Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How Much Is Enough?
In employment class actions in federal court, such as class actions under Title VII for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides the governing procedure, the most critical juncture in the case is often the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion requires the court to evaluate whether the plaintiffs have met the Rule 23 requirements and may proceed as a class; denial of the motion generally deals a devastating blow to plaintiffs' claims. In a new ruling that employers can use to support their bids to defeat plaintiffs' motions for class certification under Rule 23, the Second Circuit recently clarified ' and strengthened ' the standard under which district courts should determine plaintiffs' satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements.
Requirements of Rule 23
Under Rule 23, a class may be certified when the plaintiffs meet the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a). Moreover, plaintiffs must meet one of the standards in subsection (b) of Rule 23; Title VII class actions are most often pursued under either subsection (b)(2), under which plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief, and subsection (b)(3), which requires 'predominance,' that is, that 'the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods' of adjudication.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.