Sentences with phrase «against the plaintiff which»

The judge also commented upon the unsuccessful allegations of just cause made against the plaintiff which he had asserted led to his inability to find new employment.

Not exact matches

In fact, in December 2017 a Virginia district court judge ruled against a female plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation against defense contractor BAE Systems, in part, because she «did not take advantage of BAE's harassment reporting procedures of which she was well aware.»

It is the first defendant to settle and agreed to help the plaintiffs with their case against the remaining defendants, which are American Airlines Group (aal), Delta Air Lines (dal) and United Continental Holdings (ual).

AMD also had several lawsuits lodged against it after its initial statements on the Spectre / Meltdown vulnerabilities, which the Plaintiffs claim were misleading, so the company is obviously (and wisely) exercising some caution.

The Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), which brought the suit against Chase on plaintiffs» behalf, says banks shouldn't be willing to let online payday lenders take money out of customer accounts in states where such loans are illegal.

Jack, District Judge: Plaintiff, McIlhenny Company, a corporation of the State of Maine, which, with its predecessors, for many years past, has manufactured at Avery Island, Louisiana, a condiment known as «Tabasco Pepper Sauce,» brings this action against defendant Ed.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

Publication of the editorial came on the same day as two other events of note, first, the release of a new book, Back in the Game, in which sports neurologist Jeffrey Kutcher and award - winning journalist Joanne Gerstner repeatedly and pointedly criticize the media for «irresponsible» reporting on CTE, and second, the filing of a class action lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Pop Warner, USA Football, and the National Operating Committee on Standards For Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) which assumes as scientific fact that repetitive head impacts sustained in youth football «exposed» plaintiffs» sons to CTE, and led one to engage in «erratic and reckless behavior» resulting in his untimely death, and the other to take his own life.

Friends of Meigs Field and other plaintiffs filed the suit April 4 against the city and the Chicago Park District, which owns the land.

The class - action lawsuit against the Cemeteries Association of Greater Chicago, which represents the cemeteries, and Westlawn Cemetery, an association member, was filed by the Chicago Rabbinical Council and named one plaintiff, Carole Katz of Chicago.

The pro-charter-school group Families for Excellent Schools said even more needs to be done to comply with state and federal bullying laws, which is why the organization is a plaintiff in a class - action lawsuit against DOE, filed in April 2016, along with 23 parents whose children have experienced bullying and harassment in city schools.

The conservative group, which was the plaintiff in a successful Supreme Court court challenging limits to independent spending ushering in the super PAC era, had argued that disclosing donors would incur backlash against them.

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

Lasher is running against Marisol Alcantara, a former union organizer for the New York State Nurses Association, and Robert Jackson, a former councilman who is also a plaintiff in a landmark case by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which argued that New York was under funding schools and not meeting its constitutional burden to provide children with a «sound basic education.»

Spock, Hobson, Jenness, Pulley, and others then filed a case that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court (424 U.S. 828 — Greer, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, et al., v. Spock et al.), which ruled against the plaintiffs.

The allegations by Kent and the others center on what the plaintiffs claim was an unfair attack on them by Spence and his allies regarding charges that a Rockland County council leader, Stephanie Lee, had misused a PEF bank card, making numerous personal purchases, which led to a court judgment of $ 64,104.88 against her.

Eliot was listed as the plaintiff in the short - lived case against his spouse, which came on the heels of a scathing Post exclusive that revealed the ousted governor was canoodling with former Bill de Blasio spokesman Lis Smith.

The plaintiff wants the suit, which also cites the Attorney General, to declare the action being initiated against the EC boss by the Judicial Council as unconstitutional, void and of no effect.

Pawa also led the plaintiffs in a 2008 case, Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp., in which an Alaskan village made arguments against Exxon similar to those that Oakland and San Francisco are making now.

New York State's highest court, ruling on two cases in which children were allegedly misdiagnosed as retarded, last month rejected in one case the concept of «educational malpractice» as legal grounds on which to redress such plaintiffs» grievances against public agencies.

Appeal from judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mark D. Fox, Magistrate Judge), which held that defendant Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District intentionally discriminated against plaintiff Santina Polera in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and awarded damages to plaintiff.

In April 2013, two plaintiffs attempted to bring a class action lawsuit against Sega and Gearbox, which they claim used «bait and switch» tactics with the game's marketing.

As we saw in the March 21 courtroom tutorial hearing, the judge was not impressed with one of the main bits of accusatory evidence about the «conspiracy,» and the one Chevron attorney speaking at the hearing, Theodore Boutrous, had never seen the plaintiffs» «conspiracy evidence» before — which could actually undermine other lawsuits against energy companies.

While he said he was working for the plaintiffs pro-bono, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which has admitted to funding efforts to investigate and bring charges against the oil and gas industry, had very recently given a $ 200,000 grant to the Niskanen Center in February 2018 «for its climate program.»

The National Petrochemical Plaintiffs argue that Defendants «gerrymandered the criteria to reach this outcome,» which establishes that the purpose and design of the LCFS is to discriminate against out - of - state and foreign HCICOs.

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Sanford Heisler Sharp, which has also filed cases against Greenberg Traurig; Chadbourne & Parke (now Norton Rose Fulbright); Sedgwick; Ogletree Deakins; and Proskauer Rose.

According to a New Jersey Law Journal article on lawsuits against L'Oreal over the marketing of its anti-wrinkle creams — now consolidated in federal court in Newark, N.J. — the plaintiffs» claims include allegations «that Lancome ads use airbrushed or «Photoshopped» images of celebrities and models, which do not reflect the true effectiveness of its products,» and the complaint includes a comparison of a Lancome ad featuring actress Kate Winslet and a photo of Winslet from People magazine.

As Zal notes, the plaintiffs in the fraud lawsuit against Bluford — which continues against other defendants even though Bluford settled — filed a request on Feb. 21, 2017, to dismiss QuickLegal as a defendant.

The massive settlement — which must still be approved by 95 percent of the plaintiffs and a Shasta County judge — will end litigation against the health care giant in connection with the surgeries.

Mercury has been served as a purported UM carrier and Plaintiff is seeking to hold Mercury liable to satisfy all or a portion of any judgment which might be rendered against Defendant in this matter.

Because neither party obtained a monetary recovery, the claims against trustee were not dismissed, and plaintiff obtained an equitable judgment against trustee, the case — with respect to routine costs — fell within the catch - all provision of CCP § 1032 (a)(4) which allows the trial court discretion to determine the prevailing party by comparing the relief sought with that obtained, along with the parties» litigation objectives.

National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein — which opened an office in Raleigh earlier this year — is representing plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp..

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).

Many of its files will be familiar to regular readers of the national media, and include the $ 9 - billion Sino - Forest Corp. shareholder class action claim; an application against Rogers Communications Inc. and Chatr Wireless Inc. involving a constitutional challenge to the Competition Act; and a case concerning oil pollution in the Amazon in which the firm acted for Ecuadoran plaintiffs.

The judgment is among the largest ever issued against a foreign nation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, according to a press release by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, which represented the plaintiffs with co-counsel Karsman McKenzie & Hart.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the unrepresented plaintiff's appeal from Justice Perell's judgment, which summarily dismissed the plaintiff's action against lawyer D. Walcott retained lawyer D to collect a $ 248,000 unsecured loan.

Defended a market - leading insurer in a Massachusetts direct action in which the injured plaintiffs sought more than $ 40 million in punitive damages against our client (primary insurer on business auto policy) for its alleged failure to promptly settle a catastrophic personal injury claim.

Lisa Arrowood and Jeffrey Catalano represented the plaintiffs in this case which was a suit against a doctor for negligence in the death of a basketball player.

Our experienced lawyers leverage resources across practice groups to develop successful defense strategies that protect our clients against multijurisdictional claims which can involve thousands of plaintiffs nationwide.

Plaintiff brought suit against the restaurant which he alleged over-served alcohol to the driver.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on September 30, 2008, dismissed the appeal and awarded further costs of $ 40,000 against the plaintiffs.

Eagle Harbor Holdings / Medius v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:11 - cv -05503-BHS (W.D. Washington 2015)-- Successfully defended Ford in patent infringement trial in which plaintiff asserted several patents against Ford's SYNC infotainment system and» automatic parking system.

He tried a suit against Fayette County Long Term Care which resulted in a $ 1.5 million judgment for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an in rem against the ship, claiming that it had a maritime lien under s. 139 of the Marine Liability Act which ranked ahead of the mortgagee of the ship.

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.

According to court records, the issue in this case was not the merits of the plaintiff's case but instead whether she filed within the statutory 180 - day filing period according to 14 M.R.S. § 8107, which details the notice that is required when a plaintiff plans to file a lawsuit against a governmental entity.

That was the part where, after the parties agreed to, say, a $ 25 million settlement and submitted it for court approval, the plaintiffs» law firm (which to date had shown nothing but 100 percent confidence in its case) must now turn around and argue against its own case to show the judge that it had not settled the case for too little.

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.

Public Citizen lawyer Paul Alan Levy is winning praise from some corners of the blogosphere for his post at the Consumer Law & Policy Blog in which he says the lawsuit by law firm Jones Day against the Web site BlockShopper.com deserves a prize for «grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech the plaintiff doesn't like.»

Except in cases affecting the personal status of the plaintiff, and cases in which that mode of service may be considered to have been assented to in advance, as hereinafter mentioned, the substituted service of process by publication, allowed by the law of Oregon and by similar laws in other States, where actions are brought against non-residents, is effectual only where, in connection with process against the person for commencing the action, property in the State is brought under the control of the court, and subjected to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose, or where the judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or affecting some interest therein; in other words, where the action is in the nature of a proceeding in rem.