Sentences with phrase «against a plaintiff based»

Less than a month later, one of the Defendants commenced an action in British Columbia against the Plaintiff based on the same agreement.

The defense was then awarded over $ 1.79 million against plaintiff based on a fees clause in a written Stock Purchase Agreement.

Not exact matches

Fed up, Parham became a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Wednesday against Oak Brook - based McDonald's by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The Court, according to counsel to the plaintiff, Inibehe Effiong, a Lagos based human rights lawyer, was to established whether Luke and his security aides had fallen foul of the law, against his client and sought damages amounting to N100million as well as additional N400million as exemplary damages.

The plaintiff also sought an order of mandamus compelling President Muhammadu Buhari to immediately sack both ministers in public interest and public morality based on the allegations of attempts to influence court decisions recently levelled against them by two Justices of the Supreme Court.

Several courts, when deciding new adequacy cases, have either dismissed them based on separation of powers grounds or have ruled against the plaintiffs on the merits following a trial.

Most important to the plaintiffs is their built - in protection against having settlement funds dissipate too quickly based on bad financial decisions.

Viewed thusly, plaintiffs» theory of a loyalty breach based on aggressive pursuit of wrap coverage requires that we infer that Fidelity embarked on a course that was not only against both its interests and the interests of its investors, but was also plainly illogical.

She would not be able to recover against a doctor who had not been negligent with respect to the information that he or she did have; yet she also would not be able to recover against a manufacturer who, despite having failed in its duty to warn, could escape liability on the basis that, had the doctor been appropriately warned, he or she still would not have passed the information on to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff won a FEHA - based lawsuit against both a school district and an individual in Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Case No.

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 California).

Then, based on the true pragmatics of the parties» positions and what occurred in lower court proceedings, the appellate court determined that trustee, not plaintiff, had prevailed: it remained neutral on the contract claims by filing the nonmonetary status declaration (in stark contrast to the trustee in Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4 th 316, 350 (2008), which did not remain neutral and only filed the nonmonetary status declaration close to trial), and it defensed the tort claims (under which plaintiff sought to recovery money against trustee).

[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 trial of these initial four plaintiffs constituted the initial case for approximately 600 ARCO / ampm franchisees that have brought identical contract - based claims against BPWCP.

Lead trial counsel for plaintiffs in both the preliminary and final injunction hearings of Evans v. Romer, a successful suit challenging the constitutionality of a widely - publicized amendment to Colorado's constitution that would have prohibited any legislation protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation; case received nationwide press coverage in broadcast and print media, including live coverage on Court TV, and was ultimately decided in plaintiffs» favor in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Instead of analyzing whether California has jurisdiction over the product liability situation, in general, the high court decides that the determination regarding whether California has jurisdiction over a suit against a particular defendant must be made on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis when «specific jurisdiction» rather than «general jurisdiction» is involved.

As a result, it is going to be up to the trial courts across the country to provide more guidance as to what «reasonable possibility» of success means when plaintiffs are asking for leave or authorization to go ahead with a securities - based class action against a publicly traded company.

That affidavit provided the basis for a defense against the plaintiff's claim.

With this case, Canadian law has rightly provided protection against defamation to an individual subjected to repeated published attacks on her reputation that were not only false as found by the jury's findings of defamation, but which specifically defamed the plaintiff based on her status as a member of a racialized group.

The trial judge didn't suggest that, somehow, the agreement contained a clause that allowed the plaintiff to continue against the remaining defendant (s) for more than their own shares — their own shares would include a share based on vicarious liability, but that wasn't an issue in the case.

Won summary judgment dismissing a Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act suit filed against a Texas - based, public accounting and advisory services company in which the plaintiff alleged our client was the wrongful recipient of over $ 1.8 million worth of client information and company goodwill.

If Paul Plaintiff is suing Dan Defendant in a civil suit, Paul might have records in his possession upon which he's based his complaint against Dan.

The plaintiff subsequently issued an action against the University and a number of faculty members seeking damages on the basis of breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion dismissing a plaintiff's complaint against the defendant, based on the fact that the...

In the following year, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the allegedly negligent driver and his own insurer, alleging that the defendant driver negligently caused his injuries and that the defendant was uninsured at the time of the crash, based on the denial of coverage by ACCC.

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.

PC -2008-1134, Judge Sarah Taft - Carter held that while the existence of such a duty is determined on a case - by - case basis, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Crane Co. had a duty to protect against such «secondary» or «take - home» exposure.

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.

In a case decided in February 2016, Wolinsky v. Assiniboine Credit Union, Stuart Blake and Andrew Loewen convinced the Manitoba Court of Appeal to overturn a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to commence an action against the defendant which was otherwise commenced out of time, on the basis that the lower court committed several errors.

Based on the discovery of the defect and his serious injuries, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that their failure to properly inspect the crane before delivering it to the plaintiff caused his injuries.

The Court held that it need not find a «special relationship» between Crane Co. and Ms. Jones to impose a duty because the plaintiffs allegations were based upon Crane Co.'s own alleged misfeasance in utilizing asbestos - containing products and not on an alleged failure of Crane Co. to protect against the actions of a third - party tortfeasor.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion dismissing a plaintiff's complaint against the defendant, based on the fact that the plaintiff concealed prior injuries that he had suffered.

«The process for a judge hearing a non-suit application is to ask whether, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, taken at face value and without being weighted, there is enough evidence for a prima facie case against the defendants.

Court upheld the constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1714.10, which requires that a plaintiff seek leave of court to add a cause of action against an attorney for an alleged conspiracy with a client, based upon a showing that there is a «reasonable probability» that the plaintiff will prevail in the action.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and upheld the dismissal of all claims against Kim's client, an investigating company, on the basis that the plaintiff, who was seeking workers» compensation benefits from his employer, failed to show that he had an expectation of privacy while participating in a worship service in a sanctuary.

Served as lead counsel for the defendant and obtained reversal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of a district court's order certifying a 29 - jurisdiction class action alleging consumer fraud by a Fortune 50 retailer, and subsequently successfully moved for dismissal with prejudice of named plaintiff's claims and obtained a nationwide injunction against future attempts to certify a class based on similar allegations.

The plaintiff Randy Wall brought action against the church that he had been a member of since 1980 until his expulsion in 2014, and succeeded on the basis that the Churches» disfellowshipped» was procedurally unfair.

Successfully represented Plaintiff in fire loss claim against insurer where jury awarded $ 175,000.00 in punitive damages for bad faith conduct of insurer in denying claim based on an alleged misrepresentation in in the application process (Haji - Fazul v. Lloyd's Underwriters)

In light of the nature of asbestos litigation, which often involves a limited number of plaintiffs» law firms repeatedly asserting the same or similar claims against defendants, clients facing extensive asbestos litigation are positioned to benefit from Thompson Hine's SmartPaTH ®, a service delivery approach that leverages legal project management, process efficiency, flexible staffing and value - based pricing to better align our services with clients» needs.

Kathy has also defended an international dialysis services provider against RICO claims in federal court based on allegedly fraudulent billing activity, represented a pharmaceutical services provider in a billing dispute with a chain of nursing homes, defended home health agencies in suits brought by employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and represented other providers and associations of providers as plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of matters in federal and state court involving issues ranging from contract interpretation to cash receipts assessments to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In such actions against a professional, the plaintiff must file an affidavit of an expert witness which specifies at least one negligent act or omission and the factual bases for each claim, unless the basis of the claim does not require specialized knowledge or experience to evaluate the conduct of the defendant.

The plaintiff (person who brings a case against another in a court of law) had developed a software based media and MP3 player that was available as a free internet download.

As there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the Ameron defendants, the plaintiffs» claim against the Ameron defendants was based in negligence, alleging, inter alia, that the paint was unsuitable for the project.

The KBA seeks sanctions against the Judge based on their guess on how the Kentucky Supreme Court will rule on this issue in the plaintiff's civil case now on appeal.

The personal injury bar's argument against limiting noneconomic damages — that a jury's award of noneconomic damages should not be reduced to an amount determined by legislators because a jury can determine on a case - by - case basis to what extent to compensate a plaintiff for harm suffered — fails to address the difference between noneconomic damages and economic damages, and fails to take into account the intangibility of noneconomic damages awards.

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

It was on this basis that the plaintiff amended the complaint to include the three additional counts of negligent credentialing, negligent failure to train, and simple negligence against the defendant hospital.

If a jurisdiction decided (against my advice offered below) to allocate the retribu - tive damages awards to the plaintiff and her counsel, then the reprehensibility - based guide - lines approach reduces the problem of diminished incentives in the aftermath of Philip Morris.

Imax's summary judgment motion based on a limitation defence was denied yesterday, giving the class action bar cause for celebration in light of other recent decisions that seem to go against plaintiffs in similar circumstances where lengthy proceedings have delayed matters.

In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court found that «none of the plaintiff's allegations against the Defendant provide a legal footing on which he can base his claim to damages.»