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

The motions judge dismissed the claim against one of the defendants on a motion for summary judgment, and subsequently ordered a focussed, hybrid trial to deal with the balance of the claims.

Not exact matches

«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.

On their motion for summary judgment, defendants argued that plaintiffs had not satisfied the loss causation requirement of Section 10 (b) because plaintiffs» losses were not caused by the revelation that First Solar had committed fraud.

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 JanuarDefendants 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 JanuarDefendants») 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 JanuarDEFENDANTS» 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.

Plaintiffs and defendant all filed motions for summary judgment, and on Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a memorandum ruling in favor of plaintiffs and an order permanently barring Public.Resource.Org from posting any of the plaintiffs» standards.

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.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, but the action was dismissed when the defendant was successful on the motion in claiming that there was no tort for breach of privacy in Ontario.

Here's what you need to know: Whenever we New York personal injury lawyers sue a defendant for negligence, there comes a point, usually after depositions, when we consider making a «summary judgment motion on liability».

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.

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.

2008)-- Denial of manufacturer defendant's motion for summary judgment in cases arising from explosion at facility in Groton, Connecticut on grounds that there existed genuine issues of fact as to product liability and recklessness counts of case against manufacturer based on its claimed failure to account for and disclose relevant safety and storage information of risks involved in the transport and storage of chemical reagent at ambient temperatures.

Weinstein said, «While no partiality could be construed in rejecting defendant's motion for summary judgment based on timeliness, recusal now is desirable to avoid the appearance of partiality by the undersigned judge in future decisions in the case.»

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.

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

Because our existing case law holds that a property owner does not violate the duty of reasonable care by failing to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, see Sullivan v. Brookline, 416 Mass. 825, 827 (1994), the judge concluded that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not prevail on his claims of negligence; therefore, the judge allowed the defendants» motions for summary judgment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shepherd Real Estate v. Ferguson (204 A.D. 2d 392) judgment granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing complaint affirmed; broker failed to produce buyer ready, willing and able; buyer and seller were unable to meet agreement on inclusion of clause in contract (regarding unlimited access to property prior to closing).