Sentences with phrase «court on a motion for summary judgment»

Prepared recommendation memo for the court on a motion for summary judgment for a mortgage foreclosure case.

Not exact matches

On July 8, the public got its first view into how the U.S. Department of Labor will defend its fiduciary rule when it filed a cross motion for summary judgment, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a law suit brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities.

«Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the facts comprising claims I and III, as well as knowledge of the disclosures he alleges were unlawfully inadequate in claims II and IV, the Court grants defendants» motion for summary judgment on those claims, finding them time - barred,» Cousins wrote in his opinion.

Here's a closer look at the court's ruling on the district's and individual defendants» motion for summary judgment for Ms. I's claims.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 20for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS» MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 20FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.I. 135) dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr., ruling on Fastcase's motion for summary judgment, denied the motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning that Fastcase is not barred from refiling the lawsuit in another court.

The Superior Court allowed defendant's motion to dismiss on the claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraud, and later allowed defendant's motion for summary judgment on the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.

Another example is a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule in the requester's favor because essential facts are no longer in dispute (perhaps because of what has been learned in discovery), making a jury's decision unnecessary on some — or all — points.

In the absence of expert testimony, there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defect in the speed control deactivation switch installed on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's motions for summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.).

17 As a result of this asymmetry, the court that makes the most authoritative pronouncements on the standard for granting summary judgment — the Court of Appeal — tends to do so in cases where the motions court has denied the complainant her day in ccourt that makes the most authoritative pronouncements on the standard for granting summary judgment — the Court of Appeal — tends to do so in cases where the motions court has denied the complainant her day in cCourt of Appeal — tends to do so in cases where the motions court has denied the complainant her day in ccourt has denied the complainant her day in courtcourt.

The rescue captain argued that the demotion violated his First Amendment right to intimate association, but the lower court dismissed his case on a motion for summary judgment, concluding among other things that «Starling's First Amendment right to intimate association with Smith was not clearly established.»

The Superior Court allowed the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff was covered only by her husband's policy in this case.

In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal - Mart's motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal - Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal - Mart's motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal - Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

Microsoft also submitted Judge Posner's decision to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, where it has a summary judgment motion on Motorola's request for injunctive relief pending.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was an error for the court to dismiss their defect and negligence claims because the only grounds to grant the motion for summary judgment relied on the trial court granting the defendant's request to exclude the expert's testimonOn appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was an error for the court to dismiss their defect and negligence claims because the only grounds to grant the motion for summary judgment relied on the trial court granting the defendant's request to exclude the expert's testimonon the trial court granting the defendant's request to exclude the expert's testimony.

There is no shortage of rhetoric in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision on the scope and interpretation of amendments to Ontario's Rule 20 governing motions for summary judgment.

Update 4:35 p.m.: In a ruling today, Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn held in Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to consider Apotex's impeachment action and motion for summary judgment and declared Pfizer's patent on Viagra, Canadian Patent No. 2,163,466 invalid.

There's mention of an interesting discussion at SCOTUS blog on the decline in paid petitions for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court, whether judges accurately report facts in summary judgment motions (one way to tell is to read the dissents, according to the post) and an interesting study on pro se defendants who apparently perform fairly well in criminal proceedings.

The Court hearing the case agreed with the defendant and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, based on the legal principle of assumption of the risk.

On April 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Brooks Kushman on behalf of its client, Ford Motor Company, in a case involving a patent for fuel injection system technologOn April 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Brooks Kushman on behalf of its client, Ford Motor Company, in a case involving a patent for fuel injection system technologon behalf of its client, Ford Motor Company, in a case involving a patent for fuel injection system technology.

On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Successfully obtained summary judgment on securities fraud claims for defendant; Federal District Court denied plaintiffs» motion for class certification

The appellate court was tasked with determining if the trial court was proper to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to establish that the defendant was negligent.

In another recent Ontario decision, Superior Court Justice David Corbett urged parties to treat a motion for summary judgment seriously, and warned against handling it as if it were «a speed bump on the long highway to trial.»

Acting on a motion for summary judgment filed by Hueston Hennigan, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick held that although courts «sparingly grant summary judgment in trademark cases because they are so fact - intensive,» the evidence here tilted so heavily in favor of the defendants as to make summary judgment appropriate.

The Court further concluded that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to prevail against Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation.

The Supreme Court outlined a two - step test on a motion for summary judgment:

The difference in the predicted probability of success on a motion for summary judgment based on a brief's readability score is much less stark in our state court sample than in our federal court sample.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the decision of the motion judge and granted summary judgment for rescission in favour of the franchisee purchaser, Mendoza, based on the disclosure deficiencies in AGR's disclosure document.

First, on the strict matter of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals said yes, it had such jurisdiction and in terms of the standard of review, «A district court decides a motion to compel arbitration under the same standard it applies to a motion for summary judgment» and that «the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.&rCourt of Appeals said yes, it had such jurisdiction and in terms of the standard of review, «A district court decides a motion to compel arbitration under the same standard it applies to a motion for summary judgment» and that «the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.&rcourt decides a motion to compel arbitration under the same standard it applies to a motion for summary judgment» and that «the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.»

Author: Evan Ivkovic, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial&raqCourt of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial&raqcourt dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

It varies from case to case depending on whether the parties attempt to resolve the case through negotiation or mediation, on whether the employer files a motion for summary judgment, and on the court in which the case is filed.

We also filed a motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs, which was heard by the court on the «eve» of trial.

In my view, absent limited circumstances (such as a trial on damages once liability is determined), the Court should restrict itself from ordering a mini-trial when a party has chosen to tender a deficient evidentiary record on a motion for summary judgment, for a mini-trial ought not to permit a party to buttress or «cooper up» its deficient record.

D. New Mexico, 2014 (Docket No. 11 - CV -784-BRB / RHS), a New Mexico federal court granted the defendants» motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff's failure to designate an expert witness on the issue of medical causation before an April 17, 2013 deadline required that the case be thrown out.

[2] Given the directions made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of proportionality in summary judgment motions in its recent decision in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7, in my view when a request is made in an action on the Toronto Region Commercial List for a summary judgment motion date, one judge should case manage the proceeding.

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.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on her failure to warn claim, and a jury entered a verdict in Merck's favor in October 2011 on the design defect claim.

In Brown v. Canada, 2014 FC 831, the Court held that a summary judgment motion on the issue of whether a patent applicant was a public servant was appropriate for determination but held that whether material allegations must be willfully made to void a patent was to be determined at trial.

With summary trial, there is more flexibility and jurisdiction for the court to grant judgment where «there is sufficient evidence for adjudication,» unless the Court is of the opinion that it would be unjust to decide the issue on the mocourt to grant judgment where «there is sufficient evidence for adjudication,» unless the Court is of the opinion that it would be unjust to decide the issue on the moCourt is of the opinion that it would be unjust to decide the issue on the motion.

Paramount moved for liability and injunctive relief while Axanar moved for summary judgment, and on Jan. 3, the United States District Court, Central District of California, denied both motions.

In Wallbridge v. Brunning, the Court of Appeal held that whether a law firm can be vicariously liable for defamatory statements made by a lawyer who practices «in association» with it (as opposed to being an associate employed by the law firm or a partner of the law firm), is an issue of general importance that should be determined at a trial and not on a motion for summary judgment.

In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial&raqCourt of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial&raqcourt dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

We have achieved successful results for clients at every phase of the class action litigation process in both trial and appellate courts, including obtaining dismissals of class action complaints, defeating class certification, winning summary judgment motions, prevailing at trial or on appeal, and obtaining highly favorable settlements.

The district court addressed VEPCO's motion for summary judgment on all three claims.

The trial court originally granted the representative's motion for summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims, finding that the purchaser could not have justifiably relied on the representative's statement because the purchaser was a sophisticated party, had inspected the property, and the title report did not mention beach access.

The court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Broker, finding that triable questions of fact did exist on that count, including whether or not Broker knew, when it sent the checks to Plaintiff's team members, that they would not forward Plaintiff his split.

3d 1016A)- salesperson's motion for summary judgment for commission against her broker granted; broker and salesperson orally agreed that broker would pay half of any commission that broker received to salesperson where salesperson was the procuring cause of sale generating the commission; broker refused to pay salesperson's commission on grounds that commission was not paid to broker on legal grounds but upon long standing ties with other brokerage firm and that salesperson did not do her job competently and professionally; court determined that in the course of performance it is the fact of payment of commission to the broker that triggers payment to the salesperson; judgment for salesperson for $ 11,250.00

The trial court denied Buyer's motion for partial summary judgment on Paramount's liability for professional negligence.7

The sellers and their broker moved for summary judgment on the buyer's claims against them, and the trial court granted their motion.