Lauren H. Evans
Subscribe to Lauren H. Evans's PostsLauren H. Evans advises clients on litigation matters, with a particular focus on commercial disputes. She has experience in a broad range of litigation matters in both state and federal courts. She has represented clients in breach of contract and business disputes, products liability and toxic tort lawsuits, accounting firm defense and regulatory matters, and Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act litigations, among others. Lauren also maintains an active pro bono practice, including successful representation of a minor human trafficking victim in the dependency system. Read Lauren Evans's full bio.
Ninth Circuit Still Signals Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories
By Lisa M. Richman and Lauren H. Evans on Jul 15, 2021
Posted In Trademarks
In a decision substantively the same as the now-withdrawn opinion entered on January 20, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit once again affirmed denial of a non-signatory’s motion to compel arbitration. Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No.18-35573 (9th Cir. July 7, 2021) (Nelson, J.) (Bea, J., dissenting). Following the June...
Continue Reading
Ninth Circuit Withdraws Opinion That Signaled Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories
By Lauren H. Evans and Lisa M. Richman on Jun 17, 2021
Posted In Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order withdrawing its opinion in Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya, where the Court affirmed the denial of a non-signatory’s bid to arbitrate its claims for trademark infringement against one of the signatories to a contract under Indian law. Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No....
Continue Reading
In Setty, Ninth Circuit Signals Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories
By Lauren H. Evans and Lisa M. Richman on Feb 4, 2021
Posted In Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tackled the question of whether non-signatories to an agreement may use state law doctrines to compel arbitration. Holding that the claims were insufficiently “intertwined” to permit equitable estoppel and had to be analyzed under federal law (and not state or foreign law), the Court affirmed denial...
Continue Reading
