Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ailes Ends Attempt To Get Carlson Suit Decided By NY Fed Court
After arguing that New Jersey was an improper venue for former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson's suit accusing him of sexual harassment, former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes agreed to drop his effort to transfer the suit's venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In a stipulation he filed jointly with Carlson in August, Ailes also agreed to withdraw his petition in the Southern District to compel arbitration of the dispute if the judge hearing the New Jersey case approves the agreement. Carlson, for her part, consented to proceeding before the American Arbitration Association in New York City if U.S. District of New Jersey Judge Jose Linares, who is hearing the case, determines that her claims are subject to arbitration. Carlson's consent to arbitration is subject to the right to appeal, says the stipulation.
The agreement came after weeks of battling between the two sides over the venue of the case, which Carlson, a Connecticut resident, filed in state court in Bergen County, New Jersey, in early June, citing Ailes' home in Creskill, NJ. Carlson v. Ailes (Supr. Ct. N.J., Bergen Cty.). Ailes removed the case to federal court in Newark, claiming he does not live in New Jersey but resides in Manhattan and Garrison, NY. Carlson v. Ailes, 2:2016cv04138 (D.N.J.). On July 8, Ailes moved in the federal court in Newark to compel arbitration, but on July 15 he withdrew that petition and filed a separate suit in the Southern District of New York. Ailes v. Carlson, 1:2016cv05671 (S.D.N.Y.). Also on that date, Ailes' lawyers moved to transfer the case to the Southern District, or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending the outcome of the petition to compel arbitration in the New York court.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?