The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded — California Law Review https://t.co/A6VnWkFjRq
Professor Bainbridge Queries Whether SB 313 Eviscerates Omnicare, But Does That Question Have Any Relevance To #California #Corporations? https://t.co/WoCUJ0ALTn #californialaw #Delaware @allenmatkins https://t.co/4QMJOaK7bF
Professor Bainbridge Queries Whether SB 313 Eviscerates Omnicare, But Does That Question Have Any Relevance To California Corporations? https://t.co/rVtWOI9qCC | by @allenmatkins
The California Supreme Court has determined that plaintiffs under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) do not have the standing to intervene in other PAGA lawsuits. This decision has implications for employment law in the state. Additionally, recent discussions in appellate court have raised concerns regarding the B2B exemption in California law, highlighting potential conflicts between state and federal regulations. Legal experts are also examining whether Senate Bill 313 undermines the Omnicare decision and its relevance to California corporations. The ongoing discourse includes critiques of the Major Questions Doctrine as discussed in the California Law Review.