On September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof.

The legal community in New York State has been following closely Governor Cuomo’s ongoing series of Executive Orders since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, tolling statutes of limitations and other civil legal deadlines. In the latest Executive Order, No. 202.67, dated October 4, 2020, the Governor announced that such tolling will end on November 3, 2020.

With the closure of the loan application phase of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and attention shifting to loan forgiveness, another issue has emerged: how PPP borrowers should handle PPP indebtedness when a PPP borrower wants to transfer some or all of its ownership interests.

On September 18, 2020, in a closely watched Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) case of first impression, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals ruled that BIPA claims for statutory damages by employees against their employers are not preempted by the exclusive remedy provision of the Illinois Workers Compensation Act (IWCA).

On September 9, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1867 (AB 1867), which provides COVID-19-related supplemental paid sick leave of up to 80 hours to food sector workers, employees of companies with over 500 employees nationwide, and employees of healthcare providers and emergency responders.

In August 2017, five individual convenience store franchisees filed suit in federal court for violations of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law (Massachusetts ICL), the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law against their franchisor, 7-Eleven, Inc. The franchisees alleged that they, and all other franchisees in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, were employees of 7-Eleven under state law.