Monday, May 31, 2010

Sam's Club Tailors Sales Based on Shoppers' Purchases -

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

South Carolina Business Law Blog: SC Supreme Court: Courts cannot "blue-pencil" non-compete restrictions
From The State: Pizza chain takes heat for Facebook firing
Marriott hotels to woo families this summer with help from Nickelodeon, SpongeBob and Dora –
Gunman steals a Residence Inn guest's laptop as he enters his room; do you stay vigilant in your hotel? –
Holiday Inn to test smartphone as hotel-room key; some guests prefer to skip front desk –
How to Convert Your Facebook Superfans Into Brand Ambassadors
NRF Loss Prevention Conference & EXPO 2010: June 14-16 in Atlanta
Retailers: What will health reform cost you? A calculator from the National Retail Federation
Retailers: How to create a better relationship with law enforcement

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Futuristic Vending Machines That Don’t Nickel and Dime You -
Via Steps Brand Owners Can Take to Deal With Brandjacking on Social Networks
With guests wanting to know more about where food comes from and what’s in it, communication is key for hotels.
Columbia Sussex to sell 14 hotels for $518 million
Checking out early? It will cost you. Hotels Follow Airlines’ Lead on Fees
South Carolina-based Denny's dissidents do not win board seats – Nation’s Restaurant News
No more free lunches at restaurants – Nation’s Restaurant News
McD franchisee unveils modern design in L.A. – Nation’s Restaurant News qsr

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. Id. at 388 F.3d 114, 121. The court found that to determine whether diversity was complete it had to look at the citizenship of the members of the limited liability company at issue. Id. at 120. The court reasoned that when the citizenship of an LLC is at issue, although

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.

at 121 (internal citations omitted).
(4th Cir. 2004)).

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Retailers: What trucking statistics—yes, trucking—can tell us about the economy.
Compelling Chicago LP claim, which alleges homicide of drug store customer:

Friday, May 14, 2010

The Post and Courier - Hospitality helped seal the deal - Southwest comes to Charleston

Thursday, May 13, 2010

South Carolina Chinese eatery owners indicted in connection with illegal alien charges

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Food Allergies Less Common Than Believed, Study Says -
From SC Business Law Blog: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies "Principal Place of Business" for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

From What are you doing to protect yourself from workplace violence?

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

10 Tips for When You Receive a Reservation of Rights Letter:
$12 cup of coffee comes to New York City:

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.

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