Search for: "IN RE CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF STATE LAW"
Results 21 - 40
of 2,687
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2022, 10:36 am
So, for example, if your SDVOSB certification is due for re-certification January 10th, 2023, the SBA states that your due date for recertification would now be January 10, 2024. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 4:25 am
The Supreme Court of California then entered an order stating that our request for decision of certified questions was "denied without prejudice and may be re-filed after the issue of standing is finalized. [read post]
7 May 2018, 7:39 am
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that district courts should rule on motions to compel arbitration and related jurisdictional questions before reaching issues on FLSA conditional certification. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 11:36 am
In an important articulation of the standing requirements under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Rule 23’s requirement that common questions of law or fact predominate in certified class actions, the Ninth Circuit has reversed Central District Judge Dale Fischer’s 2008 denial of class certification in three consolidated cases alleging that Ticketmaster deceived plaintiffs into registering for a coupon program that resulted in nearly… [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 10:36 pm
Second, on a choice of law issue I won’t get into (even though it is interesting), the Court held that certain state’s laws should be applied for certain plaintiffs instead of California. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 6:30 am
Now, we’re beginning to see how the Mazza decision affects bids for nationwide class certification. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 6:55 am
Jesup, 68 F. 263, 293 (6th Cir. 1895), certified question answered, 167 U.S. 1 (1897); United States v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
The California Supreme Court recently answered this question in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 4:05 pm
It may be more beneficial for you to re-file a new PERM labor certification application and start the process again from scratch. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 9:54 am
Where a defendant defeats certification of a class in an MDL proceeding, should it have to re-litigate the issue of class certification again and again in state courts around the country? [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 7:47 am
In the Ninth Circuit, at least, the argument used to fight certification during litigation—that state law variations will predominate over common questions—could preclude certification of a nationwide settlement class. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 12:12 pm
The district court reasoned there were “open questions regarding the applicable standards [of conditional certification], especially when some discovery has occurred. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 9:52 am
In In re Kosmos Energy Ltd. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 6:47 pm
If you have any questions about the case of Lubin v. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 5:16 pm
In the Ninth Circuit, for example, there are three situations warranting review of a class certification order under Rule 23(f): The class certification order presents a “death-knell situation” for either plaintiffs or defendants, and the class certification or denial is “questionable”; The certification presents unsettled and fundamental issues of law related to class actions; or The district court’s… [read post]
25 Apr 2009, 1:20 pm
Or will plaintiff divest its owner and re-move for certification? [read post]
28 Mar 2021, 12:29 pm
"Certification may be indicated by “Certified by The State Bar of California,” the logo of the certified specialization program, or both. [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 11:57 pm
The post Case Preview: Re an application by Martin Corey for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 9:24 am
Choosing an immigration lawyer (or immigration attorney as they’re called in the United States) is an important part of your immigration process. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 3:37 am
In Comcast, the Supreme Court, re-stated--its now firmly entrenched view--that a plaintiff seeking class certification "'must affirmatively demonstrates his compliance'" with Rule 23(a) by showing that "'there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,' typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation." [read post]
