Co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in Title IX case in which the plaintiff student-athletes alleged that defendant Delaware State University failed to provide an adequate number of opportunities for women to ...participate in varsity athletics or to properly fund recruiting of women athletes. Now pending is a motion for final approval of a settlement under which the University agrees to come into compliance with both the participation and recruitment requirements of Title IX.
Class action
Kerrigan, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.
Jul 14, 2009
OUTCOME: The Court approved a settlement that requires the USDOJ and an independent expert appointed by the Court to survey all Philadelphia polling places to determine if they are accessible under guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Lead defense counsel in class action law suit claiming that the City of Philadelphia and the Board of Elections violated federal laws by failing to maximize the number of polling places that are access...ible to voters with mobility disabilities. The Court approved a settlement that requires the United States Department of Justice and an independent expert appointed by the Court to survey all Philadelphia polling places to determine if they are accessible under guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The third parties further will seek alternate accessible polling locations, which will be reviewed by the Board. Decisions not to relocate polling places as recommended are subject to review by a federal magistrate judge.
Trademark infringement
Primepoint, L.L.C. v. Primepay, Inc.
Jun 30, 2009
OUTCOME: After a bench trial, the Court held that most of the "Lapp factors" weighed in favor of Primepoint.
Flaster/Greenberg served as lead counsel in trial victory on behalf of plaintiff Primepoint LLC, a New Jersey-based provider of payroll processing and HR information services technology. Primepoint all...eged trademark infringement by PrimePay, Inc., a national company that also provides payroll services and operates more than 30 offices across the country. In evaluating the alleged infringement, the Court applied the "Lapp factors," a ten-factor test used to determine whether the marks were so similar that there was a likelihood that consumers would confuse one mark for the other. After a bench trial, the Court held that most of the "Lapp factors" weighed in favor of Primepoint. Also, the Court found that since the two parties had used their individual marks for a sufficient amount of time without evidence of consumer confusion arising, it could therefore infer that future consumers will not be confused either. Further, the Court held that the evidence of confusion as presented by PrimePay was "isolated, idiosyncratic and minimal."
