Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
When tortious conduct causes injuries, the plaintiff is allowed to recover as special damages the 'reasonable value' of the medical services needed to treat the injury. Today, determining what is the 'reasonable value' of health care services is becoming a more challenging task.
Features
Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals equitably estopped a man from denying paternity in order to protect the child's best interests. The man had no biological link to the child, but was deceived by his paramour into thinking that he was the father. <i>Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D.</i>. The impact this ruling could have on same-sex couples and the children of their unions is potentially significant ' not just for couples in New York, but for same-sex couples in all states that value the best interests of the children of those unions.
Features
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ('CAFA') expanded federal jurisdiction over putative class actions. Under CAFA, the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. '1332, was amended to allow for both original and removal jurisdiction over putative class actions where: 1) the putative class action consists of at least 100 proposed class members; 2) the citizenship of at least one proposed class member is different from that of any defendant ('minimal diversity'); and 3) the matter in controversy, after aggregating the claims of the proposed class members, exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. <i>See generally</i> P.L. 109-2 '4(a), codified at 28 U.S.C. '1332(d). This expanded federal diversity jurisdiction is subject to certain exceptions, including the 'local controversy' and 'home-state controversy' exceptions, where, <i>inter alia</i>, a certain percentage of putative class members and the 'primary defendants,' or defendants from whom 'significant relief is sought,' are citizens of the forum state. <i>See</i> 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(3) and (4).
President George W. Bush's appointment of Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court last year explains, more than any other factor, April 18's historic Supreme Court decision upholding the federal ban on 'partial birth' abortions.
Features
In asbestos insurance coverage litigation, the extent of an insurer's liability to its insured often turns on whether the court determines that the underlying asbestos injury took place while the insured was conducting operations, such as asbestos installation or tear out, or after such operations were completed. This distinction is important to the insurer because under many general liability policies injuries taking place during operations may be held as not subject to aggregate limits, whereas injuries taking place after completion typically are held subject to aggregate limits.
