Sentences with phrase «jurisdiction of the courts located»

User and ONLINE BOOTY CALL.COM AND / OR MOBEZE agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of San Diego, California.

In the event of a claim by Tubi against you, you agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts located where Tubi pursues its claim against you, which may include courts in the San Francisco County of the State of California.

In the event of a claim by you against Tubi, you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in the San Francisco County of the State of California.

You and Experian agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Cook, Illinois.

For any action at law or in equity relating to the arbitration provision of these Terms of Use, you agree to resolve any dispute you have with Blue Buffalo exclusively in a state or federal court located in Connecticut, and to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts located in Connecticut for the purpose of litigating all such disputes.

By using this site you consent to the jurisdiction of the courts located in Illinois for any action arising from these Terms of Use.

Not exact matches

Subject to the arbitration provisions above, and other than small claims actions as permitted therein, any action or proceeding arising from, relating to or in connection with these Terms of Service will be brought exclusively in the federal or state courts located in New York, New York, and you irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts and agree that it is a convenient forum and that you will not seek to transfer such action or proceeding to any other forum or jurisdiction, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or otherwise.

to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York located in the City and County of New York, Borough of Manhattan.

You agree that any disputes relating to this agreement or your use of the Information, whether sounding in contract, tort, statute or otherwise, shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York located in the City and County of New York, Borough of Manhattan.

Any claim related to any dispute arising as a result of the site or under these Terms shall be made before a court of competent jurisdiction located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Trustee and the Sponsor both consent to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York and the federal courts located in the borough of Manhattan in New York City.

Your name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal courts located within the State of Connecticut and a statement that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of the alleged infringement.

Your name, physical address and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which your physical address is located, or if your physical address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which BEAM SUNTORY may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of allegedly infringing material or an agent of such person.

Any action relating to this Agreement must be brought in the Federal or State courts located Boston, MA, and you irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of such courts.

GENERAL PROVISIONS By visiting this site you agree that the Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law, and that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to these Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy shall be filed only in the state or federal courts located in New York County, New York and you hereby consent and submit to the venue and personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of such action.

As a condition of participating in this Giveaway, participant agrees that any and all disputes which can not be resolved between the parties, and causes of action arising out of or connected with this Giveaway, shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in NJ having jurisdiction.

Any action relating to this Agreement must be brought in the federal or state courts located in Seattle, Washington, and you irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of such courts.

(a) If Goods or Services are primarily being provided in the United States or any other location outside of Canada, any legal suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be instituted in the federal courts of the United States of America or the courts of the State of New York in each case located within Erie County, New York, U.S.A. and each Party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such suit, action or proceeding.

For any matters which are not subject to arbitration as set forth in these Official Rules and / or in connection with the entering of any judgment on an arbitration award in connection with these Official Rules and / or the Contest, the parties irrevocably submit and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in or closest to the County of New York in the State of New York.

By accessing, viewing, or using the works, content, or materials on the Site, you consent and agree to (a) the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any and all disputes arising out of this Agreement or related to the Service are in the state and federal courts located in the State of Maryland and (b) accept service of process by personal delivery or mail; and (c) irrevocably waive the right to trial by jury and any jurisdictional and venue defenses otherwise available.

You agree that jurisdiction over and venue in any legal proceeding directly or indirectly arising out of or relating to this site (including but not limited to the purchase of Integrative Health Care, P.C. products) shall be in the state or federal courts located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

You agree that jurisdiction over and venue in any legal proceeding directly or indirectly arising out of or relating to this site (including but not limited to the purchase of Activation Products products) shall be in the state or federal courts located in Los Angeles County, California.

Except as provided in Section 25 below, you irrevocably submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in San Francisco, California, for all disputes arising out of or related to your use of any of the Services.

- The subscriberâ $ ™ s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which FilmOn.com may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

These Terms will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of District of Columbia, and you submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in District of Columbia for the resolution of any disputes.

By using this Site and / or providing us with your personal information, you waive any claims that may arise under the laws of other countries or territories located outside of the United States or states other than Indiana, and you agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Indiana and the federal courts of Indiana.

Sole and exclusive jurisdiction for any action or proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement, including application and / or interpretation of the arbitration provision, or CRA's services shall be an appropriate state of federal court located in Laramie County in the state of Wyoming.

In the event of any such dispute, you irrevocably consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the courts located in the State of Washington, County of Pierce.

These Terms will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and you submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in California for the resolution of any disputes.

(a) an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on your behalf; (b) a description of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and where the material was located online before it was removed or access to it was disabled; (c) a written statement by you that under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; and (d) your address, telephone number, and email address; and (e) a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under DMCA 512 subsection (c)(1)(c) or an agent of such person.

These Terms shall be governed by U.S. Federal law and the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., without regard to its conflicts of law provisions, and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of and venue in the federal and state courts located in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. in all disputes arising out of or relating to the Service.

Each party hereby irrevocably consents to exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in Saint Louis County, Missouri.

your name, address and telephone number, and a statement that (i) you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal district court for the judicial district in which such address is located or, if your address is outside of the United States, to any judicial district in which Climate Central may be found, and (ii) you will accept service of process from the claimant who provided Climate Central's designated agent with notification of the alleged infringement in accordance with the DMCA, or an agent of such person.

You agree that any and all disputes that can not be resolved with Scenic Hudson, and causes of action arising out of or connected with this Contest, shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, before a court of competent jurisdiction located in New York State.

As a condition of participating in this Campaign, participant agrees that any and all disputes that can not be resolved between the parties, and causes of action arising out of or connected with this Campaign, shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in California having jurisdiction.

Having re-established that the centre of interests is a possible place of jurisdiction, without addressing the other potential places of jurisdiction (namely the domicile of the defendant and all other Member States where the infringing material was accessible — admittedly, this was not the subject of the preliminary reference), the Court addresses the question of where the centre of interest of a legal person is located.

Currently, the EU provides a mechanism which proscribes which country's jurisdiction takes precedence when there are two hearings taking place simultaneously in different countries; it enables court orders for maintenance, child contact or injunctions to be enforced in all member states; it enables information to be shared between nations so a partner can be located across borders; and it ensures cooperation between member states in cases of child abduction overseas.

A recent English court case, Football Dataco Ltd et al. v Sportradar GmbH [2010] EWHC 2911 (Ch), has held that at least for some purposes, the jurisdiction of a court over Internet content should be based on where the server was located, and not where the information online was read or used.

But, while the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows many class action lawsuits which would otherwise be brought on exclusively state law claims in state court to be brought in federal court, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt to be brought in federal court, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt, or removed from state court to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt to federal court, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt, it does not authorize class action lawsuits that could not be brought in a state court which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt which a U.S. District Court is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eiCourt is located due to lack of either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction from being brought in that federal court eicourt either.

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).

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).

Although the courts in the state in which the child is currently located have exclusive custody jurisdiction from their own perspective, if the child is taken to visit another country, the courts there will often have jurisdiction under the local law of that country to determine what is best for the child.

CRCICA, together with Cairo's Court of Appeal, make up the two key players in Egypt's dispute resolution mix; the court provides that has jurisdiction over institutional arbitrations located in or outside Egypt and arbitrations seated outside Egypt, where the parties have agreed to conduct the arbitraCourt of Appeal, make up the two key players in Egypt's dispute resolution mix; the court provides that has jurisdiction over institutional arbitrations located in or outside Egypt and arbitrations seated outside Egypt, where the parties have agreed to conduct the arbitracourt provides that has jurisdiction over institutional arbitrations located in or outside Egypt and arbitrations seated outside Egypt, where the parties have agreed to conduct the arbitration.

The Court also ruled that where the conspiracy is made («hatched») in England, the English Court has jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention to try the claim even though the aim of the conspirators was to procure disposals of or dealings with assets located in many other countries.

The former court has jurisdiction for the entirety of the damage suffered by the injured party, whereas the latter courts only have jurisdiction to rule on the injury suffered within the territory of the Member State in which the respective national court is located.

For civil lawsuit, if the civil lawsuit brought against a citizen shall be under the jurisdictionof the people's court located in the place where the defendant has hisdomicile, if the defendant's domicile is different from his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court located inthe place of his habitual residence.

Personal injury lawsuits usually fall under the authority (or «jurisdiction») of state courts in the county where the injury occurred, or where those involved (the «parties») in the incident are located.

Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located courts for enforcement against assets located there.

The Hague Convention you identify is generally enforced in the domestic courts of the country where the child is physically located that has child custody jurisdiction or via a «Central Authority» as defined by a signatory to the Convention, although it is a bit more complex than that because the Hague Convention has one set of rules for «emergencies» and another for ordinary cases.

If the jurisdiction is disputed between England and a non-European country, the court will consider which country is the most suitable to hear the dispute, considering where the assets are located and the previous lifestyles of the parties.