Sentences with phrase «defendants in a court action»

If you do chances are you will be the defendant in a court action, even though the tenant isn't doing what she is supposed to.

Not exact matches

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 02213, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the «Exchange Act») and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of Parent's enterprise services businesIn re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of Parent's enterprise services businesin the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of Parent's enterprise services business.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Central District of California, and docketed under 17 - cv - 09157, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Crypto securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants» violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17 - cv - 09903, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Qudian's American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») pursuant and / or traceable to Qudian's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about October 18, 2017 (the «IPO» or the «Offering»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the «Securities Act»).

The first line of cases began with In re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practiceIn re Daou Sys., where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a Section 10 (b) action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged any disclosures that defendants were engaging in improper accounting practicein improper accounting practices.

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 00646, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Xunlei securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants» violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action of testifying has an intimate relation to an institution — the judiciary; a place — the court; a social function — the lawyer, the judge; an action — to plead, that is, to be plaintiff or defendant in a trial.

Although the parmesan cheese cases were recently dismissed, the defendant companies were involved in contentious litigation for more than a year before the trial - level court dismissed the action.

And that «if payments have been made to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants under agreements other the two * dated 26th April 2006 *, which were terminated, issues relating to those payments would have to be determined in a forum other than this Court (Supreme Court) and in a different action, since they do not come within the issue of constitutional interpretation raised by the Plaintiff's writ».

New York state's highest court adopted Delaware's defendant - friendly standard for shareholder suits challenging controlling - party buyout deals, saying in actions targeting go - private mergers, courts should apply the business judgement rule as long as certain shareholder protections are met.

They cited three previous cases where courts ruled such questions are «relevant and probative» when they concern a defendant's actions in the context of a securities fraud prosecution, including that of pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli, whom Agnifilo represented.

«They demonstrate Howe's pattern of manipulating communications with numerous individuals in an effort to inflate his own importance and misrepresent the actions and intent of himself and others,» lawyers for defendant Joseph Gerardi wrote in a Feb. 9 letter to the court seeking to admit the emails as evidence for cross-examination of Howe at the trial.

Ian Wand and John McDermid and their colleagues in the department of computer science in the University of York tell me that the section on software patents in the GATT agreement places the burden of proof in any patent court action on the defendant.

Since most payday loans are for less than $ 1,000, the borrower in most counties would file the action in small - claims court, and include any filing fees or other costs with the amount demanded from the defendant.

The complaint notes that this action is similar, but narrower in scope, to 18 separate lawsuits pending in federal district courts around the country which allege a university defendant breached its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties by allowing TIAA to collect excessive fees from the university's retirement plan.

I must say that I find it somewhat ironic that a jerk who claims he is continually attacked should be the plaintiff in six actions before the court and the defendant in none.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement acCourt of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement accourt, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement action.

The Court of Appeal was also tasked with reviewing ICBC's allegations of passing - off, in a consideration of whether or not the Defendant's actions were likely to cause a misrepresentation to the public that constituted «passing - off» of ICBC's well - known trademarks.

Also, the court noted that the nuisance was ongoing, so the People did not unreasonably delay in bringing the action and there was no prejudice to the defendants: a greater prejudice, resulting from lost evidence, resulted to the People than the Defendants in defendants: a greater prejudice, resulting from lost evidence, resulted to the People than the Defendants in Defendants in this case.

The South Florida Lawyers blog reports that the auction rate securities action filed against Wachovia in federal court in Florida is, well, going poorly for the defendant at the moment.

An MoJ spokesperson commented: «Any action to disrupt the courts is unacceptable and we are taking all necessary steps to ensure legal representation is available for defendants in criminal cases.

The national court therefore has its own sphere of discretion when examining the action against the defendant, and the Commission can not be considered as the judge and the party in its own cause.

However, unlike what occurred in the Unwired Planet case, in this action both Defendants sought a stay of the action on the grounds that (a) the actions were not justiciable in the United Kingdom and (b) if they were justiciable, the English Court should stay them on the basis that it was forum non conveniens and that the dispute should be determined in China.

Barristers who were not trial counsel but who are instructed to represent convicted defendants in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal have been given new guidance by the Bar Council's Ethics Committee on their duty to check the factual basis for the appeal or risk criticism and action by...

[18] I am not persuaded that any documents and witness statements provided by the defendant to the plaintiff during the course of pre-trial preparation would not have been supplied by the defendant whether the action had been brought in Supreme Court or in Provincial Court.

[37] Further, the plaintiff submits other sufficient reasons to commence action in Supreme Court were the insurer's denial of coverage because the forces were insufficient to cause injury; and because the plaintiff was allegedly a worker, which if proven and given the defendant was, would see the action statute barred pursuant to s. 10 (1) of the WCA.

Alternatively, if the matter proceeds in the Supreme Court, it is open to the defendant to ask that a successful plaintiff be denied costs on the basis that there was not sufficient reason to bring the action in the Supreme Court in the first instance.

Cove has represented plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state antitrust cases, including price fixing, boycott and monopolization cases, direct and indirect purchaser class actions, and unfair competition actions in federal and state courts across the country.

Assume that Mr. Grutman's proposed test is as follows: «If the state long - arm statute is satisfied and defendant has engaged in purposeful conduct directed at the forum state out of which conduct the cause of action arises, and that conduct satisfies the minimum contacts under which substantial justice and fair play make it reasonable to hail defendant into court there, and the forum state has an interest in providing a forum to the plaintiff, then the forum has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for that cause of action.»

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 lawsuiIn 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 lawCourt 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 lawsuiin each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuiin a single state court lawcourt 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;

Lastly, and of some interest to future class action defendants, Strathy C.J.O. endorsed an arrangement whereby the competing plaintiff consortiums had provided an undertaking to the defendant, embodied in a court order, to prevent the continuation or commencement of multiple parallel actions following the resolution of the carriage dispute.

The Superior Court of Justice has refused to grant a plaintiff's motion for an order requiring the defendants in a defamation action to reveal the identity of anonymous blog commenters.

[26] This lack of authority can not be used as an excuse that prohibits the proper conduct of court actions at trial management conferences, when it is such a representation that allows the representative of the defendant to attend in the first place.

It is recognised that it is unlikely that this power will be widely used as by the time the matter has reached the courts, the relevant enforcement authority may have taken action, in the form of Improvement and / or Prohibition Notices / Orders, and / or the defendant company may have addressed the failures themselves to ensure the future safety of their employees.

On the heels of the European Court of Justice's decision, discussed on Slaw here and here, to require Google to suppress links to particular web sites that had «irrelevant and outdated» personal information about a complainant, and US courts» refusal to do the same, the British Columbia Supreme Court has now gone a step further: it has ordered Google to ensure that searches for particular topics or a particular company do not find the company defendant in the action before it.

I think the real logic is quite practical: most of the time this situation arises in auto accident cases and our courts want defendants to be able to just pay a fine without an admission of guilt in a civil action.

While the court concluded the plaintiff had not met the test for apportionment, the plaintiff's success in that case on the issue of fault (although no damage was found and the action dismissed) was a relevant factor under Rule 37B (6)(d), now Rule 9 - 1 (5)(b), on considering if the defendant was entitled to double costs when there had been a defence offer, which in Mudry obviously exceeded the damage award which was nil..

Attis represents important appellate Court guidance for the class action bar as, prior to Attis, certain decisions, most notably Poulin v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, earmarked class counsel as a potential payment source for defendants in situations where the plaintiffs were unwilling or unable to cover costs ordered against them.

In respect of a passing off claim the Court examined the elements of the action and found that the defendants failed to establish that they had a reputation or goodwill with the average HD motorcycle rider, or owner in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else»In respect of a passing off claim the Court examined the elements of the action and found that the defendants failed to establish that they had a reputation or goodwill with the average HD motorcycle rider, or owner in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else»in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else».

The Act permits federal courts to preside over certain class actions in diversity jurisdiction where the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $ 5 million; where the class comprises at least 100 plaintiffs; and where there is at least «minimal diversity» between the parties (i.e., at least one plaintiff class member is diverse from at least one defendant).

The horror of the crime and the defendant's U.K. roots have brought an international media gallery to Middlesex County Superior Court in Woburn, Mass., a city previously known in international legal lore as the setting for the toxic waste dump in the book and movie, A Civil Action.

The civil tribunal in charge of patent enforcement actions shall review and make a decision on the patent validity issue if the defendant raises challenges therefor; however, the civil court's decision on the patent validity will only have binding effect between the concerned parties to the litigation.

Existing statutory limits on federal court jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stcourt jurisdiction limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum sCourts in most cases of cases to cases in which a state court in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stcourt in the state where the U.S. District Court is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum stCourt is located would have either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction of the defendant (without regard to the fact that the case might be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum scourts as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which pertains to the nature of the cause of action asserted rather than the ties of the defendant to the forum state).

It will make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who are «at home» in different States.

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).

But the defendant later had reason to smile when an appeals court vacated the judgment in his case and ordered a new trial after Wilson's actions came to light.