Sentences with phrase «of action against the defendant»

The Court held that their cause of action against the defendant law firm, for allegedly providing negligent tax advice, arose when Canada Revenue disallowed their charitable tax credits, not when their litigation with Canada Revenue was settled.

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).

There was no assignment of a right of action against the defendant.

Not exact matches

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 02213, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the «Exchange Act») and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

We believe that market - rigging tactics of which banking institutions have been repeatedly accused — and, in many cases, are legal defendants in actions brought against them — have been disguised but are still widely practiced.

Jack, District Judge: Plaintiff, McIlhenny Company, a corporation of the State of Maine, which, with its predecessors, for many years past, has manufactured at Avery Island, Louisiana, a condiment known as «Tabasco Pepper Sauce,» brings this action against defendant Ed.

But since 2006, if a criminal action is commenced against a defendant for one of those worst child sexual abuse crimes, the victim has five years from the date the criminal action is ended to file a civil suit against only the abuser.

The suit by his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), showed Dokpesi also praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from further making any defamatory publications against him, and N50million as cost of the action.

Lawyers for Charlotte Osei also demanded the list of workers who were behind the petition «to enable us commence legal action against them for the defamatory statements contained in their petition failing which our client will be constrained to proceed against you alone as defendant in the suit our client intends to commence against them since you are to all intents and purposes, their agent.»

In the suit by his lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Dokpesi is also praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from further making any defamatory publications against him, and N50million as cost of the action.

News — 1) TeleRead has a good roundup of the latest legal filings by Penguin (PDF) and Macmillan (PDF) in the DOJ antitrust suit and by Apple in the class action suit against the same defendants.

The class action seeks damages «for the purchase of e-books, an injunction against pricing e-books with the agency model and forfeiture of the illegal profits received by the defendants as a result of their anti-competitive conduct which could total tens of millions of dollars.»

The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action against Defendants Apple, Inc. («Apple»); Hachette Book Group, Inc. («Hachette»); HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. («HarperCollins»); Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH and Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d / b / a Macmillan (collectively, «Macmillan»); The Penguin Group, a division of Pearson plc and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (collectively, «Penguin»); and Simon & Schuster, Inc. («Simon & Schuster»; collectively with Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, and Penguin, «Publisher Defendants») to obtain equitable relief to prevent and remedy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.

I. AMENDED COMPLAINT This is an action for damages brought by individual consumers, against Defendant, H&P Capital, Inc., for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (hereafter -LSB-...]

(b) With respect to an action brought to enjoin violations of the chapter or fraudulent or unconscionable conduct, the administrator may apply to the court for appropriate temporary relief against a defendant, pending final determination of the proceedings.

A class action on behalf of customers was instituted against 72 defendants.

Digital Journal reports that more than 5,200 international «researchers, professors, postdocs, [and] seismologists» have signed a petition supporting the seven defendants and the Seismological Society of America has denounced the charges as an «unprecedented legal action against members of the seismological community.»

The national court therefore has its own sphere of discretion when examining the action against the defendant, and the Commission can not be considered as the judge and the party in its own cause.

In those circumstances justice requires that the [costs] Defendants should in principle pay the Claimants» costs of their action against SGP1 [the defendant].»

On appeal, the plaintiffs» requested that the judgment dismissing the action against Mr. Vicentini and Ford Credit be set aside and liability be apportioned equally between those two defendants and Mr. Hoang and requested that the amount of damages be increased.

He represents both claimants and defendants and has great experience in all types of clinical negligence actions including cases against hospitals, general practitioners and associated healthcare professionals.

Acting for the defendants in respect of substantial and complex fraud claims arising out of a commercial transaction, which involved dealing with freezing injunctions obtained against the defendants and the co-ordination of actions in various jurisdictions.

In future class action claims against nationwide corporate defendants, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is generally requiring piecemeal litigation in each state where a plaintiff was injured, instead of allowing for a single consolidated class action in a single state court lawsuit.

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;

In the coverage action, the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining summary judgment against the defendant insurer requiring the payment of damages, costs and interest in the underlying action.

The insurer denied coverage to Mr. Hoang, and the plaintiffs were forced to bring an action for coverage, under section 258 (1) of the Insurance Act directly against the defendant insurer to have the insurance money payable under Mr. Hoang's motor vehicle policy applied toward satisfaction of the judgment.

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.

Inc. 2014 NLTD (G) 114 Actions — Contracts — Courts — Criminal Law — Practice — Restitution — Torts — Trade Regulation Summary: The two individual plaintiffs sought to bring a class action against Atlantic Lottery Corp. (defendant), on behalf of a class of persons harmed by video lottery terminals (VLTs).

January 29, 2003 835 So.2 d 1251 2003 Store patron had no claim for spoliation of evidence against department store that was also defendant in patron's underlying negligence action.

Attis represents important appellate Court guidance for the class action bar as, prior to Attis, certain decisions, most notably Poulin v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, earmarked class counsel as a potential payment source for defendants in situations where the plaintiffs were unwilling or unable to cover costs ordered against them.

The particular decision, York University v. Michael Markicevic, 2013 ONSC 4311, involves a request by one defendant to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against her real property and is part of a larger action by York against Markicevic and others concerning their alleged misuse of university resources.

«I am not prepared to adopt, as the defendant's argue, a blanket principle that an Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a common law action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment against an out - of - jurisdiction judgment debtor in the absence of a showing that the defendant has some real and substantial connection to Ontario or currently possesses assets in Ontario... No jurisprudence binding on me has expressly placed a gloss on that ability to assume jurisdiction by requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the non-resident judgment debtor defendant otherwise has a real and substantial connection with Ontario.»

In California, the plaintiff in a bad faith action may be able to recover some of its attorneys» fees separately and in addition to the judgment for damages against a defendant insurer.

The court found that the plaintiff did not allege in her amended complaint that the second defendant received notice of the action, or that it knew or should have known that the action would be brought against it.

«In light of the economically significant relationship between Chevron and Chevron Canada, and given that Chevron Canada maintains a non-transitory place of business in Ontario, an Ontario court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Canada's indirect corporate parent that also names Chevron Canada as a defendant and seeks the seizure of the shares and assets of Chevron Canada to satisfy a judgment against the corporate parent.»

The family of Lola Norton, deceased brought a wrongful death action against a number of defendants who were affiliated with a nursing home in which Bernard Norton's wife, Lola died.

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Following «TC Heartland,» a literal reading of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b), could suggest that no venue is appropriate against such a defendant, thereby eliminating the ability of patent owners to take action against international infringers.

When a lawsuit (or a claim, or a party) is dismissed by a court «with prejudice,» that means that the same cause of action can not be brought again by the same plaintiff against the same defendant.

In general, you can file a complaint asserting any cause of action whatsoever against a defendant, even if they are unrelated, in the same case, and if you don't, you risk having the claims that you do not file barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which bars new lawsuits between the same parties not only over all claims that were actually asserted and...

The class action brought against FCA NV, FCA and FCA Canada Inc. (FCA Canada) alleges that Canadian purchasers of the Vehicles were deceived by the defendants» failure to disclose the presence of this software, resulting in losses and damage to members of the class.

Tuck v. Supreme Holdings Ltd. et al. 2014 NLTD (G) 131 Evidence — Limitation of Actions — Practice Summary: The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants on February 28, 2012, to recover damages allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred... [more]

In Breeden, the plaintiff commenced defamation actions in Ontario against the defendants, who were directors, advisers, and a vice president of a corporation headquartered in the United States.

The case established that the ATS provides jurisdiction over tort actions in such «foreign cubed» cases, brought by non-US plaintiffs against non-US defendants for violations of customary international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed outside the US.

[5] Conversely, a delay of approximately 7.5 years was held not to be inordinate in the context of an action against a number of defendants for breach of fiduciary obligations.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

The settlement brings to a close the consolidated class action lawsuit brought in 2010 by multiple retirement funds against Countrywide and other defendants for securities violations involving the packaging and sale of MBS.

This was an action of trespass, brought in the Court below, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an assault and battery, and false imprisonment, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and a special plea of justification.

In this case involving a breach of contract action filed by a condominium association's property management company against an insurance company, concerning the scope of a policy issued to the condo association, the Alexandria U.S. District Court says defendant carrier...