Sentences with phrase «allegations against the plaintiffs»

Ringling countersued, bringing racketeering allegations against the plaintiffs for paying its co-plaintiff.

Not exact matches

«Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor ‐ denominated derivative swap would, if appellants» allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world's most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,» the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rigging.

New complaints will make allegations against additional ingredients that sound «non-natural,» and plaintiffs may begin to look more closely at photographs, images and themes on labels, packaging and websites.

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.

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.

The plaintiff, in its originating summons stated that «the allegations made against the 1st and 2nd defendants (Amaechi and Onu) by the two Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria... are grievous enough to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution by the 3rd and 4th defendants (DSS and EFCC).»

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.

«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.»

«These unsubstantiated allegations stem from a single lawsuit filed against us by a single plaintiff who claims that levels of lead were found in three of our products that could be dangerous to pet health.

Plaintiff's counsel falsely describes these reports as «a series of investigations and exonerations of Dr Mann» (pages 5 and 6 of January 18th memorandum), and falsely states that four university inquiries and five governmental agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have «conducted separate and independent investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct against Dr Mann», and that «all of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr Mann».

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.

Among the plaintiffs» allegations against Bluford:

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

However, Mr. Kraft, the plaintiff in the underlying action, argued that the allegations of liability against Mr. Kelley fell within the policy's scope of coverage because the word «use» in the motorized vehicle exclusion should be construed as meaning «some measure of operational control over» a motorized vehicle, in this case the ATV.

The most common reasons include: The amount of damages that the plaintiff will recover are not enough to justify the cost of pursuing the claim, especially if litigation is necessary; whether or not the healthcare professional breached the standard of care owed to the plaintiff is questionable, and there are strong defenses to this allegation; or / and causation is unclear, and the defense has a strong argument against a plaintiff's claim of causation.

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.

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.

Defending metal producer Timminco Ltd. against fraud allegations before the Ontario Court of Appeal last year, he helped set an important precedent barring plaintiffs from bringing secondary - market class action suits if they failed to get leave to appeal within three years.

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.

While it is true that the Allstate suit contains fraud allegations, Exclusion F only bars coverage for fraudulent acts if a final judgment or adjudication is entered against Plaintiffs.

The handwritten complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Scranton alleges that the U.S. Justice Department «is heading the investigation into allegations of crimes against Humanity» involving Google's founders and that the plaintiff's «safety is in jepordy.»

The Court concluded «that they were concocted... after the fact» and that punitive damages were therefore warranted because DMR «persisted in advancing serious personal allegations of impropriety against the plaintiff without being able to maintain them and without having conducted a reasonably fair and unbiased investigation.»

We counsel them on transactions, regulatory problems, and civil and criminal litigation, whether it means defending them against allegations, or enforcing their rights as plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs do not seek to interrupt the progress of improvements, but they ask to stay revolution; a revolution against the foundations on which property rests; a revolution which is attempted on the allegation of monopoly: we resist the clamor against legislative acts which have vested rights in individuals, on principles of equal justice to the state, and to those who hold those rights under the provisions of the law.

The Bank did not investigate the complaints, refused to provide the plaintiff with particulars of the complaints made against him and refused to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

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.

The allegations against Neil include «repeated unwelcome solicitations for sex,» constant sexually derogatory remarks, invasive peeks down the women's blouses, and verbal implications that the plaintiffs and other female employees could receive days off only if they agreed to have sex with him.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

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.

[13] The plaintiff has made serious allegations against the Markicevic defendants, which the defendants deny.

«Everyone agrees that conversion is historically a tort against a person's interest in a chattel, being derived from the action for trover, which included a fictitious allegation that the plaintiff had lost the chattel and that the defendant had found it.

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.»