Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"
Results 381 - 400
of 3,913
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2019, 5:45 am
” Under a purchaser standard, the “D.C. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 5:00 am
” Plaintiff did not constitute a “consumer” under the statute because she did not, for her personal use, purchase [the product], which in any event is not available for consumer purchase, but rather was prescribed the medical device by her doctor. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
But the complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs are unable to make necessary or even regular purchases, and we do not think that difficulty buying “a popsicle from the neighborhood ice cream truck” or using a coin-operated laundry machine is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it said that RFRA protects against the denial of “full participation in the economic life of the Nation. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 4:10 am
The court said in part:This Court must distill the five separate opinions, identify the Court’s intent, and produce a logical directive. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 1:11 pm
There’s a narrow path: “The plaintiff must be suing for conduct that violates the FDCA [to avoid explicit preemption], but the plaintiff must not be suing because the conduct violates the FDCA [which would be impliedly preempted]. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
In other words, purchasers of Slack shares after the direct listing event would have significant difficulty in determining whether the particular shares they purchased were newly registered or purchased from the unregistered pool of pre-IPO shares being listed simultaneously with the registered shares. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
In other words, purchasers of Slack shares after the direct listing event would have significant difficulty in determining whether the particular shares they purchased were newly registered or purchased from the unregistered pool of pre-IPO shares being listed simultaneously with the registered shares. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 8:49 am
“Indeed, because Plaintiff is a main competitor for Defendants, one assumes Defendants would be aware of the content hosted on Plaintiff’s website or the claims Plaintiff makes regarding its products. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 8:18 am
” This claim was centered around an agreement plaintiffs allegedly had with Chicago Hotel Partners (“CHP”), a hotel operator, to purchase an interest the hotel. [read post]
30 May 2023, 10:29 am
Because Plaintiffs had satisfied both approaches, however, the Court did not provide direction as to which approach district courts should follow. [read post]
1 May 2014, 4:50 am
The plain language of Rule 23 directs courts to consider other available methods of adjudication, not refund programs. [read post]
30 May 2013, 1:34 pm
One plaintiff sought a refund for four canisters, but Scotts only refunded the purchase price of two canisters. [read post]
29 May 2012, 3:00 am
"The essential issue presented," he wrote, "is whether Zacharakos breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiff, as a shareholder of Jarc, as the managing agent of Jarc, or as president of Jarc, when plaintiff was denied the opportunity to purchase one-third of the Kristiansen shares" [footnote omitted]. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 10:50 am
There's a direct analogy here to mandatory arbitration provisions of the sort Carlyle Group was going to include in its articles (until it spinelessly changed its mind). [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 7:03 am
According to a report from SeaCoastOnline.com, plaintiff purchased the meat at a store in Kittery, and she prepared it for her son one day in June. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 10:27 am
This is an issue in direct response advertising, “a subset of native advertising that seeks consumer action, e.g., an online purchase. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 3:05 am
" However, under the optional, extended coverage purchased by plaintiff, the policy insures: "against direct physical loss or damage by these causes of loss: . . .6. [read post]
9 May 2014, 6:38 pm
Nonetheless, the fact remains that Saul made that purchase with partnership funds that belonged proportionately to the estate. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 11:53 am
There was no direct testimony from a relevant consumer that she purchased from Imprimis rather than Allergan due to the false advertisements; and there was no survey of relevant consumers indicating actual confusion or economic harm. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 6:12 am
The Cato Institute also decries Pirani’s expansion of the group of plaintiffs with Section 11 standing to include those who purchased shares sold pursuant to exemptions from registration. [read post]
