Just like any other decision you make that has financial implications, you should decide what you need and prioritize those needs within your options.  You’ll likely not get everything you want, but if you know what you can and cannot accept, you’ll probably make a good decision. I wouldn’t start looking at office space at all until your list and their priorities is complete. Why get your heart set on something that is manifestly impractical?

Here’s some reading:

Negotiating the Best Office Lease for Your Business

Leasing Office Space

Leasing an Office Space That Works for You

“Leasing An Office Space That Works For You”

It’s also a good idea to have a lawyer look over your lease before you sign it.

I’m posting over here today, on a blog called Notes on the State of Olympia which considers various aspects of city planning through the lens of the planning Commission. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting there quite a bit as I have many thoughts about how the various pieces of planning leads to or inhibits communities that its residents desire.

Without giving you legal advice, the type of entity you choose is one of the more intimidating decisions. You have a range of issues to look at including liability protection, tax treatment, appropriateness for your industry, your potential investors, your future plans and ambitions, and the need for flexibility as things change which they invariably will. Before you make the decision, it’s always best to consult an accountant as well as a lawyer.

Here is some reading to get you started:

The S Corp Versus the LLC: Small Business Trends (you should read this blog often)

Top legal mistakes entrepreneurs make: Choice of entity

The Choice-of-Entity Maze: Journal of Accounting

What kind of a business structure makes sense when starting a business? Escape from Cubicle Nation (Another favorite!)

I typically don’t care for trite motivational speeches (most of all on election day), but this article on HBR struck me.  Its topic is “... four personal behaviors to consider, offered in a spirit of hopefulness and humility:”

1. Practice Realistic Optimism
2. Build More Bridges
3. Add Value Every Day
4. Give Yourself a Break

See the link above for the full discussion.  You won’t regret it. Each of these points are particularly relevant for any one trying to make it as a business owner these days.  I’d say at least one of them is missing in any given individual (perhaps most often the inability to take a break).

This article leaves the reader with good advice, because its core assumption is that people are good and generally are trying to do the right thing in difficult times.  I don’t think I need to convince any one of the collective ability of a dedicated group of people to accomplish great (or awful) things.  It’s all about the choices we make each day.

I think Tony Schwartz is correct: our ability to bring out our best turns on our determination to be realistic and optimistic, conciliatory and tolerant.  If we do so, we will be able to add value to our companies and our lives.  As for taking a break, to each his own.

In Bustamante v. Napolitano, the Second Circuit looked at question of exclusive jurisdiction in those 1447(b) cases that are among my favorites of late.  Remember, a naturalization applicant can file an action in U.S. District Court if the USCIS fails to decide an application by 120 days of the applicant’s interview.

In Bustamante, USCIS decided against the applicant after he had filed the 1447(b), on the basis that the applicant had committed manslaughter many years earlier.

“Defendants then brought a motion to dismiss the Section 1447(b) petition as moot based on USCIS’s denial of the application. Bustamante countered that USCIS’s denial of the naturalization application had no legal consequence because the filing of the Section 1447(b) petition divested USCIS of jurisdiction.”

The District Court liked USCIS’s argument and dismissed the case.  In the appeal that followed, the Circuit Court took on the question of jurisdiction and mootness determining that the defendant was correct as to who has exclusive jurisdiction—District Court.  In so doing, they produced this curious gem:

In holding that the district court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to decide a naturalization petition as to which a Section 1447(b) complaint has been filed, we do not suggest that upon the applicant’s invocation of a district court’s Section 1447(b) jurisdiction, USCIS is barred from continuing its consideration of the naturalization application or from reaching a tentative determination. Certain practical realities might support such agency action. Section 1447(b) is triggered, after all, by agency delay. No one’s interest are served by compelling further delay. Inevitably, the district court will solicit the parties’ views on a Section 1447(b) petition before determining whether to reach the merits of the application or remand to the agency. The parties will likely stipulate to a remand if USCIS tentatively recommends that an application be granted. Even with applications that USCIS intends to deny and for which no stipulation would be expected, USCIS is entitled to request a remand. Thus, a system of district court/agency cooperation where, even upon the former’s acquisition of jurisdiction, the latter continues its consideration of a matter, but requires court permission before it can put any decision into effect, may make sense. Such coordination is not unprecedented. Cf. Toliver v. County of Sullivan, 957 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding that “the district court may grant a rule 60(b) motion after an appeal is taken only if the moving party obtains permission from the circuit court,” and that “this court must first give its consent so it can remand the case”).

Is it a chink in the armor or a one time situation quickly to be resolved or mooted?  Stay tuned.  As long as there are stalled naturalization applications, there will be the glorious provision of 1447(b) to jump start them.