Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
South Carolina Business Law Blog: SC Supreme Court: Courts cannot "blue-pencil" non-compete restrictions http://ping.fm/13BYc
Marriott hotels to woo families this summer with help from Nickelodeon, SpongeBob and Dora – USATODAY.com http://ping.fm/BjVPu
Gunman steals a Residence Inn guest's laptop as he enters his room; do you stay vigilant in your hotel? – USATODAY.com http://ping.fm/JxYg4
Holiday Inn to test smartphone as hotel-room key; some guests prefer to skip front desk – USATODAY.com http://ping.fm/iuTgB
Retailers: What will health reform cost you? A calculator from the National Retail Federation http://ping.fm/n8Tej
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Via scbusinesslawblog.com: Steps Brand Owners Can Take to Deal With Brandjacking on Social Networks http://ping.fm/vDDjw
With guests wanting to know more about where food comes from and what’s in it, communication is key for hotels. http://ping.fm/KEuxN
South Carolina-based Denny's dissidents do not win board seats – Nation’s Restaurant News http://ping.fm/OefMe
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Explainer: Diversity Jurisdiction Involving the Limited Liability Company
The test for citizenship of a limited liability company is solely the citizenship of its members. Frith v. Martinsville Thermal LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31338 (May 19, 2006 ) (citing Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114
In General Technology Applications, Inc., the Fourth Circuit followed Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 110 S. Ct. 1015, 108 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1990), by holding that all non-corporate artificial entities, such as limited liability companies, should not be treated the same as corporations despite how similar an entity might appear to a corporation; and therefore, for citizenship purposes an entity other than a corporation should be considered a citizen of its members as opposed to the state under whose laws it was created.
a manager-managed limited liability company looks and acts somewhat like a corporation, especially with regard to derivative actions and members' claims, this argument misses the mark. A limited liability company organized under the laws of a state is not a corporation and cannot be treated as such under section 1332 until Congress says otherwise. [] It is an unincorporated association, akin to a partnership for diversity purposes, whose citizenship is that of its members.
Id.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Retailers: What trucking statistics—yes, trucking—can tell us about the economy. http://ping.fm/IO7WX
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Post and Courier - Hospitality helped seal the deal - Southwest comes to Charleston http://ping.fm/uSqWJ
Thursday, May 13, 2010
South Carolina Chinese eatery owners indicted in connection with illegal alien charges http://ping.fm/s8cxP
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
From SC Business Law Blog: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies "Principal Place of Business" for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes. http://ping.fm/IqA2C
Thursday, May 6, 2010
From foodchainblog.com: What are you doing to protect yourself from workplace violence? http://ping.fm/KsEtL
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Court Rules for Moviegoers in 9th Circuit Disability Access Case
The owners of movie theaters could be required to install special equipment for patrons with hearing and visual impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a result of a federal appeals court ruling that that has been hailed as groundbreaking.
Friday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in State of Arizona vs. Harkins Amusement Enterprises Inc. et al. largely overturned a lower court’s dismissal of the case brought by Frederick Lindstrom, who has severe hearing loss, and Larry Wanger who is blind in one eye and has poor vision the other.
Friday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in State of Arizona vs. Harkins Amusement Enterprises Inc. et al. largely overturned a lower court’s dismissal of the case brought by Frederick Lindstrom, who has severe hearing loss, and Larry Wanger who is blind in one eye and has poor vision the other.
The Court held that because closed captioning and audio descriptions are correctly classified as "auxiliary aids and services," a movie theatre may be required to provide such aids/services under the ADA; accordingly, due to this determination, the appeals court reversed the trial court's dismissal.
The Court concluded that while its holding didn't necessarily mean the plaintiffs in this case will be entitled to these services/aids and that the theatres was entitled to avail itself of appropriate defenses, disposition via pre-trial dismissal was not appropriate.
Depending on the ultimate resolution of this matter, movie theatres could find themselves obligated to provide closed captioning and audio descriptions to patrons with hearing disabilities in future times.
Click here for the entire article from businessinsurance.com: http://ping.fm/KXzRI
Monday, May 3, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)