Sentences with phrase «acting on a motion for summary judgment»

Acting on a motion for summary judgment filed by Hueston Hennigan, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick held that although courts «sparingly grant summary judgment in trademark cases because they are so fact - intensive,» the evidence here tilted so heavily in favor of the defendants as to make summary judgment appropriate.

Not exact matches

The Arbitrator (i) shall apply internal laws of the State of New York consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and applicable statutes of limitations, or, to the extent (if any) that federal law prevails, shall apply the law of the U.S., irrespective of any conflict of law principles; (ii) shall entertain any motion to dismiss, motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for complete or partial summary judgment, motion for summary adjudication, or any other dispositive motion consistent with New York or federal rules of procedure, as applicable; (iii) shall honor claims of privilege recognized at law; and (iv) shall have authority to award any form of legal or equitable relief;

• On August 13, 2009, the Administrator filed a motion for summary judgment to terminate Kathy Bauck's USDA license 41 - B - 0159 and disqualify her from «obtaining an Animal Welfare Act license for a period of no less than two years.»

The motions judge also subsequently awarded costs against Affinia on a «substantial indemnity» basis, relying on a rule in Ontario's rules of civil procedure which applies where a party has acted unreasonably in responding to a motion for summary judgment.

In 2015, after transfer to the Eastern District of California for trial, he prevailed on a second motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's remaining claim for cost recovery under the Polanco Act.

The judge hearing the summary judgment motion held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial for the following reasons: (i) there was no evidence that anyone died on the property, either by natural causes or some criminal act; (ii) the vendor was not required to disclose that someone had died on the property or that the property may be haunted; (iii) there was no evidence as to how the purchaser could prove... Read More

Since joining FLR, Andrea has worked on numerous pleadings and memoranda involving motions to dismiss, to compel discovery, and for summary judgment on issues such as contracts (including personal services contracts), a wide variety of tort - based claims, punitive damages, privilege and sovereign immunity, insurance coverage, family law, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Health Care Quality Improvement Act immunity and peer review, and estates and trusts.

Author: Evan Ivkovic, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

In Hoskins v. Co-operators, the insurer brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for post-104 income replacement benefits on the basis of section 281 (2) of the Insurance Act:

Obtained dismissal on motion for summary judgment of complaint filed against international manufacturing company alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower Act.

Opposed a motion for summary judgment brought by CIBC against a mortgator where CIBC alleged default under the terms of the mortgage flowing from the registration of a restraint order on title pursuant to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).