LaBelle et al vs. McGonagle

Court order denying motion for remand

more+
less-

This case involved state court claims of legal malpractice, breach of contract, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, that happened to arise out of legal work involving a the failure by an attorney to file a patent application. The defendant attorney removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contending that “this is a civil action in which plaintiffs’ right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of at least one of the well pleaded claims.” Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case claiming the state law claims in this case did not arise under patent law, and therefore, the federal court did not have jurisdiction. This is the court order denying that motion.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Decision | Federal, 1st Circuit, Massachusetts | United States


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Jeffrey Roy, Roy Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Roy Law on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×