Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs and defendants during»

Not exact matches

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b - 5 (b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b - 5 (a) and (c) by engaging in a «scheme» to defraud investors.

Legal redress for those who suffered injury and are still living (Holocaust survivors, Japanese - Americans imprisoned during World War II, African - Americans who are not hired or can not obtain housing due to their race) is a difficult and politicized process, but as long as the plaintiffs and defendants are still living it is somewhat straightforward.

Plaintiff states that on Thursday September 8, 2016, she participated in an Inter-Party Advisory Committee, IPAC, meeting called by the 1st Defendant together with other registered political parties in Ghana during which the parties were informed by the 1st Defendant that the filing fees for Presidential and Parliamentary Elections would be GHC50, 000.00 and GHC10, 000.00 respectively.

Specifically, and without limitation, Plaintiff will show that the private loans held by Defendant were not incurred «solely to pay qualified higher education expenses,» per 26 U.S.C. § 221 (d)(1), and were not «attributable to education furnished during a period during which the recipient was an eligible student,» as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 221 (d)(1)(C).

«This is a class action arising out of Defendants» failure to perform the material terms of an offer made to Plaintiff and other consumers comprising the class for a Starwood Preferred Guest («SPG»)- branded American Express credit card; namely, the promise of 35,000 hotel loyalty points, called SPG Starpoints, in exchange for $ 5,000.00 in qualifying purchases made to the card during the first six months after issuance,» Heilman said in the filing.

[18] I am not persuaded that any documents and witness statements provided by the defendant to the plaintiff during the course of pre-trial preparation would not have been supplied by the defendant whether the action had been brought in Supreme Court or in Provincial Court.

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.

[A] s this Court is aware, Defendant's counsel has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass Plaintiffs.

This benchslap came with an order that defendants were to reimburse the plaintiffs for attorneys fees and court attorney fees incurred during this train wreck of a deposition.

During his legal career, Winston has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a multitude of cases in the areas of personal injury and criminal defense.

According to the plaintiff, during the latter part of the pregnancy and on the day the baby was born, the defendants failed to respond properly to obvious signs of fetal distress which caused serious hypoxia; this resulted in the infant suffering permanent brain damage.

During this initial case, the defendants discovered that the mother and sister were intentionally excluding the brother from being a plaintiff and had lied in their deposition testimony regarding his existence.

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice case, an estate executor appealed on two questions of abuse of discretion: limitations on the scope of questions during the defendant's deposition, and refusal of jury instructions tendered by the plaintiff.

It found that the defendant had clearly misrepresented his prior traffic history during his testimony and this misconduct did not allow the plaintiff to properly rebut the defendant's defenses.

In Crocker, the plaintiff was visibly intoxicated during a «tubing» race, and the defendant ski resort did not take steps to prevent him from participating in the dangerous competition.

However, the trial judge's findings that there was some inducement in the recruiting of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's non-solicitation clause made it reasonable for him to have regarded the defendant's clients as off - limits during his job search were not overturned.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant negligently injured her bowel during the initial surgery, did not detect the injury, and failed to get the proper surgical consultation.

A trial lawyer for four decades, he has tried a wide variety of cases, having represented both plaintiffs and defendants before juries in 28 Georgia counties from North to South, as well as in Federal court, and courts - martial in West Germany during his days as a U. S. Army JAGC lawyer.

The judge hearing the matter noted that all of the breaches alleged arose in the early stages of the plaintiff's proceedings during which the defendant's partner, and not the defendant, represented the plaintiff.

-LSB-...] The Defendants / Responding parties consent to the Plaintiff making use of a high back chair during the proceedings and to the aforementioned items 1 to 7.

During the arbitration of the Daubert Motion, the arbitrator repeatedly asked defendant's expert to explain the scientific basis for his opinion that the plaintiff had advanced ovarian cancer prior to 1999; the defense expert could not do so and the arbitrator allowed plaintiffs» Daubert motion, thereby excluding his testimony.

During closing arguments, both the plaintiff and defendant are given a final chance to summarize and rationalize their evidence to the jury, in hopes of winning a favorable verdict.

During the trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of the defendant's driving history, which contained two prior instances in which the defendant was cited for driving while under the influence of alcohol in 1996 and 1983.

(d) On the last day of each month, the plaintiff's counsel will be required to deliver to defendant's counsel a statement indicating whether the Plaintiff has earned any income during that month and if so, how plaintiff's counsel will be required to deliver to defendant's counsel a statement indicating whether the Plaintiff has earned any income during that month and if so, how Plaintiff has earned any income during that month and if so, how much; and

In Correa, the Court awarded a lump sum payment for the maximum notice period, which included damages for the unexpired period of reasonable notice and the plaintiff was ordered to account to the defendant for any earnings during the notice period.

«Plaintiff had expected, as any reasonable patient would, that her private conversations during her treatment sessions with the Defendant would remain private and confidential.»

After the state's specific laws come the comparative levels of perceived accountability and carelessness demonstrated by both the plaintiff and defendant in the time before, during, and after the injury.

The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant pushed her during the repossession and broke her foot.

(2) Within twenty days after notice is given in the electoral district under subsection (1), any person who might have been a plaintiff may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice or, during the trial, to the trial judge to be admitted as a defendant to oppose the action, or so much thereof as remains undisposed of, and may be admitted accordingly, either with the defendant, if there is a defendant, or in place of the defendant, and any number of persons not exceeding three, may be so admitted.

Specifically, the Judge stated that the jury would be instructed about the data loss and that the lost data affirmatively would have provided information relevant to the claims and defenses; defendant would be precluded from offering certain evidence in support of its defense; plaintiff would be able to re-depose, at defendant's cost, defendant's key witnesses about belatedly produced «substitute» data; and defendant would be responsible for 75 % of the Special Master's fees and costs and 50 % of plaintiff's attorneys» fees incurred during the Special Master proceedings.

During the course of discovery, the defendant sought access to the plaintiff's entire Facebook account - including information that was located behind the privacy wall that could be seen only be the plaintiff's «friends» and, presumably, private Facebook messages as well - after she'd made reference to the Facebook data during a deposDuring the course of discovery, the defendant sought access to the plaintiff's entire Facebook account - including information that was located behind the privacy wall that could be seen only be the plaintiff's «friends» and, presumably, private Facebook messages as well - after she'd made reference to the Facebook data during a deposduring a deposition.

Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants will find comprehensive coverage of such matters as: the advantages and disadvantages of suits based on strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty; the use of state consumer protection statutes; the duty to warn and its innumerable ramifications; the liability of the manufacturers, retailers and other potential defendants in the distribution chain; successor liability; federal preemption of common law claims; monitoring product safety during design, manufacturing and distribution; causation theories in actions involving multiple manufacturers; product misuse and alteration; the elements of proof needed in an action; recovery for economic loss; punitive damages; and the government contractor defense.

In her evidence and counsel submissions, the defendant acknowledges the private nature of the stay when she submits that she did everything she could to protect the plaintiff's privacy during her shift.

The plaintiff's failure to cooperate with counseling efforts, and failure to heed warnings by this Court were so obvious that this Court felt it had no choice but to award the defendant primary residential parent status during the pendency of this case.

In this connection, the court stated that the plaintiff's «disdain, dislike [and] hatred of [the defendant] was obvious to the court during her testimony,» and that her «virtually radioactive» hatred toward the defendant had «poisoned» A. Moreover, the court found that, consistent with parental alienation, the plaintiff's feelings of hatred for the defendant had been transmitted to A.» Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn.App.