Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, in a suit filed over a segment in which a Texas resident appeared. Busch v. Viacom International Inc., 3:06-CV-0493-L. The Daily Show broadcast a parody of a dietary drink that TV evangelist Pat Robertson promoted. The Daily Show segment included a clip from Robertson's show The 700 Club in which plaintiff Phillip Busch, a user of the dietary drink, shook Robertson's hand. Busch filed claiming defamation and misappropriation of image in the Daily Show piece.