U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies "Principal Place of Business" for Purposes of Diversity

Analysis of Hertz v. Friend from the ABA Litigation News.

The "nerve center" test trumps the "business realities" test used by the 9th Circuit.

Popular posts from this blog

People, Processes, AND Technology: Use All Three to Avoid Missing a Filing Deadline

Image
As With Information Security, So Too With Calendaring . . .  "This is a cautionary tale for every attorney who litigates in an era of e-filing." The first sentence of the 5th Circuit's opinion in Rollins v. Home Depot  is quite the attention-grabber. But this tale is nothing new. Attorneys must understand the potential pitfalls of electronic service and take reasonable steps to avoid them.  As I have been saying (writing) for over ten years now, you cannot blame computers or computer software for missed deadlines. Instead, use knowledgeable people and sound processes to manage this risk. Blaming the Machines is not a Good Play Rollins (Briefly) . All attorneys using the case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF) system in federal courts agree to accept service of filings (and other documents and notices) via email.  FCRCP 5(b)(2)(E) . Counsel for Home Depot moved for summary judgment. Rollins' counsel didn't see the electronic notification of the motion becaus...
Read more

The Sound of Silence: SCOTUS FAA Arbitration Rulings Upend the Way SC Courts Construe Contracts

Image
Hello FAA, My Old Friend South Carolina courts have frequently been called upon to consider the ways in which the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to those contracts containing clauses purporting to require arbitration. The recent S.C Court of Appeals decision Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet is the latest example. The opinion and its result rests not on the application of South Carolina statutory or case law, but instead a line of United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases applying the FAA to disputes over agreements to arbitrate. For some background and discussion on some of these cases, click  here , here , or here . While it may not be entirely remarkable to apply SCOTUS opinions in state court cases, the manner of contract interpretation mandated by SCOTUS for arbitration agreements is completely different than the way South Carolina courts interpret “everyday” contracts. More specifically, these SCOTUS opinions explicitly prohibit the use of several contract interpretati...
Read more

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much j...
Read more