Sentences with phrase «defendants also»

In addition to Taubman Centers and Universal Protection Service, the defendants also include the Millburn - Short Hills Volunteer First Aid Squad.

The defendants also agreed to revise the tenant rules that affected families with children, provide fair housing training for their employees, and publicize the nondiscrimination policy at their apartment complexes.

The defendants also stated to the plaintiff that there were no plumbing problems.

The defendants also sought an interpleader order allowing Megapro to pay the funds it is holding into court to await the outcome of the issue of the validity and effect of the Acknowledgements.

The defendants also argued that a class action is inappropriate because each case involves individualized circumstances.

Interest from the date of judgment had been agreed but the claimants sought an order that the defendants also pay pre-judgment interest on the disbursements.

The defendants also claim that break - in rates vary across the province, and expressed a reluctance to publicize the lock problem through the media because it could exacerbate the rate of break - ins [paras. 24 - 25, 32].

The defendants also believed that a legal distinction could be drawn between their name as written on their indictment and their true identity as a «flesh and blood man.»

5 Nov. 17, 2016)(unpublished), defendants won a «waste» lease dispute against a plaintiff alleging two tort claims, and one of the defendants also won on a slander cross-claim (resulting in $ 1 nominal damages), but lost on three other cross-claims.

The Defendants also argued that the act of negligence which formed the basis for Mr Justice Cross's liability finding had never been canvassed with the Defendants» witnesses at trial so that they might address or contest such alleged negligence.

The defendants also accept that the plaintiff suffered a disc herniation which came on about one month after the accident but appeared to improve clinically by January 2010...

The defendants also took concerted steps to conceal the frauds, doing just enough work on the construction sites to convince investors that work was taking place, while putting down a paper - trail to justify payments to the related party entities.

Employer defendants also are dissatisfied with the system, often feeling «held up» by what they see as frivolous cases.

The defendants also allege Blott signed up more than 5,600 claimants, «without any regard to their ability to properly discharge their professional duties toward these individuals.»

The defendants also failed to prove that that» HD's SCREAMIN» EAGLE clothing and collateral items come from the defendants and from no other source».

The Defendants also argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The defendants also contended that the children at Kiddie Kollege did not have any symptoms that revealed they were exposed to mercury.

The defendants also claimed exemplary damages.

And thus, in the case at bar, the Defendants also have the protection of the implied undertaking, as far as it goes, which is not that far, because the deemed or implied undertaking does not apply to evidence disclosed in open court.

Defendants also allegedly infringed a copyrighted work owned by Plaintiff by...

Less time in jail for defendants also means less chance the officers will have to deal with the possibility of injury or health problems that can occur on their watches.

The defendants also allegedly charged consumers up to $ 800 in upfront fees under the guise of enrolling them in a loan assistance program.

The defendants also falsely promoted that these monthly payments would be applied to their student loans, according to the FTC's complaint.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants also intentionally selected higher - fee versions of proprietary actively - managed funds to increase fee revenue, at the expense of trust participants and beneficiaries, saying they were permitted to invest in different investment vehicles which contained identical investments, but varied significantly in terms of costs.

Justice claims that publishers «directly discussed, agreed to, and encouraged each other to collective action to force Amazon to raise its e-book prices» and they say the defendants also «took steps to conceal their communications with one another, including instructions to «double delete» e-mail and taking other measures to avoid leaving a paper trail.»

The Publisher Defendants also feared that the $ 9.99 price point would make e-books so popular that digital publishers could achieve sufficient scale to challenge the major incumbent publishers» basic business model.

The Publisher Defendants also feared that other competitive advantages they held as a result of years of investments in their print book businesses would erode and, eventually, become irrelevant, as e-book sales continued to grow.

As a result of discussions with the Publisher Defendants, Apple learned that the Publisher Defendants shared a common objective with Apple to limit e-book retail price competition, and that the Publisher Defendants also desired to have popular e-book retail prices stabilize at levels significantly higher than $ 9.99.

Publisher Defendants also feared that the $ 9.99 price would drive e-book popularity to such a degree that digital publishers could achieve sufficient scale to challenge the Publisher Defendants» basic business model.

The Publisher Defendants also worried that if $ 9.99 solidified as the consumers» expected retail price for e-books, Amazon and other retailers would demand that publishers lower their wholesale prices, further compressing publisher profit margins.

Individual Publisher Defendants also feared punishment in the marketplace if only its e-books suddenly became more expensive at retail while other publishers continued to allow retailers to compete on price.

The other Publisher Defendants also made clear to Apple that they «certainly» did not want to continue «the existing way that they were doing business,» i.e., with Amazon promoting their most popular e-books for $ 9.99 under a wholesale model.

The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove they are members of a «suspect class,» which basically means plaintiffs didn't prove that school districts harmed a specific group — in this case, minority kids from low - income families — by moving ineffective teachers into schools populated by members of the group.

Claim: The defendants also say that Bhakta lied to the aforementioned arresting police officers about being in front of his house when he was arrested.

The defendant also testified that he «did not know what 411 was at the time and that he would not have considered» 411 a viable search engine.»»

The defendant also testified that the child did not meet the weight criteria set forth by ACOG for offering an elective cesarean section.

The defendant also submits that Rule 1 - 3 provides the court with sufficient justification to order Dr. Coen to provide his notes of the plaintiff's examination.

The defendant also fell to be sentenced for a further two common assaults.

The defendant also sought to argue that for the purposes of fulfilling subs 2 (2)(c) what was required was specific knowledge on the part of the keeper of the allegedly dangerous propensity of the specific animal.

In addition to those well - known rights mentioned above, a defendant also has equally important rights such as the right to confront the witnesses against himself / herself.

The defendant also voluntarily maintained the plaintiff's benefits until March 31, 2014.

The fifth defendant also refused but took Kinder Morgan back to court asking for the civil suit to be dismissed as a SLAPP suit with damages and court costs.

The Defendant also relied on Amorini v. Select Coffee Roasters Inc., [2001] O.J. No. 581, and Christakos v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance, [1997] O.J. No. 1279 (Ont.

The defendant also disputed that the plaintiff was injured.

Vorvis was interpreted by many as requiring the plaintiff to prove that the defendant also committed a tort or, as an example, breached a fiduciary obligation in addition to a breach of contract.

In this case a hearing will take place before a District Judge, and the Defendant also has the opportunity to serve a defence (and if appropriate a counterclaim).

The Response requires that the defendant also provide information about the length of the marriage and other basic information about the relationship of the couple.

Defendant also received three additional citations concerning the events of July 11, 2002.

The court also clarified that a defendant also may be liable for direct infringement on a «joint enterprise» theory, if four elements are met:

The defendant also showed the video to some of the plaintiff's former high school classmates.