in these circumstances, because

wholly apart from the default, the judgment and the entry of

judgment must be set aside for independent reasons.   While the

first motion judge properly considered matters outside the

pleadings on the anti-SLAPP motion, the motion for more definite

statement was denied, and the allegations contained in the

plaintiff's affidavit were never incorporated into an amended

complaint.

     This matters in the context of rule 55 proceedings.     The

complaint consists almost exclusively of allegations concerning

what happened during the divorce proceeding -- allegations

barred from further consideration by the first motion judge's

ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion.   Notably absent from the

complaint are any factual allegations concerning what the

defendants did after the divorce proceedings.9

     For purposes of an assessment of damagesFDA blocks innovation in adult-stem-cell research

On Oct. 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a case, USA v. Regenerative Sciences, in which the federal Food and Drug Administration threatens to usurp long-standing state regulation of the practice of medicine. (Photo: Thinkstock)

As politicians wrangle about the roll-out of the federal government’s newest program subsidizing and regulating health care in America, Washington regulators are stretching old laws in new directions that threaten medical innovation.

On Oct. 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a case, USA v. Regenerative Sciences, in which the federal Food and Drug Administration threatens to usurp long-standing state regulation of the practice of medicine.

The case involves medical procedures developed by two Colorado doctors