Barr to pre-
Barr.
Harris filed a motion to remand the suit to state court. She contended that Travel as the removing party could not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction because of lack of injury in fact under Article III, citing for support the defendant’s prior filings.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon agreed, ordering the case back to state court.
Cannon found that Travel failed to establish that Harris’ allegations satisfied the requirements under Article III. Harris herself disclaimed that she suffered a constitutional injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, and the defendant “conspicuously declines to admit that it caused Plaintiff a concrete and particularized injury,” Cannon wrote. “Taken together, these party positions frame the degree of purported injury at issue, even if they are not dispositive.”
May 10, 2021
For Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month this year, the AFL-CIO is spotlighting various Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who have worked and continue to work at the intersection of civil and labor rights in the United States. Today s profile is Bethany Khan.
Bethany Khan is the director of communications and digital strategy at the Culinary Workers Union, UNITE HERE Local 226. She graduated from the University of Minnesota and used the skills she learned in college to fight for justice. Khan has family members who are undocumented immigrants and this has inspired her to work with the Culinary Workers Union to fight for comprehensive worker-centered immigration reform. Khan was named one of 40 under 40 to watch at the American Association of Political Consultants in 2018. She serves as a board member for Planned Parenthood of Nevada, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Latinx Voices of Sout
The Eleventh Circuit’s far-reaching decision in
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. which we previously covered on this blog continues to raise questions for the wide range of industries that fall within the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collectors.” To put it briefly, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when it communicates with any third party including a vendor or other party assisting with the collection or servicing of the loan regarding the loan or debt.
One issue not considered by the Eleventh Circuit is whether the court’s interpretation of the FDCPA’s prohibition on disclosures to third parties renders the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
For 2022, GOP Leaders Go All In On The Strategy That Lost Them Georgia einnews.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from einnews.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.