in state court," the event organizers said, pointing to a recent example in which the court tossed another case brought by Cincinnati due to two pending state court actions involving Missouri insurance law. The victims asserted that the six factors outlined in the Eighth Circuit's 2005 ruling in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Detco Industries Inc. favor dismissal as well. The factors include, for example, whether the declaratory judgment sought will serve a useful purpose in settling the legal issues and the strength of the state's interest in the dispute. "Most apparent, this action appears to be procedural fencing to gain a federal forum advantage," the victims said. "Cincinnati filed this federal declaratory judgment action one week after the state court declaratory judgment action was filed, raising identical issues in hopes of securing what it believes is a more favorable federal forum. This is quintessential gamesmanship." Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Cincinnati is represented by Michael L. Brown, Anthony M. Hernandez and Chad L. Whitney of Litchfield Cavo LLP. GKCSC is represented by Bernard J. Rhodes, Robyn L. Anderson and Elizabeth D. Hatting of Lathrop GPM LLP. The city is represented by Jason C. Conkright and Tara Kelly of the Office of the City Attorney. Flyover is represented by Corey Kraushaar of Brown & James PC. O'Neill Events is represented by Brian G. Boos of Foulston Siefkin LLP. Lemons is represented by Scott A. Shachtman of The Shachtman Law Firm. Reyes, Martinez and Ortiz are represented by Patrick J. Stueve, Tanner J. Edwards, Stefon J. David and Caleb J. Wagner of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. Salas-Zarate is represented by M. Blake Heath and Brice C. Barnard of Heath Injury Law LLC. The case is The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co. v. The Greater Kansas City Sports Commission et al., case number 4:25-cv-00371, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Nov 3

3 min

A Fifth Circuit panel wanted to know why investors should get another shot at a direct class action alleging that McDermott International Inc. made misrepresentations about a $6 billion merger, asking Monday if the case before the court was "analogous" to a case alleging the company overpaid for the merger. The investors claim McDermott deprived them of their federal right to a fully informed vote on the merger between McDermott and Chicago Bridge & Iron NV that contributed to McDermott's bankruptcy, but U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez asked if their suit was "analogous" to one alleging that McDermott overpaid in its acquisition of CB&I. Overpayment claims are derivative, meaning that the shareholders would lose the ability to bring direct class action claims against the company. "Don't we end up at the same place?" Judge Ramirez asked. "Either there would not have been a merger, or McDermott wouldn't have paid as much." The investors' attorney, John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, told the court that "we don't end up in the same place at all" as a case alleging that McDermott overpaid for the merger. The investors did not come to the court asking for damages equivalent to the entire amount of market cap McDermott lost as subsequent information about the transaction became public, Rizio-Hamilton said. "If we were seeking overpayment damages, I promise you, they would be much, much larger than the damages we're seeking on these four corrective disclosure days," he said. "The four days represent just a handful of days when McDermott's stock was in free fall." McDermott merged with CB&I in 2018. The investors allege that McDermott overstated the amount of due diligence it had done on CB&I's four largest construction projects, which CB&I had internally forecast would generate at least $1 billion in additional, undisclosed costs, according to briefing from the parties. Just a few months after the merger wrapped up, McDermott had to declare bankruptcy in no small part due to those same construction projects, the investors alleged. The lower court got it wrong by finding that the investors' damages theory "somehow transformed our direct claim into a derivative one," Rizio-Hamilton said. When plaintiffs such as the investors assert an individual right, that claim is direct when it is brought outside the fiduciary duty context, he said, citing both the 2015 decision in NAF Holdings LLC v. Li & Fung Trading Ltd. and the 2016 decision in Citigroup Inc. v. AHW Investment Partnership by the Delaware Supreme Court. U.S. Circuit Judge Dana Douglas pointed out that opposing counsel claimed the investors did not bring that argument before the lower court. The Delaware Supreme Court created a two-prong test for direct versus derivative claims, in a case called Tooley v. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. It is true that the investors did not say that Tooley does not apply under Citigroup and NAF, but both of those latter cases are subsequent precedents by the Delaware Supreme Court interpreting and limiting Tooley, Rizio-Hamilton said. The Fifth Circuit's precedent allows for a party to present subsequent authority on the issue of categorizing a claim as derivative or direct to the appellate court, he said. McDermott's attorney, Anthony Lucisano of Baker Botts LLP, told the court that the damage arising from a misleading proxy statement to a shareholder flows from the damage done to a corporation. Because the harm stems from damage to the corporation, the claims must be derivative, he said. U.S. Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement, Dana M. Douglas and Irma Carrillo Ramirez sat on the panel for the Fifth Circuit. The investors are represented by John Rizio-Hamilton, Katherine M. Sinderson, Aasiya F. M. Glover and Jonathan G. D'Errico of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Chet B. Waldman and Matthew Insley-Pruitt of Wolf Popper LLP. McDermott is represented Angela C. Zambrano, Mason Parham and Phillip Shaverdian of Sidley Austin LLP and David D. Sterling, Amy Pharr Hefley, J. Mark Little, Anthony J. Lucisano and Frank Mace of Baker Botts LLP. The case is Local 813 Insurance Trust Fund et al. v. McDermott International et al., case number 25-20147, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mar 2

3 min

The National Association of Realtors and local realtor groups at the center of a proposed class action have urged a Michigan federal court not to allow real estate brokers and agents to bring recent NAR handbook changes before the court in their antitrust suit. The realtor groups argued that litigants misstepped when they introduced claims that the NAR effectively admitted to their antitrust claims when it revoked a policy requiring they be members of the NAR in order to access multiple listing services, databases in which properties are marketed. The plaintiffs sought to introduce the new information under the guise of a motion for leave to file supplemental authority, but such motions only allow for plaintiffs to make the court aware of relevant new legal precedent, the realtor groups argued. "Here, plaintiffs seek to introduce a fact for the court to consider in deciding the motion to dismiss: that NAR updated its MLS policy handbook," the realtor groups said. "This factual information is not legal precedent. A notice of supplemental authority is thus inappropriate here and leave should be denied." The NAR announced on Nov. 17 that it had made a total of 18 changes to its handbook policies, each approved by a policy risk advisory board comprising brokers, association executives, multiple listing services executives and industry partners, according to an NAR letter of MLS leaders included in the plaintiffs' filing. The changes removed language regarding membership requirements and emphasized local control. The proposed class told the court in a November motion that the NAR, "by changing its policies to avoid future antitrust litigation, is essentially admitting that its previous policy was a violation of antitrust law." The realtor groups added in their Wednesday filing that the court is barred from considering the NAR policy changes and may only look to facts pled in the complaint when weighing the plaintiff's motion to dismiss. And even if it were to consider the facts the agents and brokers seek to introduce, the changes would not be pertinent to the plaintiffs' claims, they alleged. "In any event, NAR's MLS policy handbook update is in no way an admission of anything," the realtor groups said. In a complaint they filed in January, the agents and brokers challenged the expensive memberships needed to access their NAR-run multiple listing service, despite the diminished value of these memberships following a rule change implemented as part of a $418 million settlement with home sellers. Under the revision, MLS listings can no longer contain buyer-agent commissions. But without these compensation listings, there is no reason to join local realtor groups, the plaintiffs contended. The suit lists the NAR, the Michigan Association of Realtors, the Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors, the Greater Metropolitan Association of Realtors, the North Oakland County Board of Realtors and Realcomp II LLC. The proposed class alleged illegal restraint of trade, violations of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, economic coercion and civil conspiracy. Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael S. Clawson. The National Association of Realtors and Michigan Association of Realtors are represented by Larry J. Saylor and Kimberly L. Scott of Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone. The North Oakland County Board of Realtors is represented by Richard D. Linnell of Linnell & Associates PLLC. The Greater Metropolitan Association of Realtors is represented by David J. DeVine and Sheldon H. Klein of Butzel Long. The Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors is represented by Jared A. Roberts of Fraser Trebilcock Davis Dunlap & Cavanaugh PC. Realcomp is represented by Brian O'Keefe and Alexander E. Blum of Lippitt O'Keefe PLLC and Harvey R. Weingarden of Weingarden Law PLLC. The case is Hardy et al. v. National Association of Realtors et al., case number 2:24-cv-12102, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Dec 4

3 min

A Fifth Circuit panel wanted to know why investors should get another shot at a direct class action alleging that McDermott International Inc. made misrepresentations about a $6 billion merger, asking Monday if the case before the court was "analogous" to a case alleging the company overpaid for the merger. The investors claim McDermott deprived them of their federal right to a fully informed vote on the merger between McDermott and Chicago Bridge & Iron NV that contributed to McDermott's bankruptcy, but U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez asked if their suit was "analogous" to one alleging that McDermott overpaid in its acquisition of CB&I. Overpayment claims are derivative, meaning that the shareholders would lose the ability to bring direct class action claims against the company. "Don't we end up at the same place?" Judge Ramirez asked. "Either there would not have been a merger, or McDermott wouldn't have paid as much." The investors' attorney, John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, told the court that "we don't end up in the same place at all" as a case alleging that McDermott overpaid for the merger. The investors did not come to the court asking for damages equivalent to the entire amount of market cap McDermott lost as subsequent information about the transaction became public, Rizio-Hamilton said. "If we were seeking overpayment damages, I promise you, they would be much, much larger than the damages we're seeking on these four corrective disclosure days," he said. "The four days represent just a handful of days when McDermott's stock was in free fall." McDermott merged with CB&I in 2018. The investors allege that McDermott overstated the amount of due diligence it had done on CB&I's four largest construction projects, which CB&I had internally forecast would generate at least $1 billion in additional, undisclosed costs, according to briefing from the parties. Just a few months after the merger wrapped up, McDermott had to declare bankruptcy in no small part due to those same construction projects, the investors alleged. The lower court got it wrong by finding that the investors' damages theory "somehow transformed our direct claim into a derivative one," Rizio-Hamilton said. When plaintiffs such as the investors assert an individual right, that claim is direct when it is brought outside the fiduciary duty context, he said, citing both the 2015 decision in NAF Holdings LLC v. Li & Fung Trading Ltd. and the 2016 decision in Citigroup Inc. v. AHW Investment Partnership by the Delaware Supreme Court. U.S. Circuit Judge Dana Douglas pointed out that opposing counsel claimed the investors did not bring that argument before the lower court. The Delaware Supreme Court created a two-prong test for direct versus derivative claims, in a case called Tooley v. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. It is true that the investors did not say that Tooley does not apply under Citigroup and NAF, but both of those latter cases are subsequent precedents by the Delaware Supreme Court interpreting and limiting Tooley, Rizio-Hamilton said. The Fifth Circuit's precedent allows for a party to present subsequent authority on the issue of categorizing a claim as derivative or direct to the appellate court, he said. McDermott's attorney, Anthony Lucisano of Baker Botts LLP, told the court that the damage arising from a misleading proxy statement to a shareholder flows from the damage done to a corporation. Because the harm stems from damage to the corporation, the claims must be derivative, he said. U.S. Circuit Judges Edith Brown Clement, Dana M. Douglas and Irma Carrillo Ramirez sat on the panel for the Fifth Circuit. The investors are represented by John Rizio-Hamilton, Katherine M. Sinderson, Aasiya F. M. Glover and Jonathan G. D'Errico of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Chet B. Waldman and Matthew Insley-Pruitt of Wolf Popper LLP. McDermott is represented Angela C. Zambrano, Mason Parham and Phillip Shaverdian of Sidley Austin LLP and David D. Sterling, Amy Pharr Hefley, J. Mark Little, Anthony J. Lucisano and Frank Mace of Baker Botts LLP. The case is Local 813 Insurance Trust Fund et al. v. McDermott International et al., case number 25-20147, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Mar 2

3 min