Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Statewide Coordination of Mass Tort Cases Becoming Increasingly Popular
On January 24, 2002, the New York state courts adopted a rule that provides a procedure for the statewide coordination of mass tort cases that is similar to the Multidistrict Litigation System (MDL) in the federal courts. Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts ' 202.69. With the implementation of Rule 202.69, New York is the third state, following California and Pennsylvania, to institute formal statewide coordination of mass tort cases that share common questions of law or fact (New York had previously followed an ad hoc coordination system). See Daniel Wise, 'New York Courts Adopt Federal Mass Torts Plan,' 2/22/2002 NYLJ 1 (col.5); Ca. Civ. Proc. ” 404.1, et seq.; Ca. St. Trial Ct. Rules 1501, et seq.; Pa. R. Civ. P. ” 213.1, 1041.1, 1041.2.
During the last few years, statewide coordination has been used increasingly to handle related cases more efficiently at the pretrial stage, such as by the use of master pleadings and master discovery demands and responses. In addition to the formal procedures of New York, California and Pennsylvania, other states such as New Jersey, Texas, Mississippi and Oregon are employing informal procedures. See Wise, supra.
Although the rules for statewide coordination in New York, California and Pennsylvania can apply to various types of actions, these rules are especially useful in dealing with mass torts because the rules enable large numbers of cases involving a specific product and similar injuries to be processed at the same time throughout the state. In fact, the Chief Administrative Judge in New York has stated that the main purpose of the new Rule 202.69 is to enable the New York state courts to handle the increasing numbers of mass tort actions more efficiently. See 'Defense News,' 69 Def. Couns. J. 136 (April 2002). When mass tort actions are coordinated statewide, 'common issues can be determined, yet each individual plaintiff is responsible for the proof of particular facts applicable to that particular plaintiff.' Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1125, 751 P.2d 923, 938, n.19 (Calif. 1988).
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?