Sentences with phrase «less than the plaintiff»

The case settled for an amount significantly less than the plaintiffs» pretrial demand of more than $ 1 billion.

Having regard to the fact that the respondent is older than Ms. Sharma, that he has no realistic possibility of obtaining similar employment and that he had a longer tenure of service than Ms. Sharma, but considerably less than the plaintiff in Di Tomaso v. Crown Metal Manufacturing Packaging Canada LP, 2010 O.J. No. 4414, we conclude that an appropriate notice period is 18 months.

«In just 15 percent of cases,» the NYT reports, «both sides were right to go to trial — meaning that the defendant paid less than the plaintiff had wanted but the plaintiff got more than the defendant had offered.»

Not exact matches

If both sides, through their eyes and their people's eyes, have concluded that the plaintiff is absolutely going to win this case, and the plaintiff is going to get a lot of money because they're totally on board with everything that has been presented, then that might be a good reason for the defendant to agree to a settlement with the plaintiff for less money than the potential exposure if the jury comes back and finds willful infringement.

Unlike in those other casee, the plaintiffs did receive some compensation, but at less than $ 1 per hour, far far less than minimum wage.

It is more like: «Look, I don't know if you're a pyramid scheme or what, but some people think you are, so I want my money back,» which is less an assertion of fraud on Herbalife's part than it is an assertion of red - blooded American litigiousness on the plaintiffs» part.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs today announced their filing of a collective action lawsuit against Darden Restaurants, the world's largest full - service restaurant group, alleging servers were paid less than the minimum wage and were not compensated for time they were required to work off the clock.

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are hoping to prove they have enough evidence to proceed to trial, scheduled to begin in less than six weeks.

«It is the plaintiffs» case that contrary to the amount approved by the government to be paid to them, they received monies less than what the government had approved,» it said.

This past month, an Ohio district court ruled that several online self - publishing services were not liable for right of publicity or privacy claims for distributing an erotic (and so - called «less than tasteful») book whose cover contained an unauthorized copy of the plaintiffs» engagement photo because such services are not publishers.

The attorney for the plaintiff is incented to come up with the highest believable amount for the jury, because they will render a verdict less than that.

Plaintiffs argue it was inappropriate to allow three recordkeepers to supply the plans with a separate menu of investment choices, including mutual fund share classes that charged higher fees than other alternatives that offered the same investment strategies or less expensive share classes of the exact same investment fund — or both.

Plaintiffs argue it was inappropriate to allow each of these recordkeepers to supply the plans with a separate menu of investment choices including mutual fund share classes that charged higher fees than other alternatives that offered the same investment strategies or less expensive share classes of the exact same investment fund — or both.

For instance, the Niskanen Center, along with our co-counsel at Earthrights International, are representing the Colorado plaintiffs (including San Miguel County, population less than 8,000)

The National Petrochemical Plaintiffs explain that there is no dispute that application of the «two factors» identified by Defendants results in the following: (1) California's HCICO is assigned a CI [carbon intensity] value with less than half of the GHG emissions associated with its production and transport; (2) California's HCICO is the only HCICO to qualify for this favorable treatment; and (3) All HCICOs from outside of California are required to account for all of the GHG emissions associated with their production and transportation.

Instead of helping plaintiffs get justice, litigation financing may result in plaintiffs getting less than what they truly deserve as well as defendants paying more than they should.

[17] The clear default position will be that, with respect to claims where the award is less than $ 25,000, the plaintiff will not be entitled to an award of costs.

The potential for a successful plaintiff to have to pay a substantial portion of their damages to the defendant because the amount awarded for damages at trial was less than an earlier offer is a legitimate concern.

But when someone offers a plaintiff a settlement it is only because they believe the amount will be less than the settlement awarded in the court.

For a plaintiff, those risks include the possibility of a defense verdict or a verdict less than the settlement.

No evidence was presented with respect to the salary or any other terms or conditions of the first offer of employment although the plaintiff testified that he thought the salary in the first offer was less than the salary in the offer that he accepted.

Using the differential between the last settlement offer and the eventual verdict as a metric, the study found that Hispanic plaintiffs who relied on an interpreter at trial were 15 percent less likely than an English speaker to obtain a jury verdict that exceeded the last settlement offer.

The study also showed that, during a 16 - year span from 1988 to 2004, less than 9 percent of the 2,042 cases lost at trial and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals were reversed for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, compared with a 41 percent reversal rate for defendants who lost at trial.

The median, however, is much lower than the average in both time periods, meaning that most successful plaintiffs are awarded less than the average.

In both periods, then, the median award is significantly less than the average, which means that most plaintiffs were awarded significantly less than the average.

61 % of plaintiffs receive the same amount or less money at trial than they were offered before trial.

Now that the Court That Must Be Obeyed has expressly blessed the trial court's discretion to deny attorney's fee awards to employee plaintiffs who recover less than $ 25,000 in unlimited civil actions, will the trial courts now start exercising that discretion?

They cite cases dealing with situations in which awards at trial are less than an advance, and in which plaintiffs have been deprived of costs as of the date of the advance (McElroy v. Embelton (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1 (B.C.C.A.); Baxter v. Brown (1997), 28 B.C.L.R. (3d) 351 (B.C.C.A.).

The plaintiffs issued a Statement of Claim in February 2012, more than one year, but less than two years, after the incident.

Sometimes, the plaintiff ends up settling the case for a lot less than the case is worth.

The court considered whether this meant that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $ 25 (plus attorneys» fees) whenever a violation of c. 93A has been shown irrespective of causation being shown, or if the $ 25 comes into play when damages are shown but they amount to less than $ 25.

There has also been the question whether a plaintiff - offeree should be able to recover attorney fees after the offer was made if he or she ultimately recovers something less than the amount of the offer.

In car accident cases where liability is uncertain, the Plaintiff is forced to accept less than the true value of their case.

Our research shows that, across different types of plaintiffs, less than a quarter of EEOC charges lead to the filing of a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's specific ruling in Marek was that the plaintiff's accrual of attorney fees, as the prevailing party where his award was less than the offer, was cut off as of the date of the Rule 68 offer.

The new rule says that a plaintiff - offeree may still collect attorney fees if he or she prevails on the merits but recovers less than the amount offered.

On average plaintiffs in the study received $ 43,100 less than was offered before trial.

When a Rule 68 offer is made, it's a carefully calculated amount that the defendant thinks the plaintiff can't get in a jury verdict, even if they win, but it's typically less than the demand.

If the plaintiff is at fault for less than 50 % of the damages, he will be able to receive a percentage of the payout.

Big insurance companies and their lawyers understand that many plaintiffs will be tempted to settle for less than their claims are worth in order to avoid more delay and stress.

That is to say, the plaintiff must be at fault for less than 50 % or 51 % of damages (depending on the respective state's rules) in order to recover damages.

As reported in yesterday's New York Times, the soon - to - be-released study of civil lawsuits found that most plaintiffs who pass up settlement and go to trial end up with less than if they'd settled.

Apologies that merely expressed sympathy worked only inconsistently because many plaintiffs took them to be insincere, which sometimes caused more indignation on the plaintiff's part, rather than less.

Insurance companies are turning a blind eye on legitimate injury cases and some plaintiffs lawyers are ignoring common sense and turning a blind eye when they know that they are putting up a less than legitimate case.

Plaintiffs without Trial Insurance may be more amenable to settling early and accepting a less - than - ideal settlement, simply in order to avoid incurring the costs associated with going to trial.

Once the defense production is received, it is our experience that less than 10 percent of data will actually be relevant to the issues important to plaintiffs.

The plaintiff's action was brought more than two years after the defendant announced that it would not pay commission at the agreed - upon rate, but less than two years after the date at which the defendant was obliged to pay the commission.

A plaintiff's action was NOT statute barred where the plaintiff refused to accept the defendant's position that it intended to pay a lesser rate of commission than that stipulated in the contract.4 Instead, the plaintiff continued to call upon the defendant to honour its bargain.

It can also apply to a successful Plaintiff who is granted an award at trial that is less than the amount of the Defendant's formal offer to settle.

In 2007, he was named to Lawdragon's 3000 Leading Plaintiffs» Lawyers in America list, which includes less than one percent of all the lawyers in America.