LaBelle et al vs. McGonagle

Court order denying motion for remand


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.

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Professional Malpractice Updates

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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »