Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Mass Actions': Eleventh Circuit Attempts to Find a Method to the Madness
In the May issue of PLLS, I identified a number of the many unanswered questions regarding CAFA's 'mass action' provisions, codified at 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(11). See Rothman, 'CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions,” Product Liability Law & Strategy (May 2007) ('Mass Action Part I').
As that issue was going to press, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sought to 'unravel some of the mysteries of CAFA's cryptic text' with respect to the 'mass action' provisions ' which the court (generously) characterized as an 'opaque, baroque maze of interlocking cross-references that defy easy interpretation.' Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., __ F. 3d __, 2007 WL 1062769, at *1, *8 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2007), affirming Lowery v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2006). (The district court decision is cited at page 6 of Mass Action Part I.) In affirming the grant of remand in an action arising from the alleged discharge of pollutants, the court of appeals set forth the jurisdictional framework for a 'mass action.' Specifically, the court identified four jurisdictional threshold prerequisites for a 'mass action' removal: 1) numerosity ' 100 or more plaintiffs; 2) diversity ' any plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant ('minimal diversity'); 3) commonality ' plaintiffs' claims share common questions of law or fact; and 4) amount in controversy ' the aggregate value of plaintiffs' claims exceeds $5 million. Lowery, 2007 WL 1062769, at *10.
Issues Addressed in Dicta
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.