In July 2012, the six adult cast members of the hit television show Modern Family filed a joint lawsuit against Twentieth Century Fox Television in an attempt to void their contracts. The lawsuit claimed that their contracts were illegal, in that the contracts broke California’s "7-year rule." The 7-year rule stipulates that contracts regarding personal services may not span longer than seven years. Yet the actors’ contracts guaranteed their services from 2009 to 2016. A big incentive for the actors to file the lawsuit was to increase the amount they each were paid per episode, which for most of them was $65,000 an episode. If a contract is illegal, may it be voided even if the actors knowingly signed to the terms of the contract? How do you think the judge should have decided this case, and why? [Vergara et al. v. Twentieth Century Fox International Television, Inc. BC488786 (Sup. Ct. L. A. 2012).]

Becky fenton has 40/80/40 automobile insurance coverage. if two other people are awarded $75,000 each for injuries in an auto accident in which becky was judged at fault, how much of this judgment would the insurance cover?

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.

Alinguist had a gross income of 53,350 last year. if 17.9% of his income got witheld for federal income tax, how much of the linguist's pay got witheld for federal income tax last year?