L.A. County Sees Record High Number of Daily COVID-19 Cases at 7,593

first_img More Cool Stuff Community News L.A. County Sees Record High Number of Daily COVID-19 Cases at 7,593 Pasadena officials preparing for rollout of vaccines By BRIAN DAY Published on Tuesday, December 1, 2020 | 5:15 pm Top of the News STAFF REPORT First Heatwave Expected Next Week Subscribe Name (required)  Mail (required) (not be published)  Website  Make a comment Community News <span data-mce-type=”bookmark” style=”display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;” class=”mce_SELRES_start”>?</span>Los Angeles County recorded the highest number of COVID-19 infections ever at 7,593, while health officials in Pasadena made preparations to distribute vaccines that are expected to become available over the coming months.Thirty-five new infections were detected in Pasadena on Tuesday, and no new deaths were reported, according to city data.The city has seen a total of 3,746 cases of the virus and 132 deaths since the onset of the pandemic in March.Over the prior week, Pasadena saw an average of 41.7 new infections each day, city data shows.Huntington Hospital reported treating 63 COVID-19 patients on Tuesday.While public distribution of vaccines is likely still months away, city officials are already making preparations for their arrival.“We are currently planning a multi-faceted COVID-19 vaccination campaign to ensure safe and equitable access once for all Pasadena residents once the vaccines are available,” Pasadena Public Health Emergency Manager Adrienne Kim said in a video statement.During the H1N1 flu pandemic of 2009, public health officials made successful use of Medical Points of Dispensing, or MPODs, to distribute vaccinations through the local community, she explained.“Since then, we have conducted MPOD exercises every year and have enhanced our plans to transform a location, such as a school, parking lot, or community center, into a large vaccine clinic and offer vaccines by drive-through or walk-up methods,” according to Kim.“Although we don’t expect COVID-19 vaccines to be available to the general public until well into 2021, the Pasadena Public Health Emergency Preparedness team has already been hard at work planning COVID vaccine MPODs,” she said. “We are securing sites, connecting with community partners, and of course, staying up to date on the rapidly involving information about the various vaccines our community may receive.”More information will be released as it comes, Kim said.“We will continue to communicate with you and keep you informed about when, where and how you will have access to a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine playbook,” she said. “In the meantime, we so appreciate everyone doing their part by washing hands, masking and social distancing.”The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health announced “the highest number of new COVID-19 cases and people hospitalized with COVID-19 that L.A. County has ever experienced throughout the pandemic,” the agency said in a written statement. Forty-six new fatalities were reported.The county has recorded a total of 408,396 cases of novel coronavirus and 7,700 deaths.“The number of new COVID-19 cases significantly surpassed the previous high of 6,124 new cases seen last week, and signals that the virus is infecting more people at a faster rate than ever seen in L.A. County before,” according to the statement. “The daily test positivity rate today is almost 12 percent, up from 7 percent one week ago.”Officials reported more than 2,300 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 countywide on Tuesday, with 24 percent of them being treated in intensive care units, according to county health officials.“This exceeds the peak of 2,232 people hospitalized with COVID-19 during the July surge,” the county statement said. “The daily number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 has increased nearly every day since Nov. 1 when the daily number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 was 799.”L.A. County Director of Public Health Barbara Ferrer said the situation was bad. And it was almost certainly going to get worse.“Today, Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020, is the worst day thus far of the COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles County,” she said. “However, it will likely not remain the worst day of the pandemic in Los Angeles County. That will be tomorrow, and the next day and the next as cases, hospitalizations and deaths increase.”“Every resident and every business needs to take immediate action if we are to dampen this alarming surge. We are in the middle of an accelerating surge in a pandemic of huge magnitude,” according to Ferrer. “This is not the time to skirt or debate the safety measures that protect us because we need every single person to use every tool available to stop the surge and save lives.”State public health officials reported 12,221 new infections and 70 new deaths on Tuesday, raising the statewide totals to 1,225,189 documented cases of COVID-19 and 19,211 deaths.The state’s average positivity rate over the prior week had climbed to 7 percent, while the 14-day average was recorded at 6.5 percent, according to a California Department of Public Health statement.As of Tuesday, L.A. County represented 33 percent of California’s COVID-19 infections and 40 percent of the state’s fatalities. EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS Herbeauty10 Of The Most Notorious Female Spies In HistoryHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty7 Most Startling Movie Moments We Didn’t Realize Were InsensitiveHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyWant To Seriously Cut On Sugar? You Need To Know A Few TricksHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyIs It Bad To Give Your Boyfriend An Ultimatum?HerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyCostume That Makes Actresses Beneath Practically UnrecognizableHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty9 Of The Best Metabolism-Boosting Foods For Weight LossHerbeautyHerbeautycenter_img Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Donald CommunityPCC- COMMUNITYVirtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyPasadena Public WorksPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes CITY NEWS SERVICE/STAFF REPORT Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday STAFF REPORT Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy Business News 12 recommended0 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it Community News Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadenalast_img read more

admin

What’s New With Novation? A Comment On Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors

first_imgColumnsWhat’s New With Novation? A Comment On Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors Vidhi Thaker8 April 2021 9:25 PMShare This – xA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SanjivPrakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors.,[1] recently held that the issue whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated, cannot be decided by the Courts at the Section 11 stage. The judgment is a step forward, since it clarifies the narrow scope of judicial intervention at…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SanjivPrakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors.,[1] recently held that the issue whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated, cannot be decided by the Courts at the Section 11 stage. The judgment is a step forward, since it clarifies the narrow scope of judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage. Background Facts The issue arose out of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between members of the Prakash family (i.e. the Appellant and the Respondents), who collectively held the entire share-holding of ANI Media Private Ltd. (“the Company”). The MoU inter alia provided that in the event any members of the Prakash family were desirous of selling / bequeathing their shares, the same shall be offered to the Appellant. The MoU contained an arbitration clause, which provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator. Subsequently, a Share Holders Agreement was executed between the Prakash family and Thomson Reuters Corporation, whereby the Prakash family divested 49% share-holding of ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Thomson Reuters. The Share Holders Agreement also contained an arbitration clause. It further provided that the Agreement was in supersession of all previous agreements between the parties. On the same day, a Share Purchase Agreement was executed between the Prakash family and Thomson Reuters, which contained an arbitration clause similar to that in the Share Holders Agreement. The Respondents (members of the Prakash family) decided to transfer their shareholding in the Company to other family members, excepting the Appellant. This led to the Appellant invoking the arbitration clause contained in the MoU, stating that he had the pre-emptive right to purchase the shares of the other members of the family. Proceedings before the High Court The Appellant filed an application u/S. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) before the Delhi High Court[2], contending that since the MoU was breached, an arbitrable dispute arose between the parties, which required to be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the MoU had been superseded by the Share Holders Agreement, and was therefore novated. It was submitted that since the MoU did not exist after the execution of the Share Holders Agreement, there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 11, and held that the invocation of the arbitration clause under the MoU was not justifiable, since the arbitration clause therein had perished due to novation of the MoU. The Court held that once the MoU was superseded by the Share Holders Agreement, the arbitration clause contained in the MoU also falls with it. Proceedings before the Supreme Court In the judgment, the Supreme Court traced the evolution of the scope of power exercised by the Courts at the Section 11 stage in the post 2015 regime. The Bench comprising of the Justices R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy discussed the narrow scope of Section 11, and held that the issue of novation of an agreement cannot be decided by the Courts in exercise of the limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The Court placed reliance on the Judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation,[3] particularly paragraph 148, wherein it was held that at the pre-reference stage, the Court can only interfere when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. All other cases should be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision on merits. This would also be the position in cases where a plea of novation is raised. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench in BSNL v. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd.,[4] wherein it was clarified that the judgment in Vidya Drolia had not resurrected the pre-amendment position in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering.[5] In that case, the Court held that the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration. Following the line of judgments in Vidya Drolia and BSNL v. Nortel, the Supreme Court held that the determination whether the MoU had been novated by the Share Holders Agreement would require a detailed consideration of the Agreements, and surrounding circumstances. Such a determination could not be made at the Section 11 stage, given the narrow scope of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Civil Appeal, and appointed (Retd.) Justice Aftab Alam to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Aftermath of the Judgment and its impact on Indian arbitration jurisprudence The Judgment in Sanjiv Prakash finds itself steering the discussion on the scope of judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, in the post 2015 era. Prior to this judgment, the issue with respect to novation of an arbitration agreement was found in Union of India v. Kishori Lal,[6] wherein the Court held that if a contract is superseded by another, the arbitration clause being part of the earlier contract falls with it. Further, in Damodar Valley Corporation v. K.K. Kar,[7] the Court held that if the new contract did not contain an arbitration clause, the parties would have no right to invoke the arbitration clause from the superseded contract. In Sanjiv Prakash however, the Court distinguished the judgments in Kishori Lal and Damodar Valley on the ground that the judgments dealt with novation in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which had a completely different scheme from that contained in Section 16 read with Section 11 (6A) of the 1996 Act. The decision in Sanjiv Prakash therefore mirrors the legislative intent in the post 2015 phase, and cements the position of India as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.Views are personal The Author is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India [1] Civil Appeal No. 975 / 2021, Judgment dated 06.04.2021 : LL 2021 SC 198. [2] Arb.P. No. 4 / 2020 [3] (2021) 2 SCC 1 [4] 2021 SCC OnLine SC 207 : LL 2021 SC 153. [5] (2005) 8 SCC 618 [6] [1960] 1 SCR 493 [7] (1974) 1 SCC 141 Next Storylast_img read more

admin