A case is filed against the company A, LLC in California court for the leakage of personal information of 650,000 members to public. The company A claims that they have a “forum-selection clause” in their member agreement, putting the jurisdiction of all the disputes in Virginia, and a US Supreme Court precedent that “forum-selection clause” will be unenforceable if it is against the public policy. Also, the policies of the company A have been declared against public policy by Californian courts in other cases of the company A. To Explain: Application of stare decisis in California Court to determine the case.

Question

"7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case Summary:A case is filed against the company A, LLC in California court for the leakage of personal information of 650,000 members to public. The company A claims that they have a “forum-selection clause” in their member agreement, putting the jurisdiction of all the disputes in Virginia, and a US Supreme Court precedent that “forum-selection clause” will be unenforceable if it is against the public policy. Also, the policies of the company A have been declared against public policy by Californian courts in other cases of the company A.

To Explain:Application of stare decisis in California Court to determine the case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

"7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"

46 which of the following creditor policies is permissible under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA A) 20-year-old married applicant is individually creditworthy, but the creditor requires a spousal signature on the security instrument is located in a community property state B) A 20-year-old single applicant is individually creditworthy, but the creditor requires a parental co-signer due to the applicant's C) A 75-year-old marred applicant is individually creditworthy, but the creditor requires a spousel signature because the spouse is younger more likely to outlive the loan term. D) A 75-year-old single applicant is individually creditworthy, but the creditor requires a co- signer because a portion of the applicant qualifying income from public assistance.

In your role working as a paralegal or legal assistant for eHarbour, draft a memorandum to Daniel Hudson, the eHarbour general counsel, on how best to protect eHarbour’s intellectual property. Specifically, discuss the steps and benefits of safeguarding eHarbour’s intellectual property through: (1) registration of proprietary software developed by eHarbour with the U.S. Copyright Office; (2) applying for a registered trademark for the eHarbour name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and (3) protecting trade secrets with password protection and software encryption. (Please include introduction, conclusion and references)