The EEOC stated that employers can now order their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination shot, provided that they comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), religious exceptions, and other laws.
In general, it is well known that commercial construction liens must be filed within 90 days of the last date that a contractor provided materials and/or services for a project. Although this time may appear simple at first to calculate, contractors can often make a mistake concerning the last date they provided materials and/or services for the purposes of filing a lien claim. Should a contractor make such an error, there is the possibility that their lien claim may be late due to a particular section of the construction lien statute which is often overlooked.
On May 26, 2021, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division issued an important decision in Premier Physician Network, LLC v. Robert Maro, Jr., M.D., et al, (Docket No. A-1152-20) concerning the governance of New Jersey limited liability companies (LLC). The issue before the Court was whether members of an LLC were bound by the terms of an operating agreement by assent as set forth in N.J.S.A. 42:2C-12(b), which states that “[a] person that becomes a member of a limited liability company is deemed to assent to the operating agreement.” The Court held that a draft operating agreement does not become the operating agreement of an LLC unless there is an agreement of the members. Further, that assent only bounds future members of an LLC to an already agreed upon operating agreement.
You just realized an asset wasn’t included in the settlement agreement. Now what?
The custody schedule, support provisions, the sale of the marital home, and the agreement has been signed. This means at this point, the divorce is finalized. Just when everything seems they will return to a new normal you realize that an issue was forgotten and not addressed in the settlement agreement. So, what happens now?
Old Country Buffet’s parent corporation, Fresh Acquisitions, LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Tuesday, April 20, 2021, in the Northern District of Texas, docket # 21-30721. The San Antonio-based company operates six (6) restaurant chains in 27 states – Ryan’s, Old Country Buffet, Tahoe Joe’s Famous Steakhouse, Fire Mountain, Furr’s Fresh Buffet, and HomeTown Buffet. According to Restaurant Business, this is the fifth time that the company’s various chains have filed for bankruptcy protection since 2008.
As Family Law attorneys, we are familiar with the importance of discretion—especially involving sensitive subject matters. We listen to very personal and/or sensitive information from clients regularly, it is part of our jobs. We fully understand that we owe a duty of confidentiality to all of our clients and take that very seriously.
However, this may be the first time you are looking for a divorce attorney. Most people find their divorce attorneys by either word of mouth referrals or online. If you searched for a divorce attorney on a shared computer, you might find yourself lying awake at night wondering if these ads may appear the next time your spouse is logged on. What does not have discretion or a duty of confidentiality is the software that allows the ads to appear online by remembering/recording your recent online searches. Here are a few simple steps you can take to prevent an unfortunate situation of your spouse seeing an ad for a divorce attorney or law firm while shopping online.
One of the most often asked questions about equitable distribution of marital assets is how a retirement asset is divided between spouses. The answer depends in large part on what type of retirement account is being divided, and what rules are associated with the retirement account.
All retirement accounts are not alike. The first question that must be asked is what type of retirement account are you dealing with? Generally, retirement plans are one of two types: a defined contribution plan, or a defined benefit plan.
It is not uncommon for drafters of Wills to include a “no-contest clause” in a decedent’s Last Will and Testament. The purpose of the “no-contest clause” is to provide for the disinheritance of an heir to the estate should they challenge the validity of the decedent’s Last Will and Testament. While a “no-contest clause” could ultimately have this effect, it can likewise be defeated during a challenge to a Will. Further, if the litigation is settled before trial, there would typically be an agreement between the parties that the “no-contest clause” would not apply.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the District Court of the Western District of Washington in favor of defendant John Doe, a retired police officer accused of illegally downloading and distributing adult content produced by Strike 3 Holdings LLC.  Agreeing with the district court’s finding that Strike 3 failed to prove its claim that the defendant pirated its adult films, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s order requiring Strike 3 to pay defendant John Doe $47,777 in costs and fees.
Suppose a party seeks to challenge a decedent’s last will and testament based upon claims of competency or the improper assertion of undue influence. In that case, this contestant may also seek to challenge the transfer of certain non-probate assets that could comprise either the majority or a substantial percentage of the decedent’s assets. The grounds for challenging such transfers may be identical to those pursued in a challenge to a last will and testament, however, may be subject to applicable statutes and different standards of proof that govern a challenge to a particular class of asset.