Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Avoiding Federal Jurisdiction in Mass Actions
Plaintiffs' lawyers generally prefer to litigate in state courts for numerous reasons. First of all, most of them have more experience in state court and thus are up to date with their local rules, nuances' and jurists' idiosyncrasies. Also, many states do not curtail experts' opinions as much as Daubert and its progeny do. If an MDL has been formed, many lawyers do not like getting tied up in a case where the venue may be many miles from their home states. Also, a federal jury requires unanimity, whereas most states permit partial verdicts.
Last, but not least, many lawyers think, often incorrectly, that their cases will settle faster in a state court. They think that involvement in an MDL guarantees that the case will go on for years; however, when commencing a state court action, practitioners must be careful not to trigger a removal to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, the removal statute, or 28 U.S.C. 1332, the diversity statute containing the recently passed Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (CAFA also applies to mass tort actions which are now known as “mass actions” under the statute.)
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.