Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is a New Federal Filing Required?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reinstated a medical malpractice claim involving a federal government-employed doctor because although the plaintiff did not exhaust the federal claims process before originally filing suit in state court, he dismissed his original claim, sought and was denied relief through the federal claims process, then attached the claim to the ongoing state court case. D.L. v. Vassilev, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9899 (9th Cir., 6/5/17).
The plaintiff, a minor, brought suit in March 2012 in California's Tulare County Superior Court. The claimant sought damages for alleged medical malpractice that led to his mother's death two years earlier from the postpartum hemorrhaging she suffered following his birth. Some defendants were named in that original filing, while others were listed as Does 1-50. Months later, one of those Does was named by the plaintiff: Dr. Christopher Bencomo.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?