Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs alleging violations»

On August 27, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court resolved one aspect of this issue under Ohio law by holding in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015 - Ohio - 3430, that plaintiffs alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) must show that all members of a putative class suffered injury or «damage in fact» as a result of the challenged conduct.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment with respect to the recall.

Not exact matches

Cousins noted that actual knowledge exists when a plaintiff knows of the transaction constituting the alleged violation.

Similarly, in McMahon v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, the plaintiff brought a state law claim under the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (IFDCA) for alleged violations of FDA regulations.

«The inquiry into the allegations that Silver turned a blind eye to many instances of sexual misconduct in the Assembly will necessarily include a parade of plaintiffs» witnesses telling their stories of violation, and even more defense witnesses responding to those claims (potentially including an alleged rapist and convicted sex offender).

The plaintiffs alleged «violations of the state and federal constitution, including allegedly insufficient attention to county representation.»

He maintained that «plaintiffs alleging equal protection violations must prove intent and causation and not merely the existence of racial disparity,» and that «public schooling, even in the South, should be controlled by locally elected authorities acting in conjunction with parents, and that it is desirable to permit pupils to attend schools nearest their homes.»

Represented by Los Angeles law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the plaintiffs allege teacher protections such as tenure, seniority rules in layoffs and other teacher dismissal statutes disparately keep ineffective teachers in the classroom in violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause.

The plaintiffs in Duncan v. State of Nevada (see Legal Clips for background on suit) asserted a constitutional challenge to SB 302, alleging that it diverts public funds to private schools, many of which are religious, in violation of Article 11, Section 10 (which prohibits public funds from being used for sectarian purpose).

Whereas, Plaintiff, the United States of America filed its Complaint on April 11, 2012, alleging that Defendants conspired to raise retail prices of E-books in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Plaintiff and Settling Defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law;

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).

Plaintiffs alleged various violations of ERISA related to the cancellation of a group annuity contract.

To plead a violation of those statutes, Plaintiffs must allege that Petland used the mails and wires to perpetrate a plan to defraud them.

In the first Complaint discussed in Animal Law Coalition's reports below, the court found the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing the RICO violations proximately caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs in Indonesia allege that they suffered human rights violations at the hands of Indonesian military that was hired by ExxonMobil to provide security for its natural gas facilities.

Plaintiffs allege that ExxonMobil hired these troops knowing they would likely engage in massive human rights violations against the local population, and that all of the claims date from 2001, well after ExxonMobil had specific knowledge of massive human rights violations and could have changed their practices.

He has successfully defended single - plaintiff and putative class action matters, including those alleging violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and California False Advertising Law.

Settling (while class certification and summary judgment motions were pending) a statewide putative class action filed in San Mateo Superior Court for nuisance value with the named plaintiffs who alleged multiple wage and hour claims (unpaid regular and overtime wages, noncompliant meal and rest periods, untimely payment of final wages, noncompliant itemized wage statements, unpaid / forfeited vacation, and violation of PAGA) against a pharmaceutical supply company's call center;

For example, instead of writing «Plaintiffs allege that defendant breached the contract,» or «The judge found that defendant violated the statute,» lawyers will bury the verbs allege and violated in abstract - noun phrases: «Plaintiffs make the allegation that defendant breached the contract,» and «The judge found that defendant was in violation of the statute.»

The Plaintiff, a private high school, brought the action against the corporate developer of a college - entrance exam, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and an analogous state statute related to unsolicited faxes it received.

HARTFORD, CT --(November 29, 2010)- In a federal § 1983 claim alleging violations of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, Catherine S. Nietzel recently obtained a defendants» verdict for two Fairfield County policeman accused of excessive force and malicious prosecution.

In a release, Juroviesky and Ricci LLP says the suit, which has yet to name a lead plaintiff, alleges «class - wide violations of various statutory and common law duties to the students of York University.»

An Alexandria U.S. District Court denies the parties» joint motion to seal court files in this suit filed by plaintiff, who formerly worked as a domestic servant in defendants» homes in the U.S. and in Qatar, alleging violations of the...

The plaintiff had alleged the defendant was in violation of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations Section 392.22.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant should be held accountable for the damages because the dredge pipe was placed in the lake in alleged violation of a state regulation that stated such equipment should not be placed in a manner that creates a danger to other users of the lake.

Our attorneys have litigated on behalf of defendants and plaintiffs in a wide variety of entertainment matters, including disputes alleging copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement; right of publicity violations; idea theft; breaches of licensing and distribution, participation, film financing, and executive employment agreements; trade secret violations; and a variety of fraud, interference, personal injury, and other tort actions.

The plaintiff, Wai Kan Yip, alleged that HSBC Holdings plc, the London - based parent holding company of HSBC banks and financial services firms around the world, had carried on business in violation of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws.

Defended offshore petroleum drilling company, where plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to suppress the wages paid to workers in violation of the antitrust laws

In each case, the plaintiff alleged that Venezuela, SUDEBAN, and other Venezuelan agencies and officials had expropriated assets in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Felicia Printis originally filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County alleging that Bankers Life committed a RICO violation by conspiring with its agents and auto dealers to sell Ms. Printis unnecessary credit life and disability insurance.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, which posed the question of whether Article III standing requires a plaintiff to have a concrete injury when alleging a statutory violation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act («FCRA»).

Seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Boeing Company, along with its CEO and the head of its commercial aircraft division, committed securities fraud in violation of federal law.

Represented a plaintiff class in a market allocation and monopolization suit alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were in violation of the CWA because defendant (or «Kinder Morgan») discharged pollutants into navigable waters without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System («NPDES») permit.

While the case, Global NAPS, Inc. v. Awiszus, et al was a legal malpractice case, the plaintiff in the underlying case alleged that her employer terminated her in violation of the MMLA while she was on maternity leave.

The lesson to be taken from the developing state of standing for statutory violations post-Spokeo is clear: plaintiff counsel should take particular care to specifically allege in detail the harm their clients incurred as a result of the statutory violation.

The Court remanded Spokeo back to the Ninth Circuit to determine whether plaintiff Robins, in alleging a plain violation of statutory rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, had shown that he suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

Plaintiffs seeking redress for consumer statutory violations must allege more than bare - bones violations to preserve standing in federal court post-Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).

Before Spokeo, little attention was paid to the standing requirements for a plaintiff alleging TCPA violations, which provide for damages of $ 500 to $ 1500 per call.

1999)(holding that a plaintiff must allege that a constitutional violation was caused by a municipality's «official policy or custom»).

Weil also successfully represented GEMB in a purported nationwide class action alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act based on, among other things, the plaintiffs» claim that GEMB's alleged «policy» of allowing mortgage brokers the «discretion» to impose charges in connection with mortgage loan origination led to minority borrowers being charged disproportionately higher interest rates and fees.

The Court went so far as to rule that the plaintiffs properly alleged that Domino's violations were «willful.»

The Supreme Court stated in its opinion that plaintiffs could not allege procedural violations, «divorced from any concrete harm,» which requires an injury to be «actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.»

Written By Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Two class action lawsuits filed in federal courts in Wisconsin by the same lawyers and the same lead plaintiff within one week of each other and both alleging the same cause of action underscore the prevalence of class action lawsuits for violations...

Written By Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment Screening Resources (ESR) A Florida law firm filed federal class action lawsuits in the same court against three separate national employers on the same day, with two of them naming the same consumer as the lead plaintiff, alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting...

The three complaints brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs as well a class of similarly situated individuals essentially allege the same type of violation — that the employer failed to obtain a valid consent on a standalone form that did not contain extraneous information.

The court also denied the plaintiff's class action certification, finding that the class could not allege violations of the state's independent contractor statute.

Attorneys» fees and costs are properly awarded in cases where a plaintiff succeeds in a lawsuit alleging violations of constitutional rights by the government.

¶ 1 After purchasing a home in Enid, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Jason Stauff (Buyer) filed an action alleging violations of Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act) and negligence against the sellers, real estate broker, and home inspectors.1 Buyer appeals a single trial court order granting 1) summary judgment in favor of Defendants Kimberly Bartnick and her husband, Roy Bartnick (collectively the Bartnicks or Sellers) and also 2) the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 2012 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Paramount Homes Real Estate Co. (Broker or Paramount).