Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of a Two-Part Series
The Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') was enacted almost a year and a half ago, signed into law by President Bush on Feb. 18, 2005. 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(2). CAFA was enacted to help control the 'explosion' in the number of class actions while still allowing the right of access to the courts. As stated by one of the act's proponents, Sen. Orin Hatch, during his keynote address to the American Bar Association conference on class actions, 'truly national class actions should not be heard in remote state courts with little tie to any of the parties involved.' CAFA attempts to rectify this situation by allowing national class actions to be heard in federal courts.
CAFA is of particular importance to product liability litigators because product manufacturers are often named in state court class actions in 'remote state courts' where they have few ties and where the state courts appear unfavorable to defendants. CAFA has expanded federal court jurisdiction over class actions by providing that such class actions in remote state courts may be removable to federal court. Under CAFA, federal courts may have jurisdiction over class actions that do not meet the traditional requirement of complete diversity and do not meet the threshold amount in controversy for federal court jurisdiction. CAFA amended the federal diversity statute and provides federal courts with jurisdiction over class actions where minimal diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate. CAFA's more expansive jurisdictional allowances may allow product manufacturers greater access to federal courts. CAFA is expressly not retroactive and only applies to cases 'commenced' after its effective date.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.