Our firm has had a long relationship with some of the nation’s largest retailers, providing exceptionally efficient litigation services. Our clients receive the benefit of attorneys who are particularly experienced dealing with all aspects of the retail industry. We provide services with the same streamlined organization that is a hallmark of the retail industry business model: expediency of operation, productivity, affordable pricing and customer service.
Whether we are representing one of the top global retail companies, a department store chain, a regional specialty store, or a local stand-alone discount merchandiser, our business principles closely mirror the principles of these specialized clients. Our clients extend to big box warehouses, electronic retailers, property management companies, discount stores, specialty stores, and pharmacies.
BSCR handles a variety of legal matters with a client-centric approach. We have extensive trial experience and a proven track record of successfully defending our clients in courtroom contests. We are just as successful handling arbitration, mediation and other settlement negotiations. In either case, we ensure our clients are in the best position possible to obtain an outcome most favorable to their goals.
The types of matters we handle include:
- Premises liability
- Product liability
- Wrongful death and injury
- Breach of contract
- Wrongful arrest
- Leasing transactions
In addition, BSCR’s medical malpractice and professional liability groups have extensive experience representing retail pharmacies and pharmacists in dispensary liability cases. Our employment practice group assists clients with issues arising from employment discrimination, wrongful termination and other claims of employer liability.
We understand retailers in today’s competitive market expect great service at competitive prices and we deliver those qualities.
For more information about the services we provide to the Retail industry contact Jim Jarrow, Shawn Rogers or Marcos Barbosa at 816.471.2121.
| A unanimous Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., in which the Circuit Court held that, although Santander was the purchaser of a debt that was in default, it was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and thus, was not subject to its stringent requirements for collection activities.
| The Financial Choice Act was introduced in 2016, and its revamped successor, referred to as “CHOICE Act 2.0,” was reported to the House of Representatives for consideration in early May. Today, the House passed the bill, bringing the United States one step closer to substantial financial regulation reform.
| The United States Supreme Court ruled on May 22, 2017, that the Hague Convention, on the service of judicial documents abroad, permits service by mail if the receiving country has not objected to service by mail and service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District promptly affirmed the trial court’s holding that a local bank’s overdraft fee was not “interest,” and, therefore, was not subject to the state’s usury cap.
| The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that the attorney-client privilege protects a party from being required to disclose that her attorney referred her to treating doctors.
| Often overlooked by legislators are the detrimental consequences of broad sweeping banking regulations on smaller community banks. At a recent convention, ICBA President Camden R. Fine called for continued efforts by community banks to fight for practical regulation reform.
| Earlier this week, Governor Eric Greitens signed Missouri HB 153 into law. HB 153, which supplants Missouri’s existing expert witness standard with that set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 704 and 705, effectively submits expert testimony in most civil and criminal case to the analysis set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
| Within a two-week period, two federal judges issued strongly worded orders denouncing the common practice of asserting boilerplate objections to written discovery.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals rules that a worker may owe an independent duty of care to a co-worker, which is separate and distinct from her employer’s non-delegable duties.
| The CFPB recently filed its complaint against Navient, the nation’s largest servicer of federal and private student loans for alleged failures in servicing those loans. Filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Complaint contains allegations that Navient violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the FDPCA and seeks millions in restitution.
| In a ruling favorable to home loan mortgage servicers, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court’s dismissal of a previous foreclosure action caused the loan to decelerate, thus recommencing the 5-year statute of limitations period for acceleration of the loan.
| While the very concept of an electronic mortgage is not new, the adoption of e-mortgages as the new “normal” remains a hot topic in the mortgage servicing realm. Despite the technology behind electronic document execution, delays in e-notarization laws prevent e-mortgages from fully replacing traditional home loan transactions.
| On October 25, 2016, FinCEN issued an Advisory outlining recommendations and requirements for financial institutions to report suspicious activity in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, clarifying these institutions’ obligation to report cyber-events, even where no financial transaction was completed.
| In a long-awaited opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court held that the structure of the CFPB, as it exists currently, is unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the Director’s argument that the applicable statute of limitations does not apply to a CFPB administrative action.
| The results of the November 8, 2016 election have unmistakably cast doubt on the future of the CFPB, particularly as it exists today. With Donald Trump as President-elect, along with a Republican-held House and Senate, it is likely that some of the preceding years’ regulations and consumer protections will be undone.
| A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.
| On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Green v. Brennan in order to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether, in an action for constructive discharge, the 45-day limitation period for the employee to initiate contact with the EEOC begins to run after the employer’s last discriminatory act, or at the time of the employee’s resignation.
| In its first 4-4 decision since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that resulted in affirmation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in favor of a Missouri bank in a dispute concerning the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
| The Kansas Court of Appeals recently held that, even where a debt collector delayed its motion to compel arbitration until 2 years after the litigation was commenced, the trial court did not have the authority to decide that the delay was, in effect, a waiver of arbitration.
| In its current state, the MMPA has allowed consumers to collect substantial verdicts in cases that have strayed from the original intent of lawmakers. SB793 hopes to restore a balance that requires not only that businesses act fairly, but also that consumers act reasonably.
| While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
| The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District, applying a modified economic realities test, held that AutoZone, Inc., the parent corporation of AutoZoners, LLC, was not Plaintiff’s employer for purposes of the Missouri Human Rights Act. However, the Court found that Plaintiff made a submissible case for sexual harassment, which lead to its decision to uphold the jury’s rulings in favor of Plaintiff for her hostile work environment claim, the trial court’s decision in refusing to reduce the award of compensatory damages and the jury’s award of punitive damages against AutoZoners, LLC. The case was ultimately remanded on the issue of attorneys’ fees.
| The Eighth Circuit recently analyzed the application of the “outside sales” and “administrative” exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of promotional workers. Also, the Court was asked to decide, for the first time, what constitutes a valid waiver of an employee’s rights under the FLSA.
| An agent may recover attorney’s fees when enforcing a principal’s contract if: the agent is granted the express authority to enforce the contract in the contract itself, the contract contains an attorney’s fees provision, and the agent is the prevailing party.
| A defendant removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act need not provide evidence proving the jurisdictional amount in controversy in the notice of removal. A “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” is sufficient.
| NLRB General Counsel fires a shot across the bow of McDonald’s and other national franchisors.
| K.S.A. 60-19a02 has been amended, increasing Kansas's long-standing cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) recoverable in personal injury. K.S.A. 60-456(b) has also been amended to mirror the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702.
| Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.
| A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.
| A man who sued his former employer, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, appealed on the basis that the trial court used a jury instruction with the wrong standard. In a 5-2 decision written by Judge George W. Draper III, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the 'exclusive causation' standard and replaced it with the "contributing factor" standard. On remand and in future cases, the jury must determine whether the plaintiff's filing of a workers' compensation claim was a "contributing factor" to his or her discharge.
| Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).
| The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.
| In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.