Sentences with phrase «plaintiff claimed against the defendants»

[6] The plaintiff claims against the defendant under all heads of damages for his personal injuries, in the total sum of $ 739,664.

Not exact matches

«However, at this stage of the litigation, accepting plaintiffs» allegations as true, plaintiffs have, albeit barely, stated a plausible equal protection claim against defendant Antonacci.»

My summary of the case is: A trial judge — he wasn't named in the Court of Appeal but his name can easily be discovered — had dismissed plaintiff's claim against the defendant bank and a solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

A defendant in an existing case may file a third - party claim against someone other than the plaintiff because the outcome of the case between the plaintiff and the defendant will affect the rights or responsibilities of that third party.

The Plaintiff claims as against the Defendant, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP («Cassels Brock»), for conspiracy, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, breach of confidence, and negligence...

A defendant is entitled to expect that a claim of liability brought against it will be decided by the same rules of evidence and substantive law whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel or self - represented.»

For better or for worse, our system is set up as an adversarial one where persons claiming damages for harm suffered (called «plaintiffs») assert these claims against the persons who caused the harm (called «defendants»).

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 lawsuit.

Instead, they were only sued under the PAGA claim, and here is the kicker — plaintiffs never sought fee entitlement in the notice of motion and motion under the PAGA fee - shifting provision much less attempted to segregate fee recovery against individual defendants solely against the PAGA claim.

Plaintiff claims to have suffered injuries in said accident and seeks to recover a judgment against Defendant for the same.

[1] The plaintiff, David Ellis, has brought an action against the defendant, Orlex Saul Fallios - Guthierrez, for battery, claiming that he suffered significant physical and emotional injuries.

«I've been involved as a lawyer for plaintiffs and for defendants in claims against lawyers, particularly in franchising.

[99] I reject the Defendants» argument that by abandoning their defence to the Counterclaim, the Edwards Plaintiffs are thereby disentitled to argue against the Defendants» claim for indemnification for costs based on the terms of the VIA.

The plaintiff knew she had a claim against the defendants within the limitation period.

A complaint is a legal document that lays out the claims that the «plaintiff» (the person or business bringing the lawsuit) has against the «defendant (s)» (the person, people or legal entity being sued).

The defendant's response must include what portions of the complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what specifically the defendant contests, what defenses the defendant may have to any of the allegations made in the complaint, and whether the defendant has claims against the plaintiff or any other party.

Along with the answer, the defendant may include a counterclaim against the plaintiff, or a related third party claim against another person or business.

Motion to be heard 12 (1) If a defendant against whom a proceeding is brought or maintained considers the whole of the proceeding or any claim within the proceeding has been brought in response to their expression or public participation, the defendant may, subject to subsection (2), bring an application for one or more of the following orders: a) To dismiss the proceeding or claim, as the case may be; b) For costs and expenses; c) For punitive or exemplary damages against the plaintiff.

HARTFORD, CT --(November 29, 2010)- In a federal § 1983 claim alleging violations of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, Catherine S. Nietzel recently obtained a defendants» verdict for two Fairfield County policeman accused of excessive force and malicious prosecution.

In addition, the defendant may raise any defenses he or she may have to the allegations as well as any injury claims the defendant may have against the plaintiff.

The action languished for some time, in large part because the plaintiffs» solicitor had difficulty in resolving how to deal with the claim against the second defendant.

In the case before Myers, one of the defendants had succeeded in having the plaintiff's claim against him dismissed and sought payment of his legal costs on the dismissal motion.

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.

The plaintiff filed her claim against the defendant condominium corporation within the 2 - year limitation period.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the attorney's fees for the defendant's appellate attorney, who had been hired to defend against the punitive damages claim.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the defendant, claiming that he was negligent in having the plaintiff move the glass.

An award of damages; the receiving of a favorable judgment; the winning of a lawsuit; a decree of a court granting the plaintiff part or all of his claim or claims against a defendant.

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.

If, instead of bringing counterclaims in the original lawsuit, the defendant brings a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek to either (1) consolidate the cases if they are filed in the same court system (i.e. a federal case and a federal case, or a New York State case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong court.

When a defendant is sued, the defendant is required by law to bring any claims that the defendant has against the plaintiff as a mandatory counterclaim if they are related to the case and is permitted to bring any claims the defendant has against the plaintiff for any reason as a permissive counterclaim.

However, there is a provision in our Rules of Civil Procedure that permits a plaintiff to unilaterally discontinue its lawsuit against a defendant, provided the lawsuit has not advanced past the stage of exchanging the claim and the defences (known more technically as the «close of pleadings»).

The plaintiff will file a claim against the defendant, for the money they feel they are owed due to medical expenses, lost time at work, pain and suffering, and any other relevant damages the defendant may have incurred.

If you are the injured party claiming against another driver, you are the plaintiff and the other driver is the defendant.

In Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe6, the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal (Laskin and Sharpe, J.J.A.) held the plaintiff's claim against the defendant solicitor was NOT statute barred.

In Combs v. Bergen, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and brought an ICBC claim against the Defendant for damages for pain and suffering, wage loss, diminished earning capacity, and cost of future.

In a class action, all of the various plaintiffs join together for one claim against the defendant.

In 2008, another federal court harshly dismissed his claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against two other creditors, noting that Flury had «filed eleven lawsuits against various defendants over the last four years, and with the exception of one case that ended in a default judgment, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed every action once the defendant moved to dismiss the case or otherwise responded to the complaint.»

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that the doctor was negligent in performing the surgery.

[1] Formally, this motion involves a request by one defendant, Mima Markicevic, for an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation which I previously had ordered against her Vaughan Residence, on the provision of alternate security for the proprietary claim of the plaintiff, York University.

The plaintiff also alleges that before abandoning the lease, Dynasty transferred funds and assets to various corporations and individuals and claims a declaration that Dynasty's alleged transfer of monies, assets, business and opportunities from itself to the co-defendants Polar Spas Ontario Inc. and 732311 Alberta Ltd., and its transfer of monies or assets to the defendant Williams and to the co-defendants Marsall Brent and Ken Nikel are void as against Dynasty's creditors as fraudulent conveyances.

Here is an example: imagine that a plaintiff is in an auto accident and files a claim against the defendant.

The Plaintiffs (property developers) had instituted proceedings against the Defendants in November 2014 claiming both breach of contract and negligence against the Defendants in relation to the construction of two houses in Co..

The IIGA argued before the appellate court that the defendant driver wasn't uninsured, and therefore the plaintiff had no actionable claim against Affirmative (and therefore no claim against IIGA) from which he could recover damages.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to have the claims dismissed as against the directors and the holding companies on the basis that they were not employers of the plaintiff and therefore have no place in the action for wrongful dismissal.

Negotiated a favorable resolution on behalf of a developer of a multi-million dollar mixed - use condominium, both as the defendant against claims of significant construction defects, and as the plaintiff in a third - party complaint asserting indemnification and contribution claims against subcontractor defendants.

Normally the plaintiff would do so before the defendant even knows that there is a filed claim against it.

In all cases, the Ontario - based plaintiffs sought to have their claims tried in Ontario and in all cases the foreign defendants sought to stay the actions on the basis that Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction over the claims against them or, alternatively, on the basis that Ontario was not a convenient forum for those claims.

111 (1) In an action for payment of a debt, the defendant may, by way of defence, claim the right to set off against the plaintiff's claim a debt owed by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Plaintiff, decedent's husband, brought suit against a number of defendants and claimed that the products of each of those defendants were a substantial factor in causing his wife's mesothelioma.

120 (1) If a defendant makes a payment to a plaintiff who is or alleges to be entitled to recover from the defendant, the payment constitutes, to the extent of the payment, a release by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative of any claim that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's personal representative or any person claiming through or under the plaintiff or by virtue of Part V of the Family Law Act may have against the defendant.