The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayStarting a new business can be risky, and the type of business determines your individual liability. If you run a business in your own name, or as a partnership, you are responsible for all the liabilities of the business. To protect yourself, consider operating the business as a corporation or limited liability company. An attorney can help you make the right choice. How iTunes Changed the Music IndustryTen years ago, Apple introduced the world to iTunes. It wasn't an easy task. At the time, companies like Napster were irritating record labels and associations by offering illegal copies of music for free. Record labels really weren't interested in offering music online, and Unemployment Fraud Costs $3.3 BillionAs it is, social welfare programs are quite polarizing. Detractors now have more ammunition for their complaints. According to a study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, unemployment fraud cost the government $3.3 billion in 2011 alone. Of those payments, $2.2 billion went to people still working. Your MoneyCheck out this employer stock-option tax estimator!
For the LawyersClass action plaintiff cannot avoid removal to federal court by stipulating total damages would be less than the $5 million jurisdictional threshold for application of the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff filed a purported class action in Arkansas state court seeking reimbursement from a homeowners’ insurance company for the cost of repairing storm damage. The plaintiff stipulated that recovery would be limited to less than $5 million, the minimum for federal court jurisdiction under the Act. The Supreme Court held that a stipulation as to damages could not overcome a judicial finding that the Act’s jurisdictional threshold had been met. “We do not agree that CAFA forbids the federal court to consider, for purposes of determining the amount in controversy, the very real possibility that a nonbinding, amount-limiting, stipulation may not survive the class certification process. This potential outcome does not result in the creation of a new case not now before the federal court. To hold otherwise would, for CAFA jurisdictional purposes, treat a nonbinding stipulation as if it were binding, exalt form over substance, and run directly counter to CAFA’s primary objective: ensuring ‘Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.”
|
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |