Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
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.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
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