Sentences with phrase «employee of the defendant»

The plaintiff knew an employee of the defendant, as a result of prior business dealings.

For example, the court noted that there was insufficient information presented to determine if the maintenance worker was acting as an employee of the defendant at the time he was removing the tree, and if the maintenance worker was determined to be an employee of the defendant, the defendant may be liable for the maintenance worker's actions.

Some 3,500 e-mails sent to her from security analysits, hedge - fund operators, employees of the defendants, shareholders, attorneys and others.

This, coupled with her previous rejections of his advances, «sealed her fate as an employee of Defendant law firms.»

After the accident, an employee of the defendant inspected the crane and discovered that there was an intermittent problem with the electronics that controlled the crane's movement.

Plaintiff seeking indemnification from former employer was an ex-part-time employee of defendant working as an assistant to a morning radio program.

The plaintiff offered no evidence reflecting an employee of the defendant moved the bollard.

All Claims are brought by, or on behalf of, former Iraqi employees of the Defendants in Iraq, and all those contracted via third parties to offer services to the Defendants in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 and seek damages from one or more of the Defendants alleged injuries and / or financial losses caused by the alleged failure of one or more of the Defendants to adequately protect them or their Deceased relatives from risk of threats and / or injury from those opposed to the Defendants» presence in Iraq.

The Accident On March 18, 2009, an employee of the Defendant Railroad Company slipped and fell down the steps of a locomotive and severely injured his elbow and shoulder.

A court of appeals in California recently released an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that reversed a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who sustained injuries when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by an employee of the defendant as he returned from work.

The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant pushed her during the repossession and broke her foot.

AS COUNSEL FOR A PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT ETHICALLY INTERVIEW PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF A DEFENDANT CORPORATION IF: (a) THE EMPLOYEES

Defendant sends out tens of millions of emails each day worldwide; nobody can be completely clean 100 % of the time. Obviously, Defendant doesn't oversee their employees very well, or there wouldn't be so many lawsuits against them. Defendant's own employees are suing them. However, I don't think Defendant as a company would have done or mandated this; rogue employees of the Defendant would have though. Defendant is responsible for their employees actions if they are acting on the company's behalf. Plaintiff can easily find existing or former employees of Defendant to see if this was standard practice, or not. I bet they can!

Not exact matches

Specifically, Defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) BRF employees paid bribes to regulators and politicians to subvert inspections in order to conceal unsanitary practices at the Company's meatpacking plants; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light, would foreseeably subject the Company and its officers to heightened regulatory enforcement and / or prosecution; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, BRF's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Casares and four other Xapo employees (each of whom previously worked at Lemon) are named as defendants.

«Through the defendants» activities, the Mabna Institute stole more than 31 terabytes of academic data and intellectual property from universities, and email accounts of employees at private sector companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations,» according to the indictment.

Can you imagine being in a group that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics: 29 have been accused of spousal abuse 7 have been arrested for fraud 19 have been accused of writing bad checks 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 3 have done time for assault 71 can not get a credit card due to bad credit 14 have been arrested on drug - related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Specifically, BPI was seeking all of my confidential communications in 2012 with the defendants in the case, including employees of ABC News and the two former USDA microbiologists who first expressed concern about the meat filler in private emails later made public by the New York Times.

A jury found the defendant guilty of Murder in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree for his role in the murder of an Anchor Bar employee.

Agbo, the second defendant who is an employee of Rickey Tarfa and Co., on May 14, 2015 paid the N1.5 million allegedly from Tarfa into Yunusa's UBA account no. 1005055617.

Prosecutors with the Brooklyn District Attorney's office barred one of their employees from participating in a murder case because of her family relationship with a defendant, the Daily News has learned.

Asiedu Nketia, the 2nd Defendant, said «No» and that they needed cash so the Plaintiff decided to issue two cheque payment vouchers on 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,000,000.00 and the other one on the same 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,199,340.00 and the said vouchers, according to the 2nd Defendant, were received by Gyanu Edgar, an employee of the Electoral Commission.»

If the County of Erie is not the defendant, but an individual associated with the county is the defendant, determine if the provisions of the Public Officers law that authorizes and in some cases requires defense and indemnity for governmental employees have been complied with,

Prosecutors with the Brooklyn District Attorney's office barred one of their employees from participating in a murder case because of her family relationship with a defendant.

As is so often the case, the defendant showed another female employee a photograph of his penis and commented on its size, and he repeatedly pursued a few of them outside of the workplace, the plaintiffs say.

«According to the Jones family's suit, an employee of Rayonier, the company that owns the land around the tracks, told the defendants only two trains would pass on the tracks per day — even though the line gets 10 to 12 trains in a typical day.

The defendants claimed qualified immunity, which requires courts to rule in favor of a government employee unless the conduct violates «clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.»

A. Furnishing a copy of this Final Judgment, within thirty days of its entry, to each of the Settling Defendant's officers and directors, and to each of the Settling Defendant's employees engaged, in whole or in part, in the distribution or Sale of E-books;

The Antitrust Compliance Officer must distribute a copy of the proposed Final Judgment to the Settling Defendant's officers, directors, and employees (and their successors) who engage in the licensing, distribution, or sale of e-books.

The consolidated litigation alleges that the defendants managed the plaintiffs» investments imprudently in violation of its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by causing its stable value funds to invest heavily in the Intermediate Bond Fund (IBF) and the Intermediate Public Bond Fund (IPBF).

The defendants had, in fact, inspected the ramp as part of their general duties to risk assess the claimant's work and had trained their employees to make brief visual checks on the ramp on every visit.

Here, the defendants voluntarily conveyed to the ISPs and exposed to the ISP's employees in the ordinary course of business the contents of their e-mails.

The ferocity of National Grid's pursuit of its former employees is emphasised by the fact that it claimed a sum of # 5.26 m plus costs, which the judge found to be far in excess of what the defendants were alleged to have received from their dishonest activities.

161, 162 - 163 (1996)(Lenk, J.), the defendants argue that the fact they were no longer employees of Gillette when they made use of the confidential information is of no consequence, since there would be no wrongdoing to complain of without the confidentiality agreement that was part of their original employment relationship.

The dedicated personal injury attorneys at the law firm of Friedman, Rodman & Frank have extensive experience handling a wide range of Florida personal injury lawsuits, including those naming government entities or employees as defendants.

Trade Secret Litigation: advise and represent plaintiffs across various industries seeking to protect proprietary information from competitors and former employees; represent defendants accused of trade secret misappropriation.

The Colorado statute of limitations for filing most spinal cord personal injury lawsuits is two years from the date of the accident (the time window can be much shorter if the defendant is a government employee or entity).

Upholding the judge's finding of liability on the 93A clam, the Appeals Court held that the former employer - employee relationship between the plaintiff and the individual defendant «does not stand as a bar» to the chapter 93A claim and that his conduct was «actionable independent of his contractual obligations.»

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;

The Claimant must show that the Defendant was in breach of the duty of care; an employer for instance may not have provided proper protective clothing, or there was bullying in the workplace that led to an employee suffering stress at work.

1 Mar. 2, 2016)(unpublished), plaintiff employees sued two defendant employers for a host of Labor Code wage / hour violations and four plaintiffs sued two individual defendants (who owned employers) for PAGA claims.

In addition to the unacceptable conduct the employer knew about at the time of dismissal, the employer at trial also argued that use of a company phone for a purpose that was never intended, that is recording conversations with senior management, was a deliberate violation of the employee's duty of confidentiality and a breach of trust and loyalty to the defendant.

The oppression claim is that the employees had a reasonable expectation of receiving termination compensation and the Defendants breached the duty of ensuring funds were available.

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.

I happen to know of a case where a criminal charge of trespassing was dismissed because an employee of the company on whose property the defendant was said to have trespassed watched him for some time without ever telling him to leave.

The employees» class action claims against IQT and the other defendant alleged in the certification motion, include: wrongful dismissal, conspiracy, negligence, inducing breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

(b) Proof that the defendant - licensee, or his or her employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and acted in reliance upon bona fide evidence in any transaction, employment, use, or permission forbidden by Section 25658, 25663, or 25665 shall be a defense to any criminal prosecution therefor or to any proceedings for the suspension or revocation of any license based thereon.

The Attorney General, 2017 ONSC 1333, the Court allowed an employee's claim against his employer and two superiors for the «tort of harassment» and awarded significant damages against the defendants as a consequence.

Acted in High Court Queen's Bench Division, and Technology and Construction Court proceedings against former employees of the quant fund and in Chancery Division proceedings in which it was the defendant in relation to claims by one of its founders to intellectual property rights in the software.

We represent clients as plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of trade secret matters involving allegations of outright theft, employee raiding, improper disclosure of proprietary information and related counterclaims.