Search for: "Unnamed Defendant 3" Results 401 - 420 of 747
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2013, 1:09 pm by Pamela Wolf
It is the plaintiff’s choice, not the defendant’s or the court’s, whether satisfaction of her individual claim, without redress of her viable classwide allegations, is sufficient to bring a lawsuit to an end. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 10:45 am by Michael D. Thompson
 The Court concluded that the plaintiff had no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor did she have any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 5:00 am
Symczyk (opinion here) held that if a plaintiff who brings a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of herself and her co-workers rejects an offer of judgment from the defendant that would fully satisfy the plaintiff's own personal claim, then the entire case gets dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a personal interest in representing the unnamed claimants.They call this a "pick off" of the lead plaintiff and, yeah, I shouldn't have played that encore. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 11:00 pm by Ken White
A diversity case is when the plaintiffs and defendants are from different states. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 11:00 pm by Ken
A diversity case is when the plaintiffs and defendants are from different states. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 6:10 am by Sheldon Toplitt
  The appellate ruling this week returns the case to the Michigan trial court for a new ruling on whether the defendant blogger may retain his anonymity.The defendant has pushed for Michigan to adopt a standard akin to one employed by a New Jersey Superior Court in Dendrite International Inc. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 3:44 am by Andrew Trask
Two years ago, I wrote about the difficulties defendants face when securities plaintiffs invoke confidential witnesses in their complaints. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 10:03 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” The result, according to unnamed critics, is “laws fraught with risks to investors. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 9:27 am by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
P. 23, and they allow for one or more individual named plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a large – sometimes very large – group of unnamed employees, where: 1) the number of putative class members is so large that it would be impractical for them to participate; 2) where the putative class claims are defined by common questions of law or fact; 3) where the representative plaintiffs’ claims or defenses are typical of those of everyone else; and 4) where… [read post]
P. 23, and they allow for one or more individual named plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a large – sometimes very large – group of unnamed employees, where: 1) the number of putative class members is so large that it would be impractical for them to participate; 2) where the putative class claims are defined by common questions of law or fact; 3) where the representative plaintiffs’ claims or defenses are typical of those of everyone else; and 4) where… [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 8:38 am by John Lewis
  But as Justice Breyer pointed out both during oral argument and in the opinion, a named plaintiff cannot bind unnamed class members prior to certification of a class. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 5:49 am by Jacob Michael Kaufman
The complaint alleges that Facebook’s actions were part of Facebook’s plan (with several other unnamed defendants) to “impede, interfere with, and expropriate the benefits of the Profile Engine developed by Plaintiffs without regard to Plaintiffs’ legal rights and to exclude Plaintiffs from their use and profit therefrom. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 9:13 am by Joe Consumer
  State laws ensure that every defendant, whether a traditional defendant or a trust, only pays its share of liability. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 2:28 pm
It’s not to defend law firms, but instead to gain perspective.Why aren’t people screaming? [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 2:20 am by Andrew Trask
His conclusion: Reasonable notice sufficiently protects the class members’ due process rights, and allowing opt outs would defeat the very purpose of a (b)(1) class and impede the rights of the defendant and unnamed class members. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 10:44 am by Ken
But the only information Ingenuity 13 has is the IP address of the Doe Defendant. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 9:02 pm by Julie Hilden
(The sixth statement at issue in the case came from an unnamed friend of Mr. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 1:26 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
 Through the EEOC’s investigation, the Commission allegedly found reason to believe that the Defendant also discriminated against an unnamed “class” of female employees. [read post]