EZ Communications, Inc. v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting Parmalat I’s admonition and concluding “particularly in the context of removal, where any doubts are to be resolved against removability, the burden should be on defendants to prove that the state court cannot adjudicate the claims in a timely manner.”
• “This litigation is not particularly complex and, to the extent that it is, the state court may be better equipped to resolve the issues.”
• “at bottom [BGC’s] claims are for interference with contracts and certain duties of loyalty”
• timely adjudication element satisfied based on finding that “no foreseeable significant difference in the comparative speed of adjudication of [the Southern District] and the Commercial Division,” justifying mandatory abstention and remand
• timely adjudication element satisfied based on finding that “no foreseeable significant difference in the comparative speed of adjudication of [the Southern District] and the Commercial Division,” justifying mandatory abstention and remand
• timely adjudication element satisfied based on finding that “no foreseeable significant difference in the comparative speed of adjudication of [the Southern District] and the Commercial Division,” justifying mandatory abstention and remand

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).