FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED ON REMOVAL:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED ON REMOVAL:"

Transcription

1 BOOK FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED ON REMOVAL: A 50-STATE SURVEY A Report of the Pharmaceutical Subcommittee of the Products Liability Committee KARA T. STUBBS EDITOR AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

2 The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and editors and should not be construed to be the action of the American Bar Association, First Chair Press, or the Section of Litigation unless adopted pursuant to the bylaws of the Association. Nothing contained in this book is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This book and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only by the American Bar Association. All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Permission requests should be sent to the American Bar Association Copyrights & Contracts Department via at or via fax at (312) Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 13: ISBN 10: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Discounts are available for books ordered in bulk. Special consideration is given to state and local bars, CLE programs, and other bar-related organizations. Inquire at ABA Publishing, American Bar Association, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois For a complete list of ABA publications, visit

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 st Circuit Maine... Massachusetts... New Hampshire... Rhode Island... 2 nd Circuit Connecticut... New York... Vermont... 3 rd Circuit Delaware... New Jersey... Pennsylvania... 4 th Circuit Maryland... North Carolina... South Carolina... Virginia... West Virginia... 5 th Circuit Louisiana... Mississippi... Texas... 6 th Circuit Kentucky... Michigan... Ohio... Tennessee... 7 th Circuit Illinois... Indiana...

4 Wisconsin... 8 th Circuit Arkansas... Iowa... Minnesota... Missouri... Nebraska... North Dakota... South Dakota... 9 th Circuit Alaska... Arizona... California... Hawaii... Idaho... Montana... Nevada... Oregon... Washington th Circuit Colorado... Kansas... New Mexico... Oklahoma... Utah... Wyoming th Circuit Alabama... Florida... Georgia...

5 INTRODUCTION It has long been recognized that there is no other phase of American jurisprudence with so many refinements and subtleties as removal and remand. 1 Familiarity with the timing, grounds, and procedural steps of removal is essential, as a party s failure to follow the appropriate procedures may have long-standing effects. If the substantive requirements for removal are not satisfied, or if the procedural rules are not met, a party can readily find its case being tried in a different forum and before a different judge than originally anticipated. The singular purpose of this survey, FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED ON REMOVAL: 50-State Survey, is to assist the practitioner in navigating successfully between state and federal courts. The survey comprises submissions for each of the fifty states and is organized alphabetically by circuit. Lawyers from across the country contributed their time and talent to highlight not only the fundamental concepts of removal jurisdiction, but also the unique nuances within their jurisdictions. At first blush, one might assume that removing a case is simple. After all, how difficult can it be to determine whether complete diversity exists and whether or not the amount in controversy is in excess of the jurisdictional amount? In practice, however, it is not that simple. Numerous pitfalls for the unwary abound. Important considerations come into play in determining the parties in interest and the amount in controversy. For example, what happens when the Complaint asserts claims against a Doe defendant or seeks neither money damages nor damages in a specific dollar amount? What if the case one wants to remove is a class action? This survey addresses each of these issues and related sub-issues in detail. The well-known maxim, Timing is everything, holds especially true in the removal context. Being able to recognize the event that triggers the 30-day period when an action is initially removable is critical. Equally important, is recognition of events that trigger the thirty-day removal period when a case in not initially removable. In either scenario, if the 30-day window closes, the case will remain in state court. The authors provide detailed analysis of the time of existence of the grounds for removal. No discussion of removal would be complete without addressing the subject of fraudulent joinder, the impact of the voluntary/involuntary rule, and waiver of the right to remove. The case law on these subjects varies greatly by jurisdiction and continues to evolve. For the lawyer whose practice includes litigation involving pharmaceutical products, these subjects are of particular importance. In closing, I want to extend my deep thanks to all of the authors for their contribution. Their efforts identify some common themes and highlight the lack 1 Hagerla v. Miss. River Power Co., 202 F. 771, 773 (S.D. Iowa 1912).

6 of uniformity on certain issues. We hope that this survey will assist you in your practice as this body of law continues to develop. Kara Trouslot Stubbs September 2008

7 About the Editor Kara Trouslot Stubbs is a member of Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, L.L.C., where her civil litigation practice is primarily focused on the defense of product liability matters, including the defense of manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceutical products, construction equipment, children's products, and various consumer products. Her practice also includes general personal injury, commercial litigation, and consumer fraud. She has served as national and regional counsel to various clients in mass tort litigation. She is a member of the Kansas, Missouri, and American Bar Associations, International Association of Defense Counsel, and DRI. She is a frequent lecturer and author on issues related to product liability litigation. Ms. Stubbs received her B.A. from the University of Kansas in 1989 and her J.D. from the University of Kansas in Prior to joining the firm she served as law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Clark of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

8 1ST CIRCUIT

9 MAINE By: Steven J. Mogul, Esq. Joseph M. Bethony, Esq. GROSS, MINSKY & MOGUL, P.A. 23 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 917 Bangor, ME Telephone: (207) Facsimile: (207) I. POWER AND RIGHT TO REMOVE A. The Parties 1. Defining Parties in Interest The term parties in interest, as it appears in 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) has not been defined by the courts of the District of Maine. 1 Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. However, the case of Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 2 sheds some light on how that term may be defined if that issue were to come before the District Court for the District of Maine. In Millett, Magistrate Judge David Cohen issued a Recommended Decision on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand which rejected the out-of-state Defendants argument that the court, in analyzing whether there was diversity of citizenship to support removal under 28 U.S.C. 1441, could not consider the citizenship of a Maine resident added as a defendant on the same day that Defendants motion for removal was filed. The magistrate held that even though the added defendant might not have been a 1 See 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) WL (D. Me. 1999). 1

10 proper party before the action was removed, this fact was not relevant to an analysis of the existence of diversity jurisdiction. In a footnote, the magistrate noted that the last sentence of section 1441(b) comes into play only when diversity jurisdiction on removal under section 1441(a) has been established. 3 Rather [section 1441(b)] provides that, even if there is complete diversity of citizenship, a case cannot be removed if a defendant, properly joined and served is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. It would seem, therefore, that the courts of the District of Maine would read the term parties in interest to merely refer to a defendant that is properly before the court as a party before the motion for removal has been filed. 2. Presence of Doe Defendants In the First Circuit, the existence of fictitious or Doe defendants is to be ignored by the court in determining whether removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), even in cases where the plaintiffs pleadings suggest that the residency of these defendants might preclude the courts exercise of diversity jurisdiction. 4 If, however, after removal, the fictitious defendants are identified as nondiverse parties, then diversity jurisdiction is defeated. 5 B. The Amount in Controversy 1. Establishing the Amount in Controversy In the state courts of Maine, parties are prohibited from asking for a specific amount of money in their pleadings. 6 Thus, upon removal, courts in the District of Maine must look to the pleadings and evidence presented by the defendant to determine whether the defendant has met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 3 Id. at *6 n.7 (citing Burke v. Humana Ins. Co., 932 F. Supp. 274, 275 (M.D. Ala. 1996). 4 Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copystar America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 673 (1st Cir. 1994). 5 Id. at M.R.S.A

11 $75, Some factors that have been held to be important in undertaking this inquiry include: 1. the compensable damages suffered by the plaintiff, Doughty, supra. at 219); 2. other elements of recovery sought by the plaintiff, including, among other things, punitive damages, Bernier v. Unicco Service Co., 2005 WL *1 (D. Me. 2005); 3. amounts that plaintiffs in similar cases in the locality have recovered, id.; 4. when authorized by statute or contract, an estimate of the reasonable attorneys= fees that could be recovered, Waldron v. George Weston Bakeries Dist., Inc., 477 F. Supp.2d 295, 296 (D. Me. 2007); and 5. whether the plaintiff has stipulated or attempted to stipulate, before removal, that the amount she is seeking in the suit is less than $75,000, Satterfield v. F.W. Webb, 334 F. Supp.2d 1, 3-4 (D. Me. 2004). 2. Defeating Removal by Amending Relief Sought While a plaintiff may successfully defeat federal jurisdiction by asserting from the inception of the case that she will be seeking less than $75,000 in damages, the District of Maine, in dicta, has stated that cases holding that a post-removal attempt to so limit damages is ineffectual seem correct Amount in Controversy Where Equitable Relief Sought The question of how the court is to determine whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied when the plaintiff seeks equitable relief is an open issue in this district and in the First Circuit. However, a fairly recent opinion from the First Circuit Court of Appeals may provide some insight into how the issue might be analyzed by the district courts in this circuit. In a case where the defendant challenged the district courts exercise of diversity jurisdiction over a the interpretation of an arbitration clause when the amount in controversy in the arbitration was just under $60,000, the First Circuit held that the $75,000 amount in controversy had 7 Doughty v. Hyster New England, Inc., 344 F. Supp.2d 217, 219 (D. Me. 2004); see also, Vradenburgh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 397 F. Supp.2d 76, 78 (D. Me. 2005). (In determining whether the amount in controversy element is satisfied, the Court considers whether, taking all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that the litigation value of the case exceeds $75,000.). 8 Id. (citing Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir. 2000); In re Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d 355, 356 (7th Cir. 1992)). 3

12 nonetheless been met. 9 The court stated that the proper focus in analyzing the amount in controversy was not merely the monetary judgment which the plaintiff may recover, but more broadly what were the judgments pecuniary consequences to those involved in the litigation. 10 Thus, the extra costs that the plaintiff would have incurred if arbitration were held in one location versus another were properly included in the calculation of the amount in controversy. 11 C. Time of Existence of Grounds for Removal 1. Event Triggering Thirty-Day Period for Actions Initially Removable So long as the case is, on its face, removable on the initial pleading, the thirty-day removal period that is set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) is triggered from receipt or service of the complaint Event Triggering Thirty-Day Period for Actions Not Initially Removable If, however, the case cannot be removed based on the face of the initial complaint, then, pursuant to section 1446(b), an unremovable case may become removable within 30 days of receipt of an amended pleading, motion, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable; in other words, a once non-removable case is removable within the 30 days after the defendant discovers that the case is or has become removable. 13 While the receipt of an amended pleading or motion may trigger this latter 30-day removal period, so too may the receipt of some other paper. Other paper that has signified the newfound removability of a case and initiated the thirty-day period includes letters from opposing counsel, correspondence between parties, affidavits, proposed jury instructions, answers to interrogatories, 9 Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. v. Leventhal, D.D.S., M.S., 389 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2004). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Borgese v. American Lung Assn of Maine, 2005 WL * 1 (D. Me. 2005). 4

13 motions for summary judgment, and documents produced in discovery. 14 In Parker, the receipt by defendant of a letter enclosing a Stipulation of Dismissal of the non-consenting defendant was held to be an other paper giving rise to the 30-day period provided for in the second paragraph of section 1446(b). 15 It is worth pointing out that despite the fact that complete diversity may exist among the plaintiff and all the defendants, one defendant can block removal by failing to give consent since all defendants must consent to removal. 16 It was not until defendant received this other paper that it realized that the case had become removable, given that removal could not have gone forward while the non-consenting defendant was still involved in the litigation. 17 II. FRAUDULENT JOINDER A. Test for Fraudulent Joinder While the First Circuit has not defined how claims of fraudulent joinder should be analyzed, the District of Maine has held that to prove that a non-diverse defendant has been joined simply to defeat diversity jurisdiction, the burden is on the party challenging the jurisdiction-related allegations of the complaint to prove that they have no reasonable basis and to prove the pleaders objective bad faith in making those allegations. 18 The party challenging the joinder must prove to a legal certainty that, at the time of filing the complaint, no one familiar with the applicable law could reasonably have thought, based on the facts that the pleader knew or should have known at the time 13 Parker v. County of Oxford, 224 F. Supp.2d 292, 296 n.7 (D. Me. 2002). 14 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. But see Borgese, 2005 WL * 2-3 (holding that letter sent by plaintiffs counsel in the course of settlement negotiations was not an other paper, even though letter made vague reference to possible federal claims that could be asserted by plaintiff since it did not give notice of a change in diversity between parties or amount in controversy, and was not related to filing with court). 18 In re Maine Asbestos Cases, 44 F. Supp.2d 368, 372 (D. Me. 1999). 5

14 that a cause of action against the resident defendant could ultimately be proven. 19 B. Evidence of Fraudulent Joinder The In re Maine Asbestos Cases test breaks down into two prongs: (1) facial invalidity, and (2) objective bad faith proven to a legal certainty. 20 Despite the fact that the District of Maine has announced the foregoing test, it has not been put into practice on more than a few occasions. Resort should be had to other district courts within this circuit, to the extent that they employ the same test, to further flesh out what constitutes evidence of fraudulent joinder. III. VOLUNTARY / INVOLUNTARY RULE A. Voluntary Dismissal In New England Explosives Corp. v. Maine Ledge Blasting Specialist, Inc., 21 the District of Maine opined in dictum that notwithstanding the entry of a default judgment against a non-diverse defendant, which, ostensibly, would have created complete diversity of citizenship among the remaining parties, the court could not exercise diversity jurisdiction. The court flatly held that the entry of a default judgment, being an act of the court, is not a voluntary act of the plaintiff that renders the once non-removable case removable. 22 The District of Maine subsequently held that New England Explosives does not create a bright-line rule that a court order creating diversity is never a plaintiff s voluntary act for purposes of the involuntary/voluntary exception to removal of diversity actions from state to federal court. Instead, seventeen years later, the District of Maine changed the focus slightly so that now the 19 Id.; see also Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc., 713 F.2d 875, 877 (1st Cir. 1983) (stating that a finding of fraudulent joinder bears an implicit finding that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the fraudulently joined defendant). 20 See Tardy v. Eli Lilly and Company, 308 F. Supp. 2d 18, (D. Me. 2004) F. Supp. 1343, 1347 (D. Me. 1982) 22 Id. at 1347 n. 7. 6

15 question is whether the court order that created diversity was the result of a voluntary act by the plaintiff. 23 The court there noted that if the order that issued as a result of a motion filed by plaintiff, it could be considered a manifestation of [p]laintiffs voluntary act. 24 However, since the order that issued in Maine Employers Mutual Ins. Co. was contrary to the request for relief sought by plaintiff, the court held that the order was not a voluntary act of the plaintiff, meaning that the case was still not removable. 25 The ruling now casts doubt on the dictum in New England Explosives, since default judgment is typically sought by the plaintiff as voluntary act. IV. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO REMOVE A. Waiver by Defending Cases arising from the First Circuit, suggest that waiver of the right of removal requires evidence of intent, which must be clear and unequivocal, and the defendant's actions must be inconsistent with the right to remove. 26 The actions from which intent is to be inferred must be clearly inconsistent with a purpose to pursue the right to remove. 27 It is well established in the district courts of this circuit that while conduct in state court which seeks affirmative relief or substantive disposition of a claim may constitute waiver, [n]either defensive pleadings nor motions to preserve the status quo ante waive the right to removal. 28 Filing an answer and asserting affirmative defenses did not constitute a waiver in F.D.I.C. v. Greenhouse Realty Associates. 29 Likewise, filing a motion for enlargement of time within which to answer the complaint is not a waiver, since such a rule would present a defendant with a Hobsons choice between answering the 23 Maine Employers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Yates Insurance Agency, 52 F. Supp. 2d 135, 138 (D. Me. 1999). 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Hernandez-Lopez v. Com. of Puerto Rico, 30 F.Supp.2d 205, 209 (D. P.R.1998). 27 Davila v. Hilton Hotels Intern, 97 F.Supp. 32, 34 (D. P.R. 1951). 28 Id. See also, Houlton Sav. Bank v. American Laundry Machinery Co., 7 F.Supp. 858, 861 (D. Me. 1934). 7

16 complaint within the deadline to do so (for example, Maines deadline to file an answer is 20 from the date of service) and thus waiving the right to remove, or else risking default. 30 Similarly, opposing injunctive relief, or filing motions or memoranda as required by the court, do not constitute waivers of the right to remove. 31 On the other hand, actions in the state court, that indicate the defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of the state court or has taken actions that manifest the defendant's intent to have the case adjudicated in state court will constitute waiver of the right of removal. 32 Removal following such actions may be seen as nothing more than a veiled attempt to appeal from an adverse ruling in the state court. 33 In F.D.I.C. v. Greenhouse Realty Associates, the Court noted that actively seeking disposition on the merits, such as by filing a motion to dismiss, would constitute a waiver of the right to remove a case to federal court. B. Waiver by Consent State laws requiring corporations registered to conduct business in the state to submit or consent to the jurisdiction of the states courts, standing alone, do not deprive such companies of their right to remove actions to the federal court. 34 The same can be said of insurers who register in particular state and thereby consent to be sued in the states courts. 35 The reason offered for the rule is that it is intent to waive which determines waiver, and it is the intent of the party seeking removal which is examined, not the intent of third parties, such as a states legislature. 36 The pertinent F.Supp. 507, 511 (D. N.H.1993) 30 Malave v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 392 F.Supp. 51, (D. P.R. 1975). 31 Hernandez-Lopez, supra. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Davila, supra. 35 CNA Cas. of Puerto Rico v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York, 790 F.Supp. 45, 47 (D. P.R., 1992). 36 Id. 8

17 statutes requiring registration of a corporation or insurer doing business within the state is merely to assure personal jurisdiction within the state, not to dictate whether suit must be maintained in state versus federal court. 37 Furthermore, the decisions uniformly hold that it is beyond the power of the States to impair the right to remove a case on diversity grounds when the removal is timely and diversity does in fact exist. A statute which in terms purported to effect such a result would be unconstitutional. 38 The question may arise whether prior litigation by a party in state court may constitute consent to waive the right of removal in subsequent litigation, particularly where the parties to the two actions are the same and the transactions in litigation are closely related. 39 However, if it is true that waiver is always spelled out from occurrences after commencement of suit, 40 then conduct in prior litigation would have to be very closely related in order to constitute a waiver. The issue has not been further addressed in this circuit. C. Waiver by Contract The question of whether parties may agree by contract to waive the right of removal was last addressed in this circuit in Whether parties may stipulate in advance to restrict removal is highly doubtful, for such an understanding would run counter to the settled idea that bargains limiting parties to particular tribunals are illegal. 41 V. PRACTICE POINTERS In order to convince the court that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit, demand letters and other correspondence from plaintiff or its counsel, though often inflated, can 37 Id. at Davila, supra. at Demarkles v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 132 F.Supp. 20, 21 (D. Mass. 1955). 40 Davila, supra. at 35 9

18 support a higher amount in dispute than a plaintiffs representations after removal is sought. The Maine Trial Lawyers Association publishes a report of jury verdicts in the state which provide information about each jury trial, pretrial settlement positions of the parties and the verdict amount. These may also provide evidence of the value of the claims at hand. Caution should be exercised, however, so as not to jeopardize settlement possibilities by inflating plaintiff s opinion of the value of its claim. To avoid waiver it is important when defending a state court complaint that defense counsel not take any action beyond what is necessary to protect against default or maintain the status quo. Faced with a motion for prejudgment attachment, the case law suggests that objecting should not constitute a waiver of the right to appeal. Likewise, opposition to injunctive relief such as a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction would not constitute a waiver. However, hearings on a preliminary injunction are often consolidated with a hearing on the merits. M.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(2). It is not inconceivable that such a hearing might take place within the time limit to remove, since Rule 65(a) states that [i]n case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time. Whether participating in such a consolidated hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to remove the matter may be very fact dependant. Unfortunately, a TRO may so hinder a defendant that a prompt hearing on the preliminary injunction is critical. Better practice would be to object to a consolidated hearing so as to avoid the appearance of seeking a resolution on the merits only to then seek removal as an alternative to appeal of an adverse ruling. If a defendant potentially faces multiple similar suits between the same parties in state court, 41 General Phoenix Corporation v. Malyon, 88 F.Supp. 502, 503 (S.D. N.Y. 1949), quoted in Davila, supra. 10

19 such as between a manufacturer and wholesaler or retailer, it may want to consider at the outset whether it prefers to litigate in state or federal court. If it is even considering litigation in federal court, it would be wise to remove the first action rather than wait to see how it turns out in state court and then find its removal of subsequent actions blocked by an implied consent to waive removal. Given the constitutional import of removal, it should be argued in favor of denying remand that there is no appeal from the grant of remand, while there is an appeal from the denial of remand. That right [of removal] is of sufficient value and gravity to be guarantied by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. If it exists, and the Circuit Court denies its existence, and remands or refuses to remove the suit, the error is remediless, and it deprives the petitioner of his constitutional right. If the right does not exist, and the court affirms its existence and retains the suit, the error may be corrected by the Supreme Court. An error that the aggrieved party may correct is less grievous than one that is without remedy Boatman's Bank v. Fritzlen 135 F. 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1905) quoted in Houlton Sav., supra. at

20 MASSACHUSETTS By: David L. Ferrera and Gabriella Kaplan Eisner NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA Telephone: (617) Facsimile: (617) I. POWER AND RIGHT TO REMOVE A. The Parties 1. Defining Parties in Interest The District Court of Massachusetts has provided minimal guidance about the definition of parties in interest. The Court has stated that third-party defendants cannot remove a case from state court to federal court. 1 Similarly, the Court has found that a defendant s relationship with other parties that may have an interest in the case does not defeat diversity. 2 Moreover, [f]or purposes of determining diversity, citizenship of a limited-liability corporation is that of each of its members Presence of Doe Defendants The District Court of Massachusetts found that original diversity jurisdiction did not exist in a case where there was only one defendant who was also a Doe defendant. 4 However, Massachusetts treats Doe defendants in removal cases as instructed: In 1988, Congress 1 Coren v. Jefferson et al., 139 F.R.D. 561, 564 (D. Mass. 1991). 2 Whittaker Corp. v. Am. Nuclear Insurers, 2007 WL at *1 (D. Mass. 2007) (unsuccessful argument that the court should consider the citizenship of all the members of ANI, an unincorporated association of member insurance companies that underwrote the insurance policy at issue, because they are the real parties in interest.) 3 Landworks Creations, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Co., 2005 WL at *1 (D. Mass 2005). 4 McMann v. John Doe, 460 F. Supp. 2d 259, (D. Mass. 2006). 1

21 amended the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1441, by declaring that the presence of defendants sued under fictitious names does not defeat removal jurisdiction. 5 But when Doe defendants are ultimately named and diversity is destroyed, federal jurisdiction can only continue if the former Doe defendants are dispensable parties and are dismissed Diversity for Putative Class Actions The diversity determination in putative class actions is governed by the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 7 which requires only minimal diversity. The District Court of Massachusetts found that residency and citizenship are not interchangeable when determining diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. 8 Instead, citizenship is equated with domicile. 9 Thus, a putative class that is composed entirely of residents of Massachusetts, does not, by definition, foreclose the inclusion of non-citizens as well. This suffices to support the assertion of federal jurisdiction in this case. 10 There has also been some debate about the definition of commencement in CAFA, which states that the Act applies to any case commenced on or after February 18, 2005, the date of enactment. The District Court of Massachusetts held that an action is commenced as of the date of filing with the state court, not on the date that it was removed to federal court. 11 Moreover, the Court set forth two types of amendments that generally do establish the commencement of a new action for the purposes of CAFA: 1) amendments that add new defendants and 2) amendments that assert a wholly distinct claim for relief into a pending suit Id. at Casas Office Machines v. Mita Copystar Am., 42 F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1994) U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). 8 McMorris v. TJX Companies, 493 F. Supp. 2d 158, 162 (D. Mass. 2007). 9 Id. 10 Id. at Natale v. Pfizer, 379 F. Supp. 2d 161, 176 (D. Mass. 2005). 12 Moniz v. Bayer A.G., 447 F. Supp. 2d 31, 37 (D. Mass. 2006). 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil

More information

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid> Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39

More information

Removal to Federal Court - The New Rules Making it a Federal Case: New Developments Presented by Kevin Schiferl Frost Brown Todd (Indianapolis, IN)

Removal to Federal Court - The New Rules Making it a Federal Case: New Developments Presented by Kevin Schiferl Frost Brown Todd (Indianapolis, IN) Removal to Federal Court - The New Rules Making it a Federal Case: New Developments Presented by Kevin Schiferl Frost Brown Todd (Indianapolis, IN) The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification

More information

Case 1:14-cv-12552-FDS Document 30 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:14-cv-12552-FDS Document 30 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:14-cv-12552-FDS Document 30 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS HERBERT H. LANDY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Plaintiff, v. NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

More information

Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION VICKIE THORNBURG, Plaintiff, vs. STRYKER CORPORATION,

More information

RETAIL INSTALLMENT CREDIT AGREEMENT

RETAIL INSTALLMENT CREDIT AGREEMENT RETAIL INSTALLMENT CREDIT AGREEMENT In this Agreement, the words you and your refer to any person who signs this Agreement, has requested and is issued a Tiffany & Co. credit card, or is authorized to

More information

Case: 4:15-cv-00194-CDP Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/17/15 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:

Case: 4:15-cv-00194-CDP Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/17/15 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid> Case: 4:15-cv-00194-CDP Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/17/15 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIEONNA LITTLEJOHN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #:

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

Tax Research: Understanding Sources of Tax Law (Why my IRC beats your Rev Proc!)

Tax Research: Understanding Sources of Tax Law (Why my IRC beats your Rev Proc!) Tax Research: Understanding Sources of Tax Law (Why my IRC beats your Rev Proc!) Understanding the Federal Courts There are three levels of Federal courts that hear tax cases. At the bottom of the hierarchy,

More information

Construction Defect Action Reform Act

Construction Defect Action Reform Act COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction

More information

Multijurisdictional Practice of Law for In-House Counsel

Multijurisdictional Practice of Law for In-House Counsel Multijurisdictional Practice of Law for In-House Counsel Presentation for Association of Corporate Counsel - Charlotte March 2010 Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. Robert E. Harrington and Peter C. Buck

More information

Impacts of Sequestration on the States

Impacts of Sequestration on the States Impacts of Sequestration on the States Alabama Alabama will lose about $230,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law STOP Violence Against Women Program: Alabama could lose up to $102,000 in funds

More information

Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California

Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California Brought to you by Alamo Insurance Group Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Clears Way for Same-Sex On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court announced decisions in two significant cases regarding laws affecting

More information

FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1

FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction

More information

An Ohio court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You are not being sued.

An Ohio court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You are not being sued. NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, FAIRNESS HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR To all persons who purchased a single premium credit life and/or credit disability insurance policy from Protective Life

More information

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH TIN INC. AND UNITED STATES GYPSUM

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH TIN INC. AND UNITED STATES GYPSUM NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH TIN INC. AND UNITED STATES GYPSUM TO: Indirect Purchasers of Wallboard This notice is being provided pursuant to an Order of the United

More information

Exhibit 57A. Approved Attorney Fees and Title Expenses

Exhibit 57A. Approved Attorney Fees and Title Expenses Exhibit 57A Approved Attorney Fees and Title Expenses Written pre-approval from Freddie Mac is required before incurring any expense in excess of any of the below amounts. See Sections 71.19 and 71.24

More information

1 copyright 2012 workers compensation research institute

1 copyright 2012 workers compensation research institute Fees For Worker's Source Of Payments To Worker's Worker's Fee Worker's Fee Formula Alabama Statutory formula: 15% N/A Alaska As stated, 25% of first $1,000 and 10% of 10% of recovery or actual fees, Paid

More information

Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) Date: July 29, 2013. [Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C)] [July 29, 2013]

Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) Date: July 29, 2013. [Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C)] [July 29, 2013] Topic: Question by: : Low-Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) Kevin Rayburn, Esq., MBA Tennessee Date: July 29, 2013 Manitoba Corporations Canada Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

More information

Summary of Laws Regarding International Adoptions Finalized Abroad 50 States and 6 U.S. Territories

Summary of Laws Regarding International Adoptions Finalized Abroad 50 States and 6 U.S. Territories Summary of Laws Regarding International Adoptions Finalized Abroad 50 States and 6 U.S. Territories (7/01) Effect of Foreign Adoption Decree Twenty-five States and one territory (Commonwealth of the Northern

More information

Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK

More information

Question by: Karon Beyer. Date: March 28, 2012. [LLC Question] [2012-03-29]

Question by: Karon Beyer. Date: March 28, 2012. [LLC Question] [2012-03-29] Topic: LLC Question Question by: Karon Beyer : Florida Date: March 28, 2012 Manitoba Corporations Canada Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Arizona uses "manager" or "member," but not

More information

Public School Teacher Experience Distribution. Public School Teacher Experience Distribution

Public School Teacher Experience Distribution. Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile Mode Alabama Percent of Teachers FY Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile

More information

Case 5:11-cv-00036-TBR Document 18 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1349

Case 5:11-cv-00036-TBR Document 18 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1349 Case 5:11-cv-00036-TBR Document 18 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1349 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO. 5:11-CV-36 KEVIN WIGGINS, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND NICOLE MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 05-38S HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United

More information

Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access

Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana

More information

NON-RESIDENT INDEPENDENT, PUBLIC, AND COMPANY ADJUSTER LICENSING CHECKLIST

NON-RESIDENT INDEPENDENT, PUBLIC, AND COMPANY ADJUSTER LICENSING CHECKLIST NON-RESIDENT INDEPENDENT, PUBLIC, AND COMPANY ADJUSTER LICENSING CHECKLIST ** Utilize this list to determine whether or not a non-resident applicant may waive the Oklahoma examination or become licensed

More information

Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525

Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE

More information

Chex Systems, Inc. does not currently charge a fee to place, lift or remove a freeze; however, we reserve the right to apply the following fees:

Chex Systems, Inc. does not currently charge a fee to place, lift or remove a freeze; however, we reserve the right to apply the following fees: Chex Systems, Inc. does not currently charge a fee to place, lift or remove a freeze; however, we reserve the right to apply the following fees: Security Freeze Table AA, AP and AE Military addresses*

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF, Successor-in-Interest to Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

More information

BAD FAITH LAW IN INDIANA

BAD FAITH LAW IN INDIANA BAD FAITH LAW IN INDIANA CINCINNATI, OH COLUMBUS, OH DETROIT, MI FT. MITCHELL, KY ORLANDO, FL SARASOTA, FL www.smithrolfes.com 2012 I. OVERVIEW OF INDIANA BAD FAITH LAW Indiana recognizes a common-law

More information

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

More information

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq.

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq. Memorandum Summarizing Procedures With Respect To Removal Of Bankruptcy-Related State Court Actions To The United States District Court And United States Bankruptcy Court In Maryland Prepared by: Hon.

More information

VCF Program Statistics (Represents activity through the end of the day on June 30, 2015)

VCF Program Statistics (Represents activity through the end of the day on June 30, 2015) VCF Program Statistics (Represents activity through the end of the day on June 30, 2015) As of June 30, 2015, the VCF has made 12,712 eligibility decisions, finding 11,770 claimants eligible for compensation.

More information

2014 INCOME EARNED BY STATE INFORMATION

2014 INCOME EARNED BY STATE INFORMATION BY STATE INFORMATION This information is being provided to assist in your 2014 tax preparations. The information is also mailed to applicable Columbia fund non-corporate shareholders with their year-end

More information

Defendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant

Defendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant Case 1:08-cv-00623-RJA-JJM Document 170 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT a/s/o Sherry Demrick, v. Plaintiff,

More information

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related

More information

US Department of Health and Human Services Exclusion Program. Thomas Sowinski Special Agent in Charge/ Reviewing Official

US Department of Health and Human Services Exclusion Program. Thomas Sowinski Special Agent in Charge/ Reviewing Official US Department of Health and Human Services Exclusion Program Thomas Sowinski Special Agent in Charge/ Reviewing Official Overview Authority to exclude individuals and entities from Federal Health Care

More information

Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.

Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,

More information

MINIMUM CAPITAL & SURPLUS AND STATUTORY DEPOSITS AND WHO THEY PROTECT. By: Ann Monaco Warren, Esq. 573.634.2522

MINIMUM CAPITAL & SURPLUS AND STATUTORY DEPOSITS AND WHO THEY PROTECT. By: Ann Monaco Warren, Esq. 573.634.2522 MINIMUM CAPITAL & SURPLUS AND STATUTORY DEPOSITS AND WHO THEY PROTECT By: Ann Monaco Warren, Esq. 573.634.2522 With the spotlight on the financial integrity and solvency of corporations in the U.S. by

More information

FRANCHISE SALES COMPLIANCE

FRANCHISE SALES COMPLIANCE FRANCHISE SALES COMPLIANCE FRANCHISE SALES COMPLIANCE Federal Law Presale Disclosures Advance Delivery of Franchise Contracts Financial Performance Representations State Franchise Sales Laws Business Opportunity

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

Real Progress in Food Code Adoption

Real Progress in Food Code Adoption Real Progress in Food Code Adoption The Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), under contract to the Food and Drug Administration, is gathering data on the progress of FDA Food Code adoptions by

More information

Reporting of Board Discipline. Mark Johnston, RPh Executive Director Idaho State Board of Pharmacy

Reporting of Board Discipline. Mark Johnston, RPh Executive Director Idaho State Board of Pharmacy Reporting of Board Discipline Mark Johnston, RPh Executive Director Idaho State Board of Pharmacy HIPDB The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank Part of the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control

More information

Federal Jurisdiction in a Lemon Law World

Federal Jurisdiction in a Lemon Law World Federal Jurisdiction in a Lemon Law World Theodore C. Flowers, Esquire Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. United Plaza 30 S. 17 th Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-8015 tflowers@smsm.com

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

List of State DMV Websites

List of State DMV Websites List of State DMV Websites Alabama Alabama Department of Revenue Motor Vehicle Division http://www.ador.state.al.us/motorvehicle/index.html Alaska Alaska Department of Administration Division of Motor

More information

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL No. 1431 (MJD) This Document also relates to: Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

More information

Employee Relations. Howard S. Lavin and Elizabeth E. DiMichele

Employee Relations. Howard S. Lavin and Elizabeth E. DiMichele VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Split Circuits Does Charging Party s Receipt of a Right-to-Sue Letter and Commencement of a Lawsuit Divest the EEOC of its Investigative

More information

AN ACT. To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act.

AN ACT. To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act. 3721L.01I AN ACT To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI,

More information

WikiLeaks Document Release

WikiLeaks Document Release WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report

More information

Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. Rule 65. Injunctions.

Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS. Rule 65. Injunctions. Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (a) Preliminary Injunction. Rule 65. Injunctions. (1) NOTICE. No preliminary injunction shall be issued without

More information

Licensure Resources by State

Licensure Resources by State Licensure Resources by State Alabama Alabama State Board of Social Work Examiners http://socialwork.alabama.gov/ Alaska Alaska Board of Social Work Examiners http://commerce.state.ak.us/dnn/cbpl/professionallicensing/socialworkexaminers.as

More information

Marriage Equality Relationships in the States

Marriage Equality Relationships in the States Marriage Equality Relationships in the States January 7, 2015 The legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been a divisive issue across the United States, particularly during the past two decades.

More information

Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.

Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO. Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PUBLIC PAYPHONE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-2349 WAL-MART STORES, INC.

More information

Nonprofit Mergers. Question by: Deb Ulmanis. Date: 6 August 2010. Does your state statutes permit nonprofits to merge?

Nonprofit Mergers. Question by: Deb Ulmanis. Date: 6 August 2010. Does your state statutes permit nonprofits to merge? Topic: Nonprofit Mergers Question by: Deb Ulmanis Jurisdiction: New Hampshire Date: 6 August 2010 Jurisdiction Question(s) Does your state statutes permit nonprofits to merge? Can nonprofits only merge

More information

CHART 4: Eligibility to Take the Bar Examination: Foreign Law School Graduates

CHART 4: Eligibility to Take the Bar Examination: Foreign Law School Graduates Are graduates of foreign law schools eligible for admission? If graduates of foreign law schools are eligible to take the bar examination under your rules, are any of the following required? Additional

More information

3:11-cv-03200-MBS-PJG Date Filed 03/14/12 Entry Number 34 Page 1 of 7

3:11-cv-03200-MBS-PJG Date Filed 03/14/12 Entry Number 34 Page 1 of 7 3:11-cv-03200-MBS-PJG Date Filed 03/14/12 Entry Number 34 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Glenda R. Couram, v. Plaintiff, Lula N. Davis;

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

More information

State-Specific Annuity Suitability Requirements

State-Specific Annuity Suitability Requirements Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Effective 10/16/11: Producers holding a life line of authority on or before 10/16/11 who sell or wish to sell

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,

More information

Case 2:14-cv-01214-DGC Document 38 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:14-cv-01214-DGC Document 38 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO Wintrode Enterprises Incorporated, v. PSTL LLC, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Defendants. No. CV--0-PHX-DGC

More information

False Claims Act Regulations by State

False Claims Act Regulations by State False Claims Act Regulations by State Under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, those who knowingly submit, or cause another person or entity to submit, false claims for payment of The purpose of

More information

Non-Profit Entity Conversion. Question by: Julia Dale. Date: February 6, 2012. [Non-Profit Entity Conversion] [2012 February 07]

Non-Profit Entity Conversion. Question by: Julia Dale. Date: February 6, 2012. [Non-Profit Entity Conversion] [2012 February 07] Topic: n-profit Entity Conversion Question by: Julia Dale : Michigan Date: February 6, 2012 Manitoba Corporations Canada Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California See below under additional comments Colorado

More information

Case 2:10-cv-00741-GMN-LRL Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:10-cv-00741-GMN-LRL Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 6 Case :0-cv-00-GMN-LRL Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 Michael J. McCue (NV Bar No. 0 Nikkya G. Williams (NV Bar No. Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys for Defendants Jan Klerks and Stichting Wolkenkrabbers

More information

CIVIL PROCEDURE 101. Presentation by: Judge Emily Peacock, Scott Silverman, Esq. and Loren Beer, Esq.

CIVIL PROCEDURE 101. Presentation by: Judge Emily Peacock, Scott Silverman, Esq. and Loren Beer, Esq. CIVIL PROCEDURE 101 Presentation by: Judge Emily Peacock, Scott Silverman, Esq. and Loren Beer, Esq. The Federal Rules govern the conduct of all civil actions brought in Federal district courts. The Florida

More information

Arbitration in Seamen Cases

Arbitration in Seamen Cases Arbitration in Seamen Cases Recently, seamen have been facing mandatory arbitration provisions in their employment agreements which deny them their rights to a jury trial under the Jones Act, and also

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD. Case: 14-10001 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD SOUTH FLORIDA

More information

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS

More information

Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters

Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Insurance and Reinsurance Review - September 2010 Marc S. Voses Choice of law issues cannot be overlooked in insurance bad faith litigation,

More information

Model Regulation Service July 2005 LIFE INSURANCE MULTIPLE POLICY MODEL REGULATION

Model Regulation Service July 2005 LIFE INSURANCE MULTIPLE POLICY MODEL REGULATION Table of Contents Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 1. Model Regulation Service July 2005 Purpose Authority Exemptions Duties of Insurers Severability Effective

More information

Workers Compensation State Guidelines & Availability

Workers Compensation State Guidelines & Availability ALABAMA Alabama State Specific Release Form Control\Release Forms_pdf\Alabama 1-2 Weeks ALASKA ARIZONA Arizona State Specific Release Form Control\Release Forms_pdf\Arizona 7-8 Weeks by mail By Mail ARKANSAS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:11-cv-00581-LEK-BMK Document 113 Filed 03/27/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2279 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ESTATE OF ROEL TUNGPALAN, ET AL., vs. Plaintiffs, CROWN

More information

State Tax Information

State Tax Information State Tax Information The information contained in this document is not intended or written as specific legal or tax advice and may not be relied on for purposes of avoiding any state tax penalties. Neither

More information

Legal notice about a class action settlement involving payment of medical expenses under Liberty auto policies.

Legal notice about a class action settlement involving payment of medical expenses under Liberty auto policies. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR Legal notice about a class action settlement involving payment of medical expenses under Liberty auto policies. A court authorized this

More information

Civil Suits: The Process

Civil Suits: The Process Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

More information

MAINE (Augusta) Maryland (Annapolis) MICHIGAN (Lansing) MINNESOTA (St. Paul) MISSISSIPPI (Jackson) MISSOURI (Jefferson City) MONTANA (Helena)

MAINE (Augusta) Maryland (Annapolis) MICHIGAN (Lansing) MINNESOTA (St. Paul) MISSISSIPPI (Jackson) MISSOURI (Jefferson City) MONTANA (Helena) HAWAII () IDAHO () Illinois () MAINE () Maryland () MASSACHUSETTS () NEBRASKA () NEVADA (Carson ) NEW HAMPSHIRE () OHIO () OKLAHOMA ( ) OREGON () TEXAS () UTAH ( ) VERMONT () ALABAMA () COLORADO () INDIANA

More information

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent

More information

(In effect as of January 1, 2004*) TABLE 5a. MEDICAL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTES FECA LHWCA

(In effect as of January 1, 2004*) TABLE 5a. MEDICAL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTES FECA LHWCA (In effect as of January 1, 2004*) TABLE 5a. MEDICAL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTES Full Medical Benefits** Alabama Indiana Nebraska South Carolina Alaska Iowa Nevada South Dakota

More information

Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:

Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: <pageid> Case 1:15-cv-00009-JMS-MJD Document 29 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DARYL HILL, vs. Plaintiff, WHITE JACOBS

More information

List of State Residual Insurance Market Entities and State Workers Compensation Funds

List of State Residual Insurance Market Entities and State Workers Compensation Funds List of State Residual Insurance Market Entities and State Workers Compensation Funds On November 26, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-297,

More information

The Judges of the Fulton Superior Court hereby create a "Business Case Division" (hereinafter referred to as the "Division").

The Judges of the Fulton Superior Court hereby create a Business Case Division (hereinafter referred to as the Division). SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Atlanta October 11, 2012 The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed: It is ordered that Paragraph 5 of Atlanta Judicial Circuit Rule

More information

NAIC ANNUITY TRAINING Regulations By State

NAIC ANNUITY TRAINING Regulations By State Select a state below to display the current regulation and requirements, or continue to scroll down. Light grey text signifies states that have not adopted an annuity training program. Alabama Illinois

More information

Case 2:07-cv-09711-EEF-SS Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:07-cv-09711-EEF-SS Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:07-cv-09711-EEF-SS Document 14 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NATHAN GORDON * CIVIL ACTION * VERSUS * NUMBER: 07-9711 * FIDELITY NATIONAL INSURANCE

More information

Property Assessment Standards in the United States

Property Assessment Standards in the United States Property Assessment Standards in the United States Larry DeBoer Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University January, 2000 An assessment standard defines the taxable value of property that assessors

More information

Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges

Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Law360, New

More information

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

More information

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

SECTION 109 HOST STATE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIOS. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit

SECTION 109 HOST STATE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIOS. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit SECTION 109 HOST STATE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIOS The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

More information

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT

More information

NOTICE OF PROTECTION PROVIDED BY [STATE] LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION

NOTICE OF PROTECTION PROVIDED BY [STATE] LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION NOTICE OF PROTECTION PROVIDED BY This notice provides a brief summary of the [STATE] Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (the Association) and the protection it provides for policyholders. This

More information

Problem Issues in Commercial General Liability, 2nd Edition

Problem Issues in Commercial General Liability, 2nd Edition Brochure More information from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1413760/ Problem Issues in Commercial General Liability, 2nd Edition Description: The commercial general liability policy is the

More information

Appendix 1: State Licensure and Liability Policies for Volunteer Physicians; American Medical Association Publication, 2007

Appendix 1: State Licensure and Liability Policies for Volunteer Physicians; American Medical Association Publication, 2007 Appendix 1: State Licensure and Liability Policies for Volunteer Physicians; American Medical Association Publication, 2007 State Alabama Volunteer/Limited License Offered No provisions for volunteer or

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

More information

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Case 5:13-cv-00960-XR Document 14 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 6 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Christine Barreras v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. SA-13-CV-960 ORDER On this

More information

SAME-SEX ADOPTION LAWS BY STATE

SAME-SEX ADOPTION LAWS BY STATE SAME-SEX ADOPTION LAWS BY STATE The issue of adoption by same-sex couples has moved to the forefront in recent years. Liberty Counsel was instrumental in upholding the constitutionality of Florida s ban

More information

Attachment F State Agencies

Attachment F State Agencies Attachment F State Agencies Addendum for State-Specific Requirements General These states have statutes which may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with Us including the areas of termination

More information

Unemployment Insurance and Social Security Retirement Offsets

Unemployment Insurance and Social Security Retirement Offsets Unemployment Insurance and Social Security Retirement Offsets By National Employment Law Project December 2003 Introduction The policy of denying or reducing unemployment insurance benefits to Social Security

More information