Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs bringing»

Justice Thomas in his dissent, joined by Justice Kennedy, characterized Basic as a «judicially invented doctrine based on an economic theory adopted to ease the burden on plaintiffs bringing claims under an implied cause of action» while highlighting the dissent of Justices White and O'Connor in Basic.

The basis for the costs award was FRCP 54 (d)(costs and attorney's fees), while the FDCPA only penalizes losing plaintiffs bringing the suit in bad faith or for harassment purposes.

The ruling will limit forum shopping and greatly reduce the number of cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which is perceived as the most favorable district for plaintiffs bringing patent claims.

This is a good judgement for Plaintiffs bringing ICBC claims, particularly those involved in Low Velocity Impacts (LVI's) where ICBC denies that injury occurred.

All plaintiffs bringing lawsuits against governmental entities are required to provide notice to the relevant entity in order to bring a valid lawsuit.

«As one of the plaintiffs bringing this action, I couldn't be more pleased with the ruling of Judge Irizarry,» said Schreiber wrote on his Facebook page on Tuesday.

«Plaintiff bring [s] this action as the public has a right to know about this fraud that is being perpetrated in Dearborn, Michigan, the community with the highest concentrations of Muslims in North America,» the lawsuit read in part, as obtained by CBS Detroit.

To help bring down these costs, Congress still must address commonsense reforms like shifting fees when a plaintiff brings egregiously frivolous suits and staying patent suits filed against end users.

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.

Plaintiffs bring claims under federal and state antitrust laws to enjoin the illegal conduct and to obtain damages.»

In April 2012, three representative plaintiffs brought the class action lawsuit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on behalf of all drivers who incurred tolls and / or additional charges to the 407 ETR, and had their license plate denied after they had filed a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy proceeding.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a Class consisting of all persons in the United States who established an account with NoteWorld LLC (or any subsidiary thereof) from which NoteWorld processed any payments related to any debt settlement program.

«For this reason, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants for breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, recovery of chattels and an accounting,» court documents state.

Under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1 subsection 9 allows the court to award damages if the judge finds the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith or for improper purpose.

The firm argued that a claim could not be brought under the Act as it defines a whistleblower as someone who reports alleged misconduct to the SEC, while the plaintiff brought an internal complaint.

In this case, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against a physician and pharmacy, claiming that they overprescribed medication.

Additionally, Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the defendant for damages associated with the accident that he caused.

Plaintiffs brought suit against three different entities, including Arden Engineering Constructors LLC, alleging that they were individually and collectively responsible for Limoges's injuries.

In December, 2016, the plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 (5), in order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay, and for an order establishing a timetable for the completion of further steps in the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion in February 2015, post-discoveries, to add the referees as defendants to the action.

The plaintiff brought negligence claims for her alleged slip - and - fall in a puddle of rainwater.

The only exception to this is if the seller specifically warranted the product for a longer length of time and the plaintiff brought his or her action within that amount of time.

Plaintiff brought a separate claim against Commercial Union for its failure to promptly settle the underinsured claim, pursuant to G.L. c. 93A and G.L. c. 176D.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the settlement, which Justice Herman dismissed in 2008.

The Plaintiff brought an application to compel pre trial examination under oath of this witness but this was dismissed with the Court noting that a witness willing to speak through counsel is indeed being responsive.

Plaintiff brought suit against the restaurant which he alleged over-served alcohol to the driver.

1 Oct. 17, 2016)(unpublished), plaintiff brought multiple FEHA / labor claims against the defense, asking a jury to award $ 322,551 in compensatory damages.

The Plaintiff brought an ICBC claim for non-pecuniary damages, loss of income, diminished earning capacity, loss of housekeeping capacity, special damages, and future care.

Plaintiff brought a FEHA / related claims case, losing many claims on a trial judge nonsuit and the remainder after a jury trial.

Whether the alleged exposure involves air, water, soil or groundwater, when a plaintiff or group of plaintiffs brings an environmental exposure claim, an experienced California toxic lawyer at our firm will launch a thorough investigation to determine whether an exposure actually occurred and, if so, the extent to which the exposure may have caused the illness or other harms alleged by the plaintiffs.

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2147191 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., the plaintiffs brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking to rescind a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the «Act»).

After suffering an injury in 2008 on premises controlled by the Border Services Agency, a plaintiff brought an action against Border Services and an additional defendant who had control over conditions at the accident location.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that the Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the counterclaim and that North Carolina was a more appropriate forum to determine the counterclaim.

When Plaintiff brought Architectural Firms into the case as Defendants, General Contractor aggressively attempted to shift blame to Architectural Firms based on alleged professional negligence, designating multiple experts on the subject.

The plaintiffs brought a motion ex parte for a Mareva to freeze the defendants» bank accounts.

In the first, the plaintiff brought a private action under the Martin Act, as opposed to a private action independent of the Act.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to set these admissions aside and ICBC opposed.

As a result, the plaintiff brought an action against the school board and the principal for breaching their duties of care.

At one point during the litigation proceedings, counsel for the Plaintiff brought an application for summary judgement pursuant to Rule 9 - 6 to strike the part of the Defendant's Response that relied on the Section 24 «reasonable efforts» defence in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

A plaintiff brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a financial services company, alleging that it gave her negligent investment advice.

A plaintiff brought a defamation case against a lawyer.

LawPRO spent more than $ 80,000 defending four actions which a plaintiff brought against two solicitors arising from damages allegedly suffered by his company in the early 1990s.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al. 2014 ONCA 89 Professional Occupations — Accountants — Disciplinary proceedings — Evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings The plaintiffs brought an action, alleging that the defendant, Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte) was negligent in preparing the 1995 and 1996 annual statements of Philip Services Corp. (Philip).

[2] The Plaintiffs bring this motion for: (a) certification for settlement purposes as against the Defendants CIBC World Markets Inc., Canaccord Genuity Corp., GMP Securities LP, and Mackie Research Capital Corporation (the «Underwriting Syndicate»); (b) approval of three settlements; (c) ancillary orders, including the appointment of an administrator; (d) approval of the notice program; and (e) approval of the plan of distribution (the «Plan of Allocation») for the settlement funds.

The plaintiff brought suit against multiple defendants, including the driver of the garbage truck and his employer, Republic Services of Georgia, L.P. With respect to these parties, the plaintiff argued that the garbage truck, which was traveling approximately 200 feet behind the Tahoe, was too close to the other vehicle, and had the garbage truck driver maintained a suitable distance, he would have observed her husband's body and avoiding hitting him.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the defendant after the defendant posted an explicit video of the plaintiff online, which he had assured the plaintiff he would keep private.

Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the current appeal.

Plaintiff brings these claims pursuant to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act («RA»), 29 U.S.C. § 794 or Section 5, and asserts that each Defendant discriminated and / or denied Plaintiff the prison service of the ADA transportation vehicle when they transported him to medical appointments.

As trial neared the Plaintiff brought an application for an adjournment and this was granted in order to give the Plaintiff time to gather appropriate medico - legal evidence.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the driver of the car, as well as against the rental car company, Aviscar.