Sentences with phrase «claims court actions against»

She issued a small claims court action against a LawPRO defence counsel who had appeared before Rady, J. Counsel appeared before Little, J. on October 21, 2011.

Not exact matches

In its latest legal action, Stone Street has asked the bankruptcy court to lift a stay that would allow it to pursue claims in state court against former Siskey companies that have been pushed into bankruptcy.

«The DOL has created a new private right of action,» said Fleckner, who led Goodwin's successful defense of an excessive fee claim against John Hancock in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014, and was a signatory to an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association in Tibble v. Edison.

Litigation funder IMF is calling for aggrieved shareholders to sign up for a possible court action against Treasury Wine Estates, the owner of a portfolio of leading and iconic wine brands such as Penfolds, Wolf Blass and Lindemans, claiming «deceptive and misleading conduct» over disclosures around its troubled US business.

Maurice Blackburn lodged documents in the Federal Court on Wednesday to begin a class action against Treasury Wine Estates over what it claims was a late disclosure of heavy write - downs.

In any dispute, NEITHER YOU NOR THE ACTION NETWORK GROUP WILL BE ENTITLED TO JOIN OR CONSOLIDATE CLAIMS BY OR AGAINST OTHER VISITORS IN COURT OR IN ARBITRATION OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN ANY CLAIM AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, CLASS MEMBER OR IN A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAPACITY.

A British court on Thursday blocked pollution claims against Anglo - Dutch energy giant Shell by more than 40,000 Niger Delta residents demanding action over decades of oil spills in the region.

Class Action Litigation — Vote Passed (220 - 201, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting) The bill would prohibit federal courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class - action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of claims made against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related injAction Litigation — Vote Passed (220 - 201, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting) The bill would prohibit federal courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class - action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of claims made against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related injaction lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of claims made against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related injuries.

Cheshire County Council leader Paul Findlow, who attempted High Court legal action against the proposal, claimed that splitting Cheshire would only disrupt excellent services while increasing living costs for all.

In the event that this arbitration agreement is for any reason held to be unenforceable, any litigation against the Company (except for small - claims court actions) may be commenced only in the federal or state courts located in New York County, New York.

The owner of online dating site... actions claims against Spark Networks Inc. in California courts in 2013 alleging that ChristianMingle.com and several other sites in the company's portfolio of niche dating services

If you have any dispute with or claim against us or any of our affiliates (a «Claim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-[phone]), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims cclaim against us or any of our affiliates (a «Claim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-[phone]), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims cClaim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-[phone]), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims cclaim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-[phone]), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims court.

Topics to be discussed include: Court Procedure: An understanding of the civil litigation process in New Jersey as it pertains to negligence claims; Damages: Understanding the standards for, and the differences between Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Facility Maintenance: Identifying potential safety hazards related to facilities and grounds, and taking reasonable steps to address common problems; Indemnification: Identifying when the school district is responsible for the actions of its employees, and when it may disclaim coverage; Insurance Coverage Issues: Understanding what is, and is not covered under a school district's insurance policy, and understanding whether your district will be allowed to choose its attorney or be required to utilize the attorney assigned by the Insurance Company; Negligent Supervision: Examples of school district negligence liability lie within the school, on the athletic field, in the locker room, and on school trips; Sovereign Immunity: Understanding the effect of the New Jersey Torts Claims Act on negligence claims against school distclaims; Damages: Understanding the standards for, and the differences between Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Facility Maintenance: Identifying potential safety hazards related to facilities and grounds, and taking reasonable steps to address common problems; Indemnification: Identifying when the school district is responsible for the actions of its employees, and when it may disclaim coverage; Insurance Coverage Issues: Understanding what is, and is not covered under a school district's insurance policy, and understanding whether your district will be allowed to choose its attorney or be required to utilize the attorney assigned by the Insurance Company; Negligent Supervision: Examples of school district negligence liability lie within the school, on the athletic field, in the locker room, and on school trips; Sovereign Immunity: Understanding the effect of the New Jersey Torts Claims Act on negligence claims against school distClaims Act on negligence claims against school distclaims against school districts.

The process, and persistent charter claims of being short - changed, has spurred court battles, acrimonious policy debates in the state legislature and even suggestions of a massive, class - action lawsuit against traditional public schools.

However, in the event that any action is ever brought related to claims against CR Publishing LLC, the parties agree that exclusive jurisdiction of such claims shall be with The Chester County Court of Common Pleas in Chester County Pennsylvania.

If you have good evidence that is not known to the public, better you should keep it to yourself, and wait for your day in court, because what you did write today will be unlikely to persuade the directors of Berkshire Hathaway from their current course of action, which may include pursuing claims against your client.

Without limiting your right to file arbitration claims against Capital One Investing under FINRA Rule 12200 or its affiliates or successors, you consent to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts in King County, Washington for any court action or proceeding relating to your Account and you agree that all such claims by you against us or our affiliates or successors will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts in King County, State of Washington.

Restricting schools that participate in the federal student loan program from using abusive arbitration clauses (also known as «rip - off clauses») and class action bans to silence students» complaints, force students to «go it alone» with any claims they have against their school, and keep students» fraud claims against schools out of court;

Fred got two months into it and then he got a notice from small claims court, one of his creditors was taking legal action against him.

In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of the registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

In February, Frank Lucido filed a class action suit in federal court in California against Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. claiming two of his dogs became sick and one died after he fed them Beneful.

In similar fashion, EC Regulation 44/2001 and the EU Court of Justice decision of FBTO v Odenbreit allow British holidaymakers to initiate claims against the EU insurers of negligent third parties in the English jurisdiction, provided the country of origin permits a direct right of action against an insurer.

If Apple salvages at least a photo gallery bounce - back claim at the end of those proceedings, it can ask the Mannheim court to resume the utility model infringement action against Samsung.

Obtaining summary judgment in (and complete dismissal of) a state wage and hour class action filed in Orange County Superior Court by hourly drivers against a respiratory care company and involving statutory and contractual overtime claims;

Compelling to arbitration — and ultimately obtaining dismissal with prejudice of all claims — a statewide putative class and representative action brought against a craft store chain in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that involved meal and rest break, failure to pay wages, inaccurate wage statements, unfair business practices, and PAGA claims;

In future class action claims against nationwide corporate defendants, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawCourt is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawcourt lawsuit.

Defeating conditional certification of a national FLSA collective action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging unpaid overtime for all nonexempt employees of a national furniture retailer and getting claims dismissed against the individual defendants;

Striking all state class action claims and limiting conditional certification of an FLSA collective action to three units of a hospital in a class / collective hybrid action brought by a former nurse against a hospital in Wisconsin state court for meal period and overtime claims;

In Bristol - Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in CaliforCourt of California, No. 16 - 466 (June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in CaliforCourt held that a state court does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in Califorcourt does not generally have specific personal jurisdiction to entertain class - action claims by non-resident plaintiffs against a company headquartered outside of the forum state (here Bristol - Myers Squibb was not based in California).

«Without congressional action, plaintiffs» lawyers will continue to file «double dip» claims against the trusts and in the courts.»

Bill of Costs Bill of Costs (Tariff Items) Consent Form 18 Requisition — General Form 41 Subpoena Form 52.2 Certificate Concerning Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses Form 80A Affidavit Form 91 Direction to Attend Form 124A Notice of change of solicitor Form 146A1 Affidavit of service Form 146A2 Affidavit of service — Personal Service Form 146B Solicitor's Certificate of Service Form 149 Tender of Payment into Court Form 171A Statement of claim Form 171B Statement of defence Form 171C Reply Form 171D Counterclaim against parties to main action only Form 171E Counterclaim against plaintiff and person not already party to the main action Form 171F Defence to Counterclaim Form 171G Reply to defence to counterclaim Form 171H Third Party Claim against a person already party to the action Form 171I Third Party Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Wiclaim Form 171B Statement of defence Form 171C Reply Form 171D Counterclaim against parties to main action only Form 171E Counterclaim against plaintiff and person not already party to the main action Form 171F Defence to Counterclaim Form 171G Reply to defence to counterclaim Form 171H Third Party Claim against a person already party to the action Form 171I Third Party Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert WiClaim against a person already party to the action Form 171I Third Party Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert WiClaim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Witness

Resolving a statewide putative independent contractor misclassification class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against an international packaging company through an individual settlement and dismissal of class claims; and

Settling (while class certification and summary judgment motions were pending) a statewide putative class action filed in San Mateo Superior Court for nuisance value with the named plaintiffs who alleged multiple wage and hour claims (unpaid regular and overtime wages, noncompliant meal and rest periods, untimely payment of final wages, noncompliant itemized wage statements, unpaid / forfeited vacation, and violation of PAGA) against a pharmaceutical supply company's call center;

Mandates encompass being lead Canadian counsel for the Joint Administrators of Nortel UK and 23 Nortel entities in Europe, Middle East, and Africa regarding the division of Nortel's $ 7 - billion in cash and claims against the Canadian estate; representing Katz Group Canada at the Supreme Court of Canada; representing Tim Hortons in a $ 65 - million claim; being class counsel in a $ 100 - million class action against Canada Cartage Systems Ltd.; and acting for General Motors Co. dealers in a $ 250 - million multi-party action.

In 2011, class action lawyers took to court and filed a consumer fraud claim against Taco Bell that accused the company of misleading consumers by claiming that the meet in its tacos did not meet the USDA definition of «beef.»

The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese court in an action of the appellee who is a Japanese national claiming divorce in the present case against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is against the law.

Successful defense of over $ 40 million in claims for breach of an alleged partnership agreement, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against a large Southern California homebuilder in a multi-state litigation, including a six week jury trial, two state court appeals, a Ninth Circuit appeal, an Idaho state court action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme Ccourt appeals, a Ninth Circuit appeal, an Idaho state court action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme Ccourt action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme CourtCourt.

The high court is also unimpressed with the fact that the drug giving rise to the product liability was distributed by a California company, presumably because the cause of action in question in the case was brought against the manufacturer as a strict liability defective product claim, rather than as a claim against a seller of the product arising from a warranty that the product was free of defects arising under the Uniform Commercial Code or an express warranty.

[23] The Attorney General submits that even if Ms. Taylor has limited her claim, the court has no jurisdiction to apportion fault against the doctor and the hospital unless they are parties to the action.

If a forum state's courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the claim has to the forum state (except for claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts which can be brought in a U.S. District Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).

Obtained affirmance by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's dismissal of quiet title action against homeowners by a successor trustee claiming that conveyance of property by a predecessor co-trustee was void.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Mr. Whitney's representative work includes a series of successful outcomes pursuing false advertising claims against product review websites, a landmark victory clarifying copyright fair use and parody on behalf of several well - known musicians; a defense win dismissing copyright infringement claims brought by a putative class of attorneys against the leading legal research websites; a favorable outcome for a high - end beauty products company in a trademark and trade dress action against a manufacturer of knock - off products; a district and appellate court decision dismissing all claims by a proposed class against an international bank for alleged violations of, among other things, the Federal False Marking Act, RICO and the CAN - SPAM Act; and counseling prominent art museums and galleries on domestic and international copyright issues.

When a lawsuit (or a claim, or a party) is dismissed by a court «with prejudice,» that means that the same cause of action can not be brought again by the same plaintiff against the same defendant.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

In 2009 the court dismissed a claim brought by travel agents against the firm and Ms Advani, and found that Denton Wilde Sapte owed no relevant duty to the claimants and was not liable for the actions of Ms Advani as she was acting outside her employment as a solicitor.

«Very real obstacles» faced by a family law client in bringing a negligence action against a Cheshire law firm did not mean that the claim should be struck out in its entirety, the High Court has ruled.

Research and briefing associate on a successful appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that affirmed judgment in favor of corporate timberland owner in an action involving claims of trespass by the landowner and claims of adverse possession made against that owner.

She is now precluded from instituting any new action of any nature or court proceeding of any nature in any court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to court proceeding of any nature in any court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to date.