Sentences with phrase «claims on behalf of plaintiffs»

This decision dealt with the cost claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and the successful defendant, Brian Card.

Sophia's practice has focused exclusively on personal injury claims on behalf of plaintiffs since her call to the bar of Ontario.

Not exact matches

Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma, on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments.

Investor advocate, Mark Elliott — who recently won a class action on behalf of investors in Downer EDI — lodged the claim on behalf of investor John Webster, who will act as «lead plaintiff» in the case on behalf of other investors who join the action.

A copy of the suit said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

A copy of the suit, which is available to ClassFMonline.com said: «This honourable court will be moved by Gary Nimako Marfo ESQ., counsel for and on behalf of plaintiff / applicants herein praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain defendants / respondents, whether by themselves, agents, servants, workmen, hirelings, privies or any person claiming under or through them or howsoever described, from holding out the second defendant / respondent, [as] the parliamentary candidate - elect for Klottey Korle constituency.»

The class action, filed on behalf of 14 needy Philadelphia students and 12 public - interest organizations, claims the university has not abided by an 1977 city ordinance that the plaintiffs believe requires Penn to provide 125 so - called «Mayor's scholarships» for each entering class.

The class action was filed earlier this month in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in Washington, on behalf of some 100,000 individuals who attended such schools from 1890 until the present day, said Jeffrey M. Herman, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

All of us involved in the case — recall that Jesse Rothstein and I served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Thomas Kane of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project and John Friedman of the infamous Chetty et al. studies (see here and here) served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the defendants — knew that all of the plaintiffs» claims would be tough to win given all of the constitutional legal standards would be difficult for plaintiffs to satisfy (e.g., that evaluating teachers using their value - added scores was not «unreasonable» was difficult to prove, as it was in the Tennessee case we also fought and was then dismissed on similar grounds (see here)-RRB-.

Point Three: The complaint reads: «The Plaintiffs also brings this action on behalf of all members of the following classes (collectively the «State Classes) with respect to claims under the antitrust statues of each of the following jurisdictions: Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North California, North Dakota, Oregon, South California, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont West Virginia and Wisconsin.»

Plaintiff claims American Express and its vendor, Alorica, violated the TCPA by having Alorica place calls on behalf of American Express to cellular telephones between July 3, 2009 and March 15, 2016, through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system, predictive dialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent.

In one of the original climate lawsuits, filed in 2008 on behalf of the Alaskan village of Kivalina, the plaintiffs made the same claims as New York City, Oakland, and San Francisco — including the specific citation of «potentially irreversible» impacts and a «significant loss of life» as a result of climate change.

The Plaintiff has sued on behalf of every muslim in Israel, claiming 1000NIS for every muslim on the grounds that Coca - cola has been «misleading consumers, infringing the independent choices of the individual, and causing huge mental anguish.»

The Appellant argued that claims for fraudulent preferences are advanced on behalf of all the creditors, not just any individual plaintiff creditor.

The three unnamed plaintiffs, who are suing the firm on behalf of a putative class of female attorneys at the firm, claim in their complaint that «At MoFo, the mommy track is a dead end.»

On the eve of trial, plaintiff amended the complaint, adding to it claims on behalf of the four sonOn the eve of trial, plaintiff amended the complaint, adding to it claims on behalf of the four sonon behalf of the four sons.

Drafted motion for summary judgment on behalf of component part manufacturer in a products liability case that resulted in voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer.

Drafted motion for summary judgment on behalf of a product manufacturer involving the economic loss doctrine and statute of limitations issues that resulted in voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer.

Drafted motion for summary judgment on behalf of grocery store that resulted in voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the store.

When the Chaparros filed their lawsuit against Carnival arising out of their daughter's death, and also brought a claim on behalf of her brother for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the United States District Court Judge dismissed the claim, ruling that under the federal pleading standards, the Plaintiffs had failed to properly state a claim for relief.

In one instance, he successfully litigated a claim on behalf of a theme park where the plaintiff alleged serious brain damage and lifetime disability following a nighttime altercation in a parking lot at park closing.

The MLG arrangement discourages maximum commitment on behalf of the class because even if class counsel should win at trial, they will not be entitled to any compensation, whether from the recovery (no such agreement is in place) or via the plaintiff's claim for costs (no costs can be awarded because the representative plaintiff has no liability to pay legal expenses.

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.

Brand Name Marketing Inc. v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2010 ONSC 1159, 2010 ONSC 2892 - Acted on behalf of Rogers Communications defending a claim by a for - profit plaintiff seeking to be compensated for a charitable donation program by Rogers

SCCJC legislation would require claimants, during discovery in state asbestos tort actions involving a solvent defendant, to disclose asbestos trust claims that have been submitted or could be submitted on behalf of a plaintiff to an asbestos trust entity established by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The Plaintiff advanced an ICBC claim, seeking damages for many types of claims, including pain and suffering, future care, past and future loss of housekeeping capacity, as well an in - trust claim on behalf of her son, who took over the role from his mother for caring for his father, as well as doing housekeeping chores that the Plaintiff had performed before the accident.

A class action is a form of civil action where one or a few plaintiffs can sue a defendant or a number of defendants on behalf of a larger group of people who claim the same type of loss from the same defendant of group of defendants.

Instead of starting separate lawsuits or having each plaintiff named in the case, the representative plaintiff can pursue the claim on behalf of the class.

In August 2015, a California federal court granted Weil's motion for summary judgment on behalf of CBS Interactive Inc. (CBSI) in another landmark right of publicity case (Lightbourne) that dismissed all of plaintiff's claims.

Won a plaintiffs» judgment on all claims after trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of the CEO of a large, public company in a wrongful death case where the plaintiff's daughter died of a drug overdose after defendant failed to summon medical care.

In that case, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had not incurred any costs in his successful defence of a medical malpractice claim because those costs had been paid on his behalf by the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

Plaintiffs claim that the PACER fee schedule violated the E-Government Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1913) and seek reimbursement of the excess fee pursuant to the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, on behalf of all individuals and entities, excluding class counsel and federal governmental agencies, who paid PACER fees from April 2010 through April 2016.

On behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Cromwell stated three elements to the new state of contract law in siding with the plaintiff's claim for damages: (1) There is a general organizing principle of good faith that underlies many... Read More

Without specific facts showing knowledge on behalf of the broker, the plaintiffs failed to adequately state claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices.

Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v. Chera (308 A.D. 2d 148)- broker's complaint for commissions reinstated where questions of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause of a commercial tenant and if there was an implied contract which arose from landlord's acceptance of the benefits of broker's services; broker must plead and prove a contract of employment, express or implied, and in the absence of an express contract, an implied contract may be established in some cases by the mere acceptance of the labors of the broker; broker failed to establish that it was a third party beneficiary of lease agreement between landlord and tenant where provisions in lease merely provided for indemnification between the parties and did not expressly set forth that one party would be obligated to pay the broker's commission; indemnification provisions in the lease agreement do provide evidence of implied contract of employment with landlord where landlord agreed to indemnify tenant against brokerage commission claims from all brokers including plaintiff and where, to the contrary, tenant's reciprocal indemnification excluded plaintiff; triable issues of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause where broker introduced the parties, showed the space to tenant's representatives, was involved in weekly negotiations with the parties over the lease terms, conveyed offers on behalf of tenant to landlord and participated in the meeting with the landlord and tenant at which the lease terms were finalized