In
ruling on a summary judgment motion in the 2006 bankruptcy court decision of In re Robinson, 346 B.R. 172 (Bankr.
Not exact matches
The Arbitrator (i) shall apply internal laws of the State of New York consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and applicable statutes of limitations, or, to the extent (if any) that federal law prevails, shall apply the law of the U.S., irrespective of any conflict of law principles; (ii) shall entertain any
motion to dismiss,
motion to strike,
motion for
judgment on the pleadings,
motion for complete or partial
summary judgment,
motion for
summary adjudication, or any other dispositive
motion consistent with New York or federal
rules of procedure, as applicable; (iii) shall honor claims of privilege recognized at law; and (iv) shall have authority to award any form of legal or equitable relief;
On July 8, the public got its first view into how the U.S. Department of Labor will defend its fiduciary
rule when it filed a cross
motion for
summary judgment, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a law suit brought by the National Association for Fixed Annuities.
All parties have submitted
motions for
summary judgment, which means they are seeking to avoid a trial by asking Judge Dewayne Thomas to
rule on the briefs submitted.
Here's a closer look at the court's
ruling on the district's and individual defendants»
motion for
summary judgment for Ms. I's claims.
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr.,
ruling on Fastcase's
motion for
summary judgment, denied the
motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning that Fastcase is not barred from refiling the lawsuit in another court.
Plaintiffs and defendant all filed
motions for
summary judgment, and
on Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a memorandum
ruling in favor of plaintiffs and an order permanently barring Public.Resource.Org from posting any of the plaintiffs» standards.
The
motions judge also subsequently awarded costs against Affinia
on a «substantial indemnity» basis, relying
on a
rule in Ontario's
rules of civil procedure which applies where a party has acted unreasonably in responding to a
motion for
summary judgment.
Another example is a
motion for
summary judgment, which asks the court to
rule in the requester's favor because essential facts are no longer in dispute (perhaps because of what has been learned in discovery), making a jury's decision unnecessary
on some — or all — points.
In the absence of expert testimony, there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether a defect in the speed control deactivation switch installed
on a pickup truck was the proximate cause of a fire that damaged a brake shop, a federal court in Mississippi
ruled, granting the pickup truck maker's
motions for
summary judgment on the business owner's products liability and negligence claims (the latter of which was subsumed by the products liability claim), and
on the punitive damages claim (Mildemont, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., January 13, 2017, Ozerden, H.).
[5] In the months following the amendments to
Rule 20, it has become a matter of some controversy and uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate for a
motion judge to use the new powers conferred by the amended
Rule 20 to decide an action
on the basis of the evidence presented
on a
motion for
summary judgment.
In this case, the manufacturer's
summary judgment motion had asked the court not to consider it until after it
ruled on the request to exclude.
There is no shortage of rhetoric in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision
on the scope and interpretation of amendments to Ontario's
Rule 20 governing
motions for
summary judgment.
Update 4:35 p.m.: In a
ruling today, Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn held in Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to consider Apotex's impeachment action and
motion for
summary judgment and declared Pfizer's patent
on Viagra, Canadian Patent No. 2,163,466 invalid.
On cross
motions for
summary judgment, the district court
ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
[22]
Rule 20.04 (2.1) is a statutory reversal of the case law that had held that a judge can not assess credibility, weigh evidence, or find facts
on a
motion for
summary judgment.
The
Rules of Civil Procedure require that a responding party
on a
motion for
summary judgment «must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial».
For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ontario
rules, a
summary judgment motion is a
motion brought by a party to obtain
judgment without a trial
on the basis that the result is so clear cut that a full trial is not necessary.
Denying defendants» two
motions (the
summary judgment motion and
motion to strike), the Court provides a useful gloss
on the operative evidence
rules that control e-mail documents in litigation.
The Court of Appeal found that
motion judge failed to assess the fairness of deciding this matter by way of
summary judgment given the conflicting evidence and the fact that
Rule 76.01 prohibited from cross-examining the plaintiffs
on their affidavits.
D. New Mexico, 2014 (Docket No. 11 - CV -784-BRB / RHS), a New Mexico federal court granted the defendants»
motions for
summary judgment,
ruling that the plaintiff's failure to designate an expert witness
on the issue of medical causation before an April 17, 2013 deadline required that the case be thrown out.
The webinar cover the impact recent
rulings will have
on: Confidentiality of settlement negotiations Coverage liability Expert evidence at trial Limitation periods
Motions for
summary judgment Motor vehicle liability Property claims Statutory accident benefits.
A pretrial version of hot tubbing has been added to the Ontario
Rules: without prejudice meetings between opposing experts are now among the directions a judge can give where a trial is ordered
on a
summary judgment motion (
Rule 20.05 (2)(k)-RRB-.
In reviewing the factors in
Rule 57.01 (1) and the relevant case law, Justice Healey noted that the applicant had total success
on the
motion for
summary judgment and that there had been insufficient evidence to support the respondents» positions.
In the recent costs
ruling on Columbos v. Columbos, 1 the self - represented litigants who were
on the receiving end of a
motion for
summary judgment were ordered to pay the applicant's and moving party's costs.