Search for: "RICHARD SEEBORG, and as an individual"
Results 1 - 20
of 29
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2010, 4:01 pm
Judge Richard Seeborg approved the controversial deal today (.pdf). [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 7:19 pm
Currently, SROs receive mail through "single-point" delivery and Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that was just fine. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 8:06 am
On March 15, 2010, Judge Richard Seeborg, of the Northern District of California, certified a breach of contract claim on behalf of a class of investors against defendants EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, and EverBank World Markets in Vathana v. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 8:46 am
His sentencing is scheduled for March 19, 2013, before District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 7:19 pm
Currently, SROs receive mail through "single-point" delivery and Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that was just fine. [read post]
2 Sep 2021, 3:03 pm
In his August 30, 2021 Order, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, saying that the complaint “simply does not plausibly plead an actionable false statement,” and ruling further that the plaintiffs’ had failed to present allegations sufficient to establish that a pre-suit demand on the board would have been futile. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 10:05 pm
District Court Judge Richard Seeborg that they would file a status update by Jan. 4. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
The March 6 decision by Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California in California v. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 5:39 am
In the order, Judge Richard Seeborg gave two primary reasons why the preliminary injunction was granted: First, the statute that vests DHS with authority in some circumstances to return certain aliens to a “contiguous territory” cannot be read to apply to the individual plaintiffs or others similarly situated. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 5:39 pm
Judge Richard Seeborg explained that the complaints from Dell and HP fail to show that NVIDIA knew the chips were defective. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 9:25 am
Federal District Court Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims targeting the “0 grams trans fat,” “good source,” “made with whole grain oats,” and “no high fructose corn syrup” declarations on preemption grounds. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 9:14 am
The party at the Federal Circuit was kicked off after Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 12:58 am
Judge Richard Seeborg had previously dismissed this count of complaint with prejudice stating that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions for damages against state entities (such as school districts) and that the complaint appeared to be suing individuals in their official capacity, which would extend Eleventh Amendment immunity to them as well. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 1:30 pm
This federal court consolidation of Viagra lawsuits was assigned to Judge Richard Seeborg, of the Northern District of California. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:40 pm
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 4:19 pm
Judge Richard Seeborg specifically questioned the adequacy of compensation to the class in light of the $750 per violation that would be recoverable under the statute at issue. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 1:11 am
However, on January 3, 2011, Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg held, in a case of first impression, that a forum selection clause in Oracle’s bylaws was not enforceable, at least in the absence of shareholder approval. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 10:37 pm
First, Judge Richard Seeborg cited and applied Rule 702, a statute, and not dicta from case law that predates the most recent statutory version of the rule. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 9:05 pm
“This case stems from an ongoing debate about whether hydroponics, a form of soil-less agriculture, may be certified organic,” wrote Chief Judge Richard Seeborg for the U.S. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 12:33 pm
” Judge Richard Seeborg found that the policy was not in accordance with law because Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—a provision that allows the return of certain people to foreign contiguous territory pending a hearing—cannot be applied to asylum seekers. [read post]
