Search for: "State in Interest of ABM" Results 1 - 20 of 38
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2016, 7:24 am by Kenneth B. Weckstein
United States, et al., No. 16-126C, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) found that Universal was not a “complete successor in interest” to ABM Security Services. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 3:30 am
The district court concluded that ABM failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000 as required to establish CAFA jurisdiction, and remanded the case to state court.   [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 11:34 am by Gail Cecchettini Whaley
ABM Security Services, Inc, the California Supreme Court reversed the 2nd District Court of Appeal, concluding that, “state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 1:27 pm by Jeffrey D. Polsky
In 2012, the plaintiff’s moved for summary judgment arguing that the evidence was undisputed that ABM violated the law and that they were entitled to damages, interest, and penalties totaling $103.8 million. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 9:45 am by Heather Wallace
The trial court awarded plaintiffs approximately $90 million in damages, interest and penalties. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 2:06 pm
  If we really had a rule that treated seriously the Ninth Circuit's principle about trees (or receipts) falling in the forest where no one hears (or steals) them, I think we might well have to strike down a plethora of federal and state statutes that we're super happy with and that we commonly think reflect legitimate interests. [read post]
29 Dec 2018, 1:11 am by divi
The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs ABM had a policy of requiring its guards to remain on duty during breaks and that violated state law. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 4:30 pm by Bryan Hawkins
ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 9:35 am by Kevin Jackson
” The trial court issued a tentative ruling stating, “if you are on call, you are not on break” and issued an award in favor of the class for over $55 million in damages, $31 million in pre-judgment interest, $2.5 million in penalties, and over $30 million in attorney fees. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 7:10 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Since the union contract states that the union was the exclusive bargaining agreement for Phillip and Clerkin, and correspondence in the course of this dispute confirms the union was representing their interests in the proceeding, the arbitrator's award is binding on these guys. [read post]
Blaisdell Center P3: The City of Honolulu received 13 responses to its Request Expressions of Interest for the redevelopment of its civic center. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 11:50 am by Michelle Claverol
The ABM court also reasoned that “while exclusive access to an area is not necessary to ‘control’ that area, exclusivity strongly supports that ‘control’ exists.” [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 7:23 am by William Ford
Robert Joseph, the former under secretary of state for arms control, Thomas Karako, and Bilyana Lilly. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 1:26 pm by admin
These factors can make it difficult for people interested in nose surgery to select the right nose surgeon. [read post]