Search for: "All Plaintiffs Listed in Exhibit A of the Complaint"
Results 1 - 20
of 296
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2014, 6:40 am
First, the “complaint does not properly specify which photographs are at issue in the case” because although the complaint attaches an exhibit with 146 registered photographs, it further alleges that that is “not an exhaustive list of the photographs infringed by Scholastic. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 5:33 am
The state court complaints included an exhibit listing providers who had allegedly assigned their claims to the plaintiff-provider in each respective case. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 9:13 am
Exhibit 1 is incorporated herein for all purposes by this reference. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 8:01 am
Exhibit B to each complaint was a legally relevant listing of the Malibu Media copyrights that were allegedly infringed. [read post]
27 May 2014, 2:39 pm
Exhibit B to each complaint was a legally relevant listing of the Malibu Media copyrights that were allegedly infringed. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 3:30 pm
Plaintiff Argument The verified complaint issued by the plaintiff lists 10 allegations of fact and one cause of action for personal injuries that he incurred during a car accident, which was a result of negligence by the defendant. [read post]
13 May 2009, 7:53 am
Rather, this suit and relevant discovery are limited to the infringement of specific songs whose copyrights are owned or licensed by the Plaintiffs and which were identified Exhibits A or B to their Complaint. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 6:37 pm
(For example, plaintiff's exhibit 111 is referenced in the court's written statement of decision as a client list (CT 239), but on respondent's exhibit 111, included at page 11 in Appellant's Compendium of Trial Exhibits, it is shown as a 2004 spread sheet.) [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 1:35 pm
The complaint asserts that Defendants' acts were "willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff. [read post]
12 Sep 2014, 12:14 pm
In the Complaints, the intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress: •Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 12:26 pm
" In the Complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress: • Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 11:00 pm
Duffy's argument in Prenda's Motion to Remand, with Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, is that Cooper and Godfread improperly removed Prenda Law's complaint to federal court because just before they did Prenda Law amended its complaint to add its new incarnation, "Alpha Law Firm," as a plaintiff, and Alpha Law Firm is a Minnesota resident, and therefore there is not "diversity" between plaintiffs and defendants. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 7:49 am
The judge recounts some errors in this case: The complaint lists the plaintiff as “Xped LLC,” but its actual name is “Expeditee LLC. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm
The complaint asserts that Defendants' acts were "willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 11:16 am
“Thus, both sides already have all of the information they need to designate deposition testimony and create exhibit lists, and should have anticipated the possibility that Adkins would go to trial. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 11:00 pm
Duffy's argument in Prenda's Motion to Remand, with Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, is that Cooper and Godfread improperly removed Prenda Law's complaint to federal court because just before they did Prenda Law amended its complaint to add its new incarnation, "Alpha Law Firm," as a plaintiff, and Alpha Law Firm is a Minnesota resident, and therefore there is not "diversity" between plaintiffs and defendants. [read post]
11 May 2010, 1:27 pm
” Toward the end of 2008, the court certified plaintiffs’ proposed class: All persons who paid a commission to Defendants and/or their affiliates listed in Exhibit A (Docket #242) in connection with the sale of residential real estate (excluding initial sales of newly constructed homes) located in the Commonwealth of Kentucky during the period from October 11, 2001 to October 11, 2005. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 4:34 am
The Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint On June 29, 2022, just six days after denial of Tamara’s motion for leave to reargue or to appeal to the Court of Appeals, Ruben moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, his papers consisting of just an attorney affirmation and seven exhibits. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 11:00 pm
Plaintiff first noticed this use in October 2017 and sent Beco a cease-and-desist letter to Wal-Mart, which informed its manufacturer of the matter (the letter is reproduced in the complaint as one of the exhibits). [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 10:52 am
[The court agrees with the defense position that "[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit. [read post]
