Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedics Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 130 S.Ct. 1431 (March 31, 2010) is of vital importance for any litigator or claims professional who handles class action lawsuits in federal court. It also may have a significant impact on the economics of writing coverage that includes defense costs in industries that are typically subject to class actions. In Shady Grove, the Supreme Court took on the issue of whether, in the context of a state law diversity action pending in federal court, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which generally permits a plaintiff to maintain a class action in federal court if certain preconditions are met, pre-empts a New York statute (N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. ' 901(b)) that prohibits a plaintiff from maintaining a class action suit seeking statutory penalties. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that Rule 23 pre-empts the New York statute and permits the plaintiff to maintain a class action suit in federal court seeking statutory penalties, even though the plaintiff could not have maintained the same action in a New York state court.
Nevertheless, the Court could not agree on a single rationale for holding that Rule 23 pre-empted the New York statute, thus leaving an opening for defendants in other cases to distinguish their particular disputes from the New York statute. Another potential outcome is that state legislatures will attempt to amend their laws in order to potentially avoid the ruling in Shady Grove. More specifically, defendants can argue that other state laws are substantive, as opposed to the statute at issue in Shady Grove, which Justice John Paul Stevens (who gave the critical fifth vote in favor of pre-empting the New York statute) deemed to be procedural because it merely served to prohibit the procedural class action device in certain actions. Alternatively, state legislatures can amend existing laws to make them more “substantive” in nature, such as by tying them to particular substantive rights or expressly limiting the remedies available in certain actions, rather than procedurally barring the class action itself. While such arguments or amendments are not certain to withstand pre-emption in federal courts, Shady Grove leaves some room for that possibility.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.