She issued a small
claims court action against a LawPRO defence counsel who had appeared before Rady, J. Counsel appeared before Little, J. on October 21, 2011.
Not exact matches
In its latest legal
action, Stone Street has asked the bankruptcy
court to lift a stay that would allow it to pursue
claims in state
court against former Siskey companies that have been pushed into bankruptcy.
«The DOL has created a new private right of
action,» said Fleckner, who led Goodwin's successful defense of an excessive fee
claim against John Hancock in the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals in 2014, and was a signatory to an amicus brief filed with the Supreme
Court on behalf of the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association in Tibble v. Edison.
Litigation funder IMF is calling for aggrieved shareholders to sign up for a possible
court action against Treasury Wine Estates, the owner of a portfolio of leading and iconic wine brands such as Penfolds, Wolf Blass and Lindemans,
claiming «deceptive and misleading conduct» over disclosures around its troubled US business.
Maurice Blackburn lodged documents in the Federal
Court on Wednesday to begin a class
action against Treasury Wine Estates over what it
claims was a late disclosure of heavy write - downs.
In any dispute, NEITHER YOU NOR THE
ACTION NETWORK GROUP WILL BE ENTITLED TO JOIN OR CONSOLIDATE
CLAIMS BY OR
AGAINST OTHER VISITORS IN
COURT OR IN ARBITRATION OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN ANY
CLAIM AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, CLASS MEMBER OR IN A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAPACITY.
A British
court on Thursday blocked pollution
claims against Anglo - Dutch energy giant Shell by more than 40,000 Niger Delta residents demanding
action over decades of oil spills in the region.
Class
Action Litigation — Vote Passed (220 - 201, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting) The bill would prohibit federal courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class - action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of claims made against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related inj
Action Litigation — Vote Passed (220 - 201, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting) The bill would prohibit federal
courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class -
action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of claims made against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related inj
action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury, and it would require quarterly reports by asbestos trusts of
claims made
against the trusts and any payouts made by the trusts for asbestos - related injuries.
Cheshire County Council leader Paul Findlow, who attempted High
Court legal
action against the proposal,
claimed that splitting Cheshire would only disrupt excellent services while increasing living costs for all.
In the event that this arbitration agreement is for any reason held to be unenforceable, any litigation
against the Company (except for small -
claims court actions) may be commenced only in the federal or state
courts located in New York County, New York.
The owner of online dating site...
actions claims against Spark Networks Inc. in California
courts in 2013 alleging that ChristianMingle.com and several other sites in the company's portfolio of niche dating services
If you have any dispute with or
claim against us or any of our affiliates (a «Claim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-(877) 474-6984), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims c
claim against us or any of our affiliates (a «
Claim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-(877) 474-6984), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims c
Claim») arising out of or relating to the Application or this Agreement, and the
claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-(877) 474-6984), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual action in small claims c
claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (877) 4 - SHOWTIME -LRB-(877) 474-6984), you and we each agree to resolve such disputes through an individual binding arbitration or an individual
action in small
claims court.
Topics to be discussed include:
Court Procedure: An understanding of the civil litigation process in New Jersey as it pertains to negligence
claims; Damages: Understanding the standards for, and the differences between Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Facility Maintenance: Identifying potential safety hazards related to facilities and grounds, and taking reasonable steps to address common problems; Indemnification: Identifying when the school district is responsible for the actions of its employees, and when it may disclaim coverage; Insurance Coverage Issues: Understanding what is, and is not covered under a school district's insurance policy, and understanding whether your district will be allowed to choose its attorney or be required to utilize the attorney assigned by the Insurance Company; Negligent Supervision: Examples of school district negligence liability lie within the school, on the athletic field, in the locker room, and on school trips; Sovereign Immunity: Understanding the effect of the New Jersey Torts Claims Act on negligence claims against school dist
claims; Damages: Understanding the standards for, and the differences between Compensatory and Punitive Damages; Facility Maintenance: Identifying potential safety hazards related to facilities and grounds, and taking reasonable steps to address common problems; Indemnification: Identifying when the school district is responsible for the
actions of its employees, and when it may disclaim coverage; Insurance Coverage Issues: Understanding what is, and is not covered under a school district's insurance policy, and understanding whether your district will be allowed to choose its attorney or be required to utilize the attorney assigned by the Insurance Company; Negligent Supervision: Examples of school district negligence liability lie within the school, on the athletic field, in the locker room, and on school trips; Sovereign Immunity: Understanding the effect of the New Jersey Torts
Claims Act on negligence claims against school dist
Claims Act on negligence
claims against school dist
claims against school districts.
The process, and persistent charter
claims of being short - changed, has spurred
court battles, acrimonious policy debates in the state legislature and even suggestions of a massive, class -
action lawsuit
against traditional public schools.
However, in the event that any
action is ever brought related to
claims against CR Publishing LLC, the parties agree that exclusive jurisdiction of such
claims shall be with The Chester County
Court of Common Pleas in Chester County Pennsylvania.
If you have good evidence that is not known to the public, better you should keep it to yourself, and wait for your day in
court, because what you did write today will be unlikely to persuade the directors of Berkshire Hathaway from their current course of
action, which may include pursuing
claims against your client.
Without limiting your right to file arbitration
claims against Capital One Investing under FINRA Rule 12200 or its affiliates or successors, you consent to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state
courts in King County, Washington for any
court action or proceeding relating to your Account and you agree that all such
claims by you
against us or our affiliates or successors will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state
courts in King County, State of Washington.
Restricting schools that participate in the federal student loan program from using abusive arbitration clauses (also known as «rip - off clauses») and class
action bans to silence students» complaints, force students to «go it alone» with any
claims they have
against their school, and keep students» fraud
claims against schools out of
court;
Fred got two months into it and then he got a notice from small
claims court, one of his creditors was taking legal
action against him.
In the event that a
claim for indemnification
against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of the registrant in the successful defense of any
action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a
court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is
against public policy as expressed in such Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
In the event that a
claim for indemnification
against such liabilities (other than the payment by Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of Registrant in the successful defense of any
action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a
court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is
against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
In February, Frank Lucido filed a class
action suit in federal
court in California
against Nestlé Purina PetCare Co.
claiming two of his dogs became sick and one died after he fed them Beneful.
In similar fashion, EC Regulation 44/2001 and the EU
Court of Justice decision of FBTO v Odenbreit allow British holidaymakers to initiate
claims against the EU insurers of negligent third parties in the English jurisdiction, provided the country of origin permits a direct right of
action against an insurer.
If Apple salvages at least a photo gallery bounce - back
claim at the end of those proceedings, it can ask the Mannheim
court to resume the utility model infringement
action against Samsung.
Obtaining summary judgment in (and complete dismissal of) a state wage and hour class
action filed in Orange County Superior
Court by hourly drivers
against a respiratory care company and involving statutory and contractual overtime
claims;
Compelling to arbitration — and ultimately obtaining dismissal with prejudice of all
claims — a statewide putative class and representative
action brought
against a craft store chain in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California that involved meal and rest break, failure to pay wages, inaccurate wage statements, unfair business practices, and PAGA
claims;
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 law
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 law
court lawsuit.
Defeating conditional certification of a national FLSA collective
action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging unpaid overtime for all nonexempt employees of a national furniture retailer and getting
claims dismissed
against the individual defendants;
Striking all state class
action claims and limiting conditional certification of an FLSA collective
action to three units of a hospital in a class / collective hybrid
action brought by a former nurse
against a hospital in Wisconsin state
court for meal period and overtime
claims;
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 Califor
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 Califor
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 Califor
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).
«Without congressional
action, plaintiffs» lawyers will continue to file «double dip»
claims against the trusts and in the
courts.»
Bill of Costs Bill of Costs (Tariff Items) Consent Form 18 Requisition — General Form 41 Subpoena Form 52.2 Certificate Concerning Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses Form 80A Affidavit Form 91 Direction to Attend Form 124A Notice of change of solicitor Form 146A1 Affidavit of service Form 146A2 Affidavit of service — Personal Service Form 146B Solicitor's Certificate of Service Form 149 Tender of Payment into
Court Form 171A Statement of
claim Form 171B Statement of defence Form 171C Reply Form 171D Counterclaim against parties to main action only Form 171E Counterclaim against plaintiff and person not already party to the main action Form 171F Defence to Counterclaim Form 171G Reply to defence to counterclaim Form 171H Third Party Claim against a person already party to the action Form 171I Third Party Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Wi
claim Form 171B Statement of defence Form 171C Reply Form 171D Counterclaim
against parties to main
action only Form 171E Counterclaim
against plaintiff and person not already party to the main
action Form 171F Defence to Counterclaim Form 171G Reply to defence to counterclaim Form 171H Third Party
Claim against a person already party to the action Form 171I Third Party Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Wi
Claim against a person already party to the
action Form 171I Third Party
Claim against a person not already party to the action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Wi
Claim against a person not already party to the
action Form 171J Third Party Defence Form 171K Reply to Third Party Defence From 223 Affidavit of Documents Form 255 Request to Admit Form 256 Response to Request to Admit Form 258 Request for Pre-Trail Conference Form 301 Notice of Application Form 305 Notice of Appearance — Application Form 314 Requisition for Hearing — Application Form 337 Notice of Appeal Form 341A Notice of Appearance — Appeal Form 344 Certificate of Completeness of Appeal Book Form 347 Requisition for Hearing — Appeal Form 359 Notice of Motion Memorandum of Fact and Law Model Bifurcation Order Model Jeopardy Order Motion Record Notice of Consent to Electronic Service Solicitor's Certificate of Expert Witness
Resolving a statewide putative independent contractor misclassification class
action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California
against an international packaging company through an individual settlement and dismissal of class
claims; and
Settling (while class certification and summary judgment motions were pending) a statewide putative class
action filed in San Mateo Superior
Court for nuisance value with the named plaintiffs who alleged multiple wage and hour
claims (unpaid regular and overtime wages, noncompliant meal and rest periods, untimely payment of final wages, noncompliant itemized wage statements, unpaid / forfeited vacation, and violation of PAGA)
against a pharmaceutical supply company's call center;
Mandates encompass being lead Canadian counsel for the Joint Administrators of Nortel UK and 23 Nortel entities in Europe, Middle East, and Africa regarding the division of Nortel's $ 7 - billion in cash and
claims against the Canadian estate; representing Katz Group Canada at the Supreme
Court of Canada; representing Tim Hortons in a $ 65 - million
claim; being class counsel in a $ 100 - million class
action against Canada Cartage Systems Ltd.; and acting for General Motors Co. dealers in a $ 250 - million multi-party
action.
In 2011, class
action lawyers took to
court and filed a consumer fraud
claim against Taco Bell that accused the company of misleading consumers by
claiming that the meet in its tacos did not meet the USDA definition of «beef.»
The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original
court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese
court in an
action of the appellee who is a Japanese national
claiming divorce in the present case
against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is
against the law.
Successful defense of over $ 40 million in
claims for breach of an alleged partnership agreement, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
against a large Southern California homebuilder in a multi-state litigation, including a six week jury trial, two state
court appeals, a Ninth Circuit appeal, an Idaho state court action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme C
court appeals, a Ninth Circuit appeal, an Idaho state
court action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme C
court action and appeal to the Idaho Supreme
CourtCourt.
The high
court is also unimpressed with the fact that the drug giving rise to the product liability was distributed by a California company, presumably because the cause of
action in question in the case was brought
against the manufacturer as a strict liability defective product
claim, rather than as a
claim against a seller of the product arising from a warranty that the product was free of defects arising under the Uniform Commercial Code or an express warranty.
[23] The Attorney General submits that even if Ms. Taylor has limited her
claim, the
court has no jurisdiction to apportion fault
against the doctor and the hospital unless they are parties to the
action.
If a forum state's
courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of
action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the
claim has to the forum state (except for
claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
courts which can be brought in a U.S. District
Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).
Obtained affirmance by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals of the District
Court's dismissal of quiet title
action against homeowners by a successor trustee
claiming that conveyance of property by a predecessor co-trustee was void.
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 p
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 p
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 p
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 purpose.
Mr. Whitney's representative work includes a series of successful outcomes pursuing false advertising
claims against product review websites, a landmark victory clarifying copyright fair use and parody on behalf of several well - known musicians; a defense win dismissing copyright infringement
claims brought by a putative class of attorneys
against the leading legal research websites; a favorable outcome for a high - end beauty products company in a trademark and trade dress
action against a manufacturer of knock - off products; a district and appellate
court decision dismissing all
claims by a proposed class
against an international bank for alleged violations of, among other things, the Federal False Marking Act, RICO and the CAN - SPAM Act; and counseling prominent art museums and galleries on domestic and international copyright issues.
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.
[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an
action in Small
Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.
In 2009 the
court dismissed a
claim brought by travel agents
against the firm and Ms Advani, and found that Denton Wilde Sapte owed no relevant duty to the claimants and was not liable for the
actions of Ms Advani as she was acting outside her employment as a solicitor.
«Very real obstacles» faced by a family law client in bringing a negligence
action against a Cheshire law firm did not mean that the
claim should be struck out in its entirety, the High
Court has ruled.
Research and briefing associate on a successful appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that affirmed judgment in favor of corporate timberland owner in an
action involving
claims of trespass by the landowner and
claims of adverse possession made
against that owner.
She is now precluded from instituting any new
action of any nature or
court proceeding of any nature in any court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to
court proceeding of any nature in any
court in Ontario, including small claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to
court in Ontario, including small
claims court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing action without the consent of a Superior Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to
court, and she is precluded from bringing any further or fresh step in any existing
action without the consent of a Superior
Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made against her to
Court judge, which consent will only be granted after the plaintiff makes an application for it, and provides proof that she has paid $ 40,000 of the more than $ 50,000 in cost orders that have been made
against her to date.