Search for: "Godiva Chocolatier, Inc."
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2022, 2:13 pm
Background G-New, Inc. d/b/a Godiva Chocolatier originated at a Brussels storefront. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 1:23 pm
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2020 WL 2793014 No. 19-cv-972 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 6:50 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., et al, the court held that a named plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) on behalf of a proposed settlement class. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 6:50 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., et al, the court held that a named plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) on behalf of a proposed settlement class. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 6:50 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., et al, the court held that a named plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) on behalf of a proposed settlement class. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 8:41 am
DBA Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 5:38 pm
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., — F.3d —- , No. 16-16486 & 16-16783, 2020 WL 6305084 (11th Cir. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 1:00 pm
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. (11th Cir. 2020) held that such allegations did not establish federal standing in a similar case, the parties remanded the case to Florida state court. [read post]
14 May 2021, 6:56 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc). [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 8:14 am
Inc., 2021 U.S. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 9:02 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783, 2018 WL 4762434 (11th Cir. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 11:46 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 905 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2018), that, at least on a facial challenge to standing, the claimed FACTA violation itself was a concrete injury. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm
After tentatively settling a class action alleging that Godiva Chocolates violated federal law by including too many credit card numerals on its receipts, the chocolatier catches a lucky break: The en banc Eleventh Circuit (over three lengthy dissents) throws out the case on standing grounds, concluding that this "bare procedural violation" is not sufficient to cause an injury under the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 8:40 am
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 16-16486, 2020 WL 6305084, at *12 (11th Cir. [read post]
