Sentences with phrase «order granting defendants»

Relying on the fair use doctrine, we are posting substantive filings in White v. West here: 02/22/2012 - Class Action Complaint 04/06/2012 - Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed by Reed Elsevier) 04/06/2012 - Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed by West Publishing) 04/26/2012 - Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants» Motions to Dismiss (filed by White and Elan) 05/07/2012 - Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed by West Publishing) 05/07/2012 - Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed by Reed Elsevier) 05/17/2012 - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/16/2012) 05/22/2012 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 5/16/2012 05/30/2012 - Answer to Complaint (filed by West Publishing) 05/30/2012 - Answer to Complaint (filed by Reed Elsevier) 06/26/2012 - Amended Complaint (filed by White) 07/10/2012 - Answer to Amended Complaint (filed by West Publishing) 07/13/2012 - Answer to Amended Complaint (filed by Reed Elsevier) 10/05/2012 - Memorandum in Suppport of Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by White) 10/05/2012 - Memorandum in Suppport of Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by Reed Elsevier) 10/23/2012 - Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by West Publishing) 10/23/2012 - Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants» Summary Judgment Motions (filed by White) 10/23/2012 - Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by Reed Elsevier) 11/02/2012 - Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by West Publishing) 11/02/2012 - Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion (filed by White) 11/02/2012 - Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed by Reed Elsevier) 11/30/2012 - Transcript of Proceedings Held on 11/20/2012 02/11/2013 - Order Granting Defendants» Motions for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/8/2013)

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

On December 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a Memorandum Opinion, affirmed a trial judge's order granting a defendant law firm judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a legal malpractice claim brought by the law firm's...

The issue before the Court was whether the Plaintiff's memory impairment was such that an order granting the Defendant leave to examine the Plaintiff's wife was appropriate.

Not exact matches

According to Reuters, Judge Kimba Wood issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Alibabacoin Foundation, and ordered the defendants (including ABBC Foundation's CEO Jason Daniel Paul Phillip and CTO Hassan Abbas) to explain to the court «why an order should not be issued granting a preliminary injunction,» which would prohibit the defendants» usage of the Alibaba trademarks anywhere in the United States.

Okerinmodun opposed the bail application, claiming that the defendants, if granted bail, might cause a breakdown of law and order in the community.

Read the full docket text below: Docket Text: ORDER DENYING [22] Motion to Dismiss; DENYING [41] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; DENYING [42] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; GRANTING [81] Motion to Intervene; AND REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND SCHEDULING ORDER: The motions to dismiss the complaint filed by defendants Roman Hedges, Welquis R. Lopez, John J. McEneny, Michael F. Nozzolio, Sheldon Silver, Dean G. Skelos, Brian M. Kolb, and Robert Oaks are hereby DENIED.

Although, Turaki was granted a fresh bail conditions but Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court ordered the defendant to remain in Kuje Prisons, Abuja, pending when the bail conditions were met.

The trial Judge, Justice Hussein Baba Yusuf however ordered that Dasuki and other Defendants be allowed to continue to enjoy the bail he granted them in 2015 when they were first arraigned before his court.

Although Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court granted bail to the ex-governor on fresh bail conditions on Tuesday, he ordered the defendant to remain in Kuje Prisons, Abuja, pending when the bail conditions were met.

Some of the grounds the Federal Government is seeking the revocation of Kanu's bail are that; the offence for which he is standing trial is not ordinarily bailable; that among other conditions for the bail of the 1st defendant is that he should not be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people; that he should not grant any interviews, hold or attend any rallies; that he should file in court medical updates of his health status every month; that rather than observing all of the conditions listed above, the 1st defendant in flagrant disobedience to the court order flouted all conditions of the bail.

Like the re-arraignment of Wednesday, Justice Hussein Baba - Yusuf ordered that the five defendants should continue to enjoy the bail granted in 2015 when they were first arraigned on the alleged offense.

The attention of EFCC was drawn to the suit before the Chief Judge of Rivers state in Port Harcourt where an interlocutory order was granted against the defendants and same restrained them from further publishing the name of Secondus.

Justice Mohammed adjourned the case to April 26, 2016 for trial and ordered the defendant to continue the bail terms earlier granted him by the court.

He said the order has not been set aside thus disabling the court to grant the defendant's request.

The judge said that since the prosecution counsel Mr. Oladipo Okpeseyi (SAN) did not object to the bail of the ex-NSA, the court has to affirm same and ordered the defendant to continue to enjoy the bail condition granted him in 2015 when he was first arraigned.

Justice Mohammed who granted the preservative order specifically ordered the defendants to maintain status quo ante belum pending the next adjourned date fixed for Tuesday 20, March, 2018.

The defendant was also ordered to pay restitution to the Veteran's Affairs, Homeless Providers Grant Per Diem Program.

In an order filed 13 February, US District Judge Consuelo Marshall in Los Angeles granted a motion brought by defendants Tate & Lyle and Ingredion to have Squire Patton Boggs removed from representing the Sugar Association, because of legacy Patton Boggs» longstanding relationship with both companies.

The Superior Court of Justice has refused to grant a plaintiff's motion for an order requiring the defendants in a defamation action to reveal the identity of anonymous blog commenters.

Finally, Justice Stinson granted an injuction ordering the defendant to destroy all copies of this video in his possession, preventing him from posting this video online or sharing it with others, and from having any contact with the plaintiff or her family.

The order will generally stipulate that the parties are to return to the Court after execution of the order so that the defendant may challenge the basis on which the order was granted or the manner in which it was executed.

(a) a short form order dated April 23, 2003, issued and signed by the Honorable M. Ritholtz, granting Mr. Kaufman's motion for a default judgment and referring the issue of damages to an inquest, (b) the defendant's order to show cause, signed by the Honorable M. Ritholtz on September 12, 2003, seeking to set aside the default judgment, accompanied by defense counsel's signed affirmation and the defendant's signed, but not notarized, affidavit, (c) the respondent's affirmation in opposition to the defendant's order to show cause, dated October 8, 2003, (d) a preliminary conference stipulation and order dated March 17, 2004, signed by the respondent and defense counsel, and (e) a notice of compliance / settlement conference scheduled for October 21, 2004, before the Honorable M. Ritholtz.

In both cases, the English court granted a freezing order, without notice to the defendants, in order to protect the position until an all parties hearing could be convened, and, in both cases, the freezing orders were then discharged forthwith.

The Divisional Court refused to grant the defendants leave to appeal an order denying them a stay of the plaintiff's solicitor's negligence action.

The most common of these circumstances is that the defence makes a strong argument that the implications on the defendant's privacy and security of person far outweigh societies interest in granting the order.

That means that on a mechanical level, there is no evidence that if the order requested were granted, the defendant would be able or likely to receive, open and read the emailed document.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appOrder, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of apporder, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

The motion before Lederer was for leave to appeal an order granting the motion of the plaintiff to continue a Mareva injunction which had initially been granted ex parte; that is, without notice to, or participation of, the defendants.

If the application had been successful, it would have paved the way for the other defendants to discharge the freezing order that had been granted in February.»

Madam Justice Dorgan refused to grant the Defendant's application and instead ordered that the Plaintiff «be deprived of all tariff items to which she would otherwise be entitled «from a few weeks following the delivery of the formal offer through trial and further awarding the Plaintiff to «all disbursements incurred from the comencement of the action to the conclusion of trial `.

Justice Lederman, in granting an injunction order on the same July 13th judgement, recognized the likelihood that the media defendants would continue in their crusade to destroy the reputation of Senator Enverga, saying: «Here, there is an ongoing concern that the defendants will continue to publish defamatory statements about Senator Enverga.

The court granted the motion, but inquired in its written order: «[d] oes Defendant think it is ok if Plaintiff's counsel makes a categorical statement that is incorrect — after counting to ten?

If the judge grants your request for emergency relief, the judge will issue a temporary order with details on the type of restrictions the defendant will need to follow.

James was leading counsel for the defendant in its successful application to discharge a US$ 100 million Worldwide Freezing Order granted in aid of foreign proceedings.

Third Circuit grants plaintiffs» petition for permission to appeal in case challenging the lawfulness of GSK's diversity re-removals of state court Paxil personal injury cases more than one year after the cases were filed in state court: This afternoon, a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an order granting my clients» petition for permission to appeal in a case presenting the question «Whether a defendant may remove a case a second time based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the commencement of the case?»

Judge Peter Moulton won't grant the stay asked for by defendants in NYC asbestos lawsuits, but he will allow defendants to work with plaintiffs attorneys to create new rules in the case management order.

A Fairfax Circuit Court grants a motion for reconsideration of its earlier order and says it does in fact have jurisdiction to consider defendant's motions for attorney's fees and sanctions, but denies the requests for fees and sanctions.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for an order granting leave to add additional defendants to the action.

In Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack, 2014 BCSC 1063, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted an injunction with global effect against Google, ordering it to remove all links from all search results globally that led to content of the defendant that violated a prior court order (see IT.Can Newsletter, 25 June 2014).

The plaintiff Saleh Mizyed appealed from the trial judge's order granting summary judgment, which dismissed his medical malpractice complaint against the defendant Palos Community Hospital.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that «such a process would be impractical, unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient and in contradiction to the spirit of Rule 1.04» of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court therefore exercised its discretion under that rule to make an order granting leave to the Defendant to examine the Plaintiff's wife for discovery.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and denying summary judgment for the defendants, in a dispute over insurance coverage.

Somewhat exceptionally, worldwide freezing order relief was granted in Republic of Haiti v Duvalier [1989] 1 All ER 456, [1989] 2 WLR 261, a case in which the defendants neither were domiciled nor had assets in England.

However, Leggatt J granted the claimant's application to lift the stay, dismissed the defendant's application to continue the stay, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of both.

For this reason, the Court has, generally, been historically hesitant to grant Orders dismissing lawsuits for delay on motions brought by defendants.

The protection for the defendant that ought to be associated with the grant of a without notice freezing order was absent.

However, the cause of action asserted against the cause of action defendant must be one that is recognized by the court granting the Mareva order; and,

Ouseley J granted it, though, because the claimant won, the order is academic (short of a successful appeal by the defendant).

Healey J. dismissed Ms. Brown's appeal from an order of the Small Claims Court granting judgment in favour of Peel Mutual on its Defendant's Claim against her in the amount of $ 14,833.77.