Sentences with phrase «gives plaintiff»

I think it simply gives the plaintiff another person to sue.

Here, the agreement gives plaintiff an exclusive right to sell, not merely an exclusive agency; thus entitles broker to commissions on all sales produced prior to the termination of the agreement, regardless of effort in procuring sales.

The plaintiff gives a copy of the signed complaint to the clerk, who gives the plaintiff a copy with a date stamp and notation showing that it has been filed with the court.

Order 16 Rule 1 (1) gives the plaintiff only one opportunity.

If allowed to proceed as a class action, the 2013 lawsuit could cover more than 160,000 California drivers and give plaintiffs leverage to negotiate a settlement.

The judge refused, giving the plaintiff more time to come up with evidence and leaving the suit in limbo.

Superfine says establishing a federal right to literacy could be «a game changer for large - scale education reform,» giving plaintiffs across the country a tool for forcing change.

The case — Houston Federation of Teachers et al. v. Houston ISD — was filed in 2014 and just yesterday, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith denied in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, the district's request for summary judgment given the plaintiffs» due process claims.

Attorneys for an Illinois man who applied for a Starwood Preferred Guest - branded American Express credit card have filed a class action suit contending that American Express failed to give the plaintiff and others the promised number of hotel loyalty points.

In May federal judge Laura Taylor Swain, in deciding against the Warhol Foundation's motion to dismiss Simon - Whelan's case, gave the plaintiffs the all - important right of «discovery» so that the authentication board's long - suppressed methods of reaching its decisions can now be brought to light.

In addition, the Plaintiff's counsel refers the Plaintiff to a vocational rehabilitation consultant who has opined that given the Plaintiff's age, injuries and ongoing pain, she is completely unemployable, and if she were employable, she would not be a productive employee given the fatigue, depression and anxiety that she suffers from.

This gives plaintiffs more options for seeking compensation.

Carreon ducked service for a while, giving the plaintiff the right to recover costs for personal service, plus attorney fees incurred as a result of his refusal to pay those costs.

and also that, given the Plaintiff's age and injuries, that he would have «a difficult time finding work if his (current) job ended `, As a result of this the court awarded $ 70,000 for loss of future earnings / loss of earning capacity.

The third party claim had alleged that the plaintiff's lawyer had given the plaintiff bad advice on the mitigation of her damages.

Plaintiffs» expert, however, failed to account for the actual value of the stock, thus giving the plaintiffs a better deal than they would have attained even if Morgan Stanley's representations had been true.

In that case, the defendant employer gave the plaintiff twelve months of working notice.

[25] Given the Plaintiff's age, the length and nature of the employment, the manner in which she was dismissed by the employer, the low likelihood that she will ever again attain a similar managerial position and the impact on her of being unjustly dismissed in the context of her character, reputation and circumstances, I conclude that a fair compensatory notice period in this case is one of 20 months.

They gave the plaintiff no opportunity to respond to the allegations in advance of publication and to present his side of the story.

[42] I see no usefulness in questioning Adjuster Johnston about Mr. Albertson's authority to settle the 2006 accident because he clearly had that authority from the plaintiff given the plaintiff's affidavit evidence.

The Virginia Code actually gives plaintiffs the right to begin legal proceedings in any «permissible» venue.

ICBC»S lawyer brought a costs application, seeking double costs from the date of service of either the first or last formal offer of the Defendant, to the date of trial, arguing that given the Plaintiff's credibility problems prior to trial, that the offers were reasonable, and ought to have been accepted.

While the Court acknowledged that 24 months» notice tends to represent the higher end of damages for wrongful dismissal, the Court found that given the plaintiff's age, length of service, and poor job prospects, there were «exceptional circumstances» warranting a notice period of 26 months.

Having weighed the factors I have identified, I consider that an appropriate result would be to give the plaintiff his costs, including his disbursements, up to December 21, 2011.

As trial neared the Plaintiff brought an application for an adjournment and this was granted in order to give the Plaintiff time to gather appropriate medico - legal evidence.

(Supplemental reasons were released permitting the Plaintiff to identify himself by initials and to seal the Court file given the Plaintiff's undercover work).

The court rejected this opinion and found that this disc injury could have easily preceded the car crash given the Plaintiff's very active lifestyle.

But the principal plaintiff's right leg had recently been amputated due to the accident, and Justice MacKinnon wished to give the plaintiffs another chance.

The Court sided with the employee, stating that the employer «did not give the plaintiff an «express and clear» warning about her performance relating to the social media posts and a reasonable opportunity to improve her performance after warning her.»

An objection to jurisdiction on the ground of exemption from the process of the court in which the suit is brought, or the manner in which a defendant is brought into it, is waived by appearance and pleading to issue, but when the objection goes to the power of the court over the parties or the subject matter, the defendant need not, for he can not, give the plaintiff a better writ.

This arguably would have given the plaintiff a «hook» to keep its breach of contract suit alive and survive summary judgment.

We give plaintiffs» personal injury trial attorneys examples of the arsenal of weapons we have at our disposal to put these cases in position to win, such as sample demand letters, pleadings, discovery, depositions, motions, jury instructions, and motions in limine.

But the district court in the Eliquis cases gave the plaintiffs additional chances to plead too, and they were unable to come up with the facts.

If jurors feel that someone is not being honest, they will not give the plaintiff the fair compensation that they deserve.

That would be a very significant change, and one of the criticisms that the other side leveled at such a system was that only rich people (or at least only rich plaintiff lawyers) could afford to bring suit, given the prospect of having to pay for expensive discovery that current system now gives plaintiffs for free.

In other words, the damage award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiffs a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe.

Master Champagne stated that «there is no doubt that the examination of a non-party should rarely be ordered» and stressed the fact that her «decision turned on the volume of information that would be subject to questions and undertakings given the Plaintiff's memory impairment -LRB-...) and should in no way be taken to be an erosion of the Rules or an opening for the broadening of the discovery of non-parties.»

In the world before the Supreme Court's recent Philip Morris decision, the risk of giving the plaintiff — who might only be one of many victims of the defendant's conduct — the entire punitive damages award was that it would more likely undermine the state's in - terest in ensuring a fair distribution of both compensatory and retributive damages for oth - ers, since a crippling retributive damages award might impair the availability of adequate compensation funds (or punitive damages) for future claimants.

A hometown judge might feel sympathy for the patient's young children and give the plaintiffs their «day in court.»

The Court's decision in California State Teachers» Retirement System v. Alvarez — a suit brought on behalf of Wal - Mart Stores, Inc. — refused to adopt the Delaware Court of Chancery's recommendation that, as a matter of federal due process, a judgment in one derivative action should not bind the corporation or its stockholders in another derivative action unless either (i) the first action has survived a motion to dismiss because a pre-suit demand on the corporation's board of directors would have been futile or (ii) the board has given the plaintiff authority to proceed on the corporation's behalf by declining to oppose the derivative suit.

The certification motion in the Boston Scientific case was originally heard in November 2015, but Perell adjourned the matter to give the plaintiffs another chance to submit more evidence.

The defendant, the children's mother, should have been «unambiguous about her intentions» and given the plaintiff «real and escalating warnings,» the judge said.

He argued that I should assume that the parties «exposed» their trial strategies to each other at the mediation, thereby giving the plaintiff the unfair strategic advantage of changing the trial «landscape» to suit what was learned at the mediation.

«In my view, the defendant should have given the plaintiff a clear - cut warning — with no ambiguity — that if a similar incident of concern were to happen again that she would be fired on the spot,» the judge said.

[338] Given the plaintiff's age, the stage of her life when she was injured, as a young mother, the ongoing and severe nature of her injuries which negatively affect every aspect of her daily life and her relationships with those around her, including with her children, her husband and her parents, I conclude that a fair and reasonable award for the loss of her enjoyment of life and her pain and suffering is $ 100,000.00.

Since fee shifting is largely within the judge's discretion, improved fee - shifting provisions could give plaintiffs even more incentive to sue in sympathetic jurisdictions.

As the Verge reported, the judge dismissed the case but gave the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and file another lawsuit — which the WSJ reports is coming later this month.

The problem is that giving plaintiffs complete control over the venue for a patent lawsuit can lead to forum selling, where districts adapt their rules and procedures to the inflow of litigants.

Waymo is bringing this suit under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which gives plaintiffs the right to ask a court to bring an immediate, temporary restraining order against Uber's robot car and truck experiments, as well as seize the products of the trade secret theft.

Since fee shifting is largely within the judge's discretion, it will give plaintiffs even more incentive to sue in the most plaintiff - friendly jurisdictions.