reference_file_1.txt

In order to obtain discovery regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction, at a minimum, the plaintiff must establish a convincing or self-evident showing of personal jurisdiction.
Complainants argue that defendants knew, or should have known, that the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia associated with Risperdal is significantly higher than with older, cheaper, and equally effective “typical” antipsychotic drugs.
In addition, Palermo claims that his manager, Brittany Williams (Williams), who is a black female, and another one of his direct supervisors, Terry Green (Green) were aware of his Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints, the 2004 Case, and the 2008 Case.
Arch took no action on eight of those claims (Chart, Claims 13-20), and issued a denial letter for the ninth claim (Chart, Claim 21) on March 1, 2010 by re-asserting its position noted before and further asserting that an intervening Endorsement No.
Because, apparently, no act of reverence goes unpunished, the Federal Circuit then invalidated this Court’s grant of summary judgment to Amphastar and held, in November, 2015, 'that the provision granting protection from liability or penalty if certain conditions are met did not apply to' its infringing activities.
This Court “may consider a number of factors, including whether the work performed was repetitious, if a lawyer takes extra time due to inexperience, or if a lawyer performs tasks normally performed by legal assistants, clerical personnel, or other non-lawyers.”
Obviously, and to the extent further discussion of essential character is even necessary here: the essence of pots and pans is to contain and cook, and they can serve those functions with or without lids. While lids may complete or enhance that purpose, they are merely incidental thereto and serve no purpose otherwise without the pots/pans to which they are intended to be fitted or combined.
Moreover, under section 5121, a determination of whether accrued benefits should be granted “must be determined based on evidence that was either'physically or constructively in the [deceased claimant’s] file at the time of his death.” Ralston v. West, 13 Vet.App.
We will pay all sums an “insured” legally must pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies, caused by an “accident” and resulting from “garage operations” involving the ownership, maintenance or use of covered “autos”.
Where, as here, a prisoner “challenges the very fact or duration of his physical detention, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that detention, his sole federal remedy is a judge's order to bring prisoner into court.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct.
At verbal argument, ST argued that it is clear that no renewal premium is due under ST’s premium plan because the document setting forth the premium plan, the 2005 Flow Plan, nowhere mentions renewal premiums being due after the maximum contaminant level is reached.
Therefore, the government presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that defendant pledged “all furniture, equipment, and fixtures” in each of the four properties listed, including the restaurant, and that he falsely represented that no one else held any interest in the security deposit.
If the complainant succeeds in doing so, the burden of production shifts to the respondent "to express some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct.
However, because the Court had previously ruled against those additional arguments during the September 7 hearing and specifically narrowed Defendant's supplemental argument to the issue of § 6308, and because Defendant’s reply raises new issues insofar as neither its supplemental filing nor Plaintiff's response raised those issues, the Court rejects those argument without thought.
The closest Williams comes to addressing the Baze standard is in a heading in the briefs outline that reads, “What is known of the State’s Revised protocol indicates that Williams will likely suffer unnecessary, unlawful, and severe pain during execution.”
This is unargued, but neither party provides any evidence as to what kind of hospital complainants would be placed in, what level of care they would receive, what services they would be entitled to during their hospitalizations, or the probable durations of their hospital stays.
In sum, because Trader Joe’s has made no showing that the lack of an “All Natural” label would imply or suggest ascorbic acid inferiority in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and Food & Drug Administration regulations, it has made no showing that plaintiffs’ Juice-related claims are preempted.
To be sure, to win on her alienation of affections claim, Plaintiff must prove: (1) love and affection of the spouse for the plaintiff; (2) actual damages; and (3) clear acts, conduct, or attraction on the part of the defendant causing those affections to depart.
Even after the execution of the Contract, Starr and Carson each signed various purchase orders that indicated delivery to Jas-min’s address; Trina delivered the solar panels directly to Jasmin in Australia; and Jasmin accepted and installed the panels, at one point stating in an email to Trina on which JRC was copied that Jasmin would pay the invoices.
Section 103 of the Patent Act forbids the issuance of a patent where “the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. In challenging the validity of Claims 1 and 9 of the ’681 Patent—both of which are independent claims—Nash cites the Section 103 of the Patent Act.
In doing so, the Board should be mindful that it has a special obligation to read the filings made by persons without the assistance of an attorney open-mindedly.
Failure to comply with this procedural instruction causes the notice of pendency to become non valid from the time it was executed.
The party who is making a request to the court must demonstrate that the pleadings, discovery and written statements show that there is no dispute over material facts and that they have the right to request to the court to render a judgment that the opposing party’s evidence is insufficient.
Therefore, the court must accept the request of the defendant to dismiss the case if it answers the following questions in the affirmative: (1) whether defendants are provider(s) … of an interactive computer service.
There are no acceptable evaluations and no significant matter in the weekly training. The human resources team stated that they do not have a case. Steve’s report may completely change depending on the 6th step information.
Merck argues that Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 and the following articles restrict making the state whistleblower claim regulated under Federal Rules of Civil Peocedure 12(b)(1) and - 12(b)(6). This is why Merck requests the dismissal of this claim.
In Flourine’s view, Amtrak can only seize a propoerty interest if there are no other practicable solutions. Flourine requests the Court to search the facts regarding Amtrak’s seizure decision.
There is no indication in the April 1988 rating decision that the RO did not take into account the evidence in the records or the application of Article 4.16(b). The Court cannot make such conclusion because of the mere fact that RO stayed silent.
If the Court decides that such costs constitute a sufficient economic injury to decide that there is sufficient connection to be able to request remedy, any plaintiff bringing a UCL claim will automatically be entitled to be involved in the legal proceedings simply by bringing peoceedings.
The Veterans Court declared that it is authorized to grant remedy by compelling a lower court to perform an act. However, it noted that this kind of remedy can only be granted for extraordinary circumstances as it is a drastic one.
Vivendi’s argument is that GAMCO should have uncovered information that would enable it to disregard Vivendi’s misinterpretations. However, these arguments fail because the plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable care against their own injury is not a defense against securities fraud.
The legal principle protecting certain confidential commucations from disclosure without the client’s permission, accepts that sound legal advice or advocacy serves public purposes and such advice or advocacy depends upon the attorney being fully informed by the client.
Plaintiffs responded by stating that, according to the written revision of the original complaint filed previously, the parties have negotiated on an unsigned draft Operating Agreement, which stipulates that they will jointly operate the proton therapy center.
The only exception to this general rule is when the court is tranferring the case to another jurisdiction has already decided an issue based on its own interpretation of the law. In such case, even the tranferee court must base their decisions to that interpretation for that specific matter. However, this exception is not applicable here.
Within the scope of ESA, the mere fact that pinniped predation is having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of protected salmonids does not mean that pinniped predation is endangering those salmonids.
The court determined whether Capital-Source still has a right - collateral - in the cash proceeds securing the payment. While doing so, it decided that pursuant to Article 9-332, Capital Source lost such right in the funds after Debtor (Delco Oil) tranferred them to Marathon.
The office dealing with the persons who have been convicted of a crime but are allowed to remain out of custody filed a petition to cancel the Defendant’s supervised release. The office claimed that the Defendant had been (1) associating with a convicted felon (a female) without permission, and (2) expelled from the PRC for making threatening statements to a staff member.
Therefore, the court’s analysis in this decision focuses only on the first step of the above investigation: determining whether the state legislation require or allow antitrust violation considering nothing else but only the state legislation.
The requests made to the court, responses, replies, supporting evidence, the argument of counsel, and the relevant jurisdictions’ law to be applied to the case were considered. Accordingly, the court will accept the request regarding the summary judgement and dismiss all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. The court will also dismiss all other requests for the reasons to follow.
The court is now seeing the case titled “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of Defendants Gene Byron Schenberg, Richard F. Huck, III, Michael J. McKitrick, Danna McKitrick, P.C., NetSecure Technologies, Ltd. and Daniel McCann.”
Plaintiffs’ actions (1) required defendant to submit three additional motions (2) unnecessarily lengthened this case, (3) required defendant to spend more money than it should have, and (4) wasted the time of both defendant and the Court.
During the interview, Defendant commented to Chief Koivunen that he had been using methamphetamine the previous week. He said that he was “up over a week.” Defendant also stated that he had been using methamphetamine on May 6 “all day.”
In the two years following Mr. Dodson’s death, Mrs. Carroll did not seek Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (“DIC”) benefits. DIC are allowances paid to the “surviving spouse” of a veteran whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease.
Wendy's found that a jury demand meant that a contractual jury waiver was given up. But, the opinion contains essentially no reasoning and does not explicitly say whether the jury demand in that case was "proper”, as it should be according to Rule 38, sub-paragraph d of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The debtor under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, Gary D. Barbee (“Debtor”), filed a complaint against U.S. Bank National Association as trustee for the Truman FHA Trust 2008-1, through its mortgage administrator BAC Home Loan Servicing (“Bank”). By this complaint, he wanted to avoid paying the Bank interest in his manufactured home pursuant to Title 11 of U.S. Code.
Morgan Stanley had not yet requested that a summary judgment to be given on plaintiffs’ claims that Morgan Stanley made misleading statements due to negligence. But I ordered plaintiffs to show reasons for why their claims against Morgan Stanley should not be rejected in light-of my finding that Morgan Stanley made no misstatement to plaintiffs that can cause a legal action.
The Audit Report also admitted only partial compliance with Standard 2100, regarding “a broader and more formalized approach in performing risk assessment procedures than is currently in practice at Chipotle,” and that IA believed Standard 2100’s “level of detail is not necessary or appropriate in the Chipotle environment.”
According to God-frey, Ralph Thumma, Loretta Seneca, Michael Froio, and Andy Keller, all employees at HOPE, would have said that Godfrey was not involved in the sales process, that all sales were handled by Burris and Fischer, and that Burris conducted all hiring and training of employees. (See Docket # 336, at 6-10)
This court has the power to review a decision of the CAVC “with respect to the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation ... or any interpretation thereof (but not with respect to determination of facts) that was relied on by the [CAVC] in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C.
One of the Board decisions the appellant was appealing was the June 2008 Board decision. This became clear when he filed his motion without a lawyer's assistance to recall the mendate in February 2012. Later he filed his informal brief, which included arguments on the merits of the Substantive Appeal issue decided in the June 2008 Board decision.
In its papers in opposition to BDP’s motion for judgment, Deltech says that BDP signed a contract to perform freight-forwarding duties for Stolt and identifies this Stolt/BDP contract as the operative one. Deltech also identified the violation as a failure to properly prepare the bill of lading, and states that it is a beneficiary outside of the contract.
Unclean hands is a self-imposed principle that prevents someone involved in a matter from seeking relief in a court of equity if they have acted unfairly or in bad faith. This principle originates from the saying, "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
First, in the Civil Remedy Notice filed with the State of Florida, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has already been provided with enough information to justify offering the maximum insurance coverage as a settlement. the Plaintiff also advised that she was willing to accept the policy limits to resolve the dispute. [DE 1-2 at 16].
Plaintiff Laura J. Ramos alleged that her employer, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), discriminated against her on the basis of her race (Count I), subjected her to a hostile work environment (Count II), and acted in retaliation against her after she complained about this before the administrative authorities (Count III).
For the reasons stated above, the Court reverses its May 31, 2013, decision. The Court also rejects Mrs. Tagupa’s request to be permitted to submit additional evidence. It also revokes the Board’s August 2, 2011 decision, and send the matter back for VA to verify the service from the Department of the Army.
It is clear, therefore, that upon receipt of a letter disputing the factual accuracy of information in a consumer’s file, Section 1681i imposes a duty on a CRA both to reinvestigate and to either delete the disputed information or disclose the current status of the disputed information to the person disputing the information.
However, plaintiff chose not to make a “denial-of-benefits claim” under Paragraph 1132(a)(1)(B). This is presumably because of the broad discretion that the defendant has in interpreting the terms of the Certificate. This discretion in turn would necessitate a showing that its decision to deny the plaintiff’s claim was arbitrary and careless.
Where, as here, a prisoner challenges the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and he requests the determination that he should be released immediately or more speedily, his only federal solution is an order of bringing him before a court. (Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct.)
It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to, among other things, interfere with, restrain, or force any employee while exercising any right under the Civil Service Reform Act chapter on union and labor rights or to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of this chapter. (U.S. Code: Title 5)
The Court notes, however, that the clause giving authority to pay the attorney’s fees in Estate of Gaines is much broader than the clause in this case. The clause in this case limits the payment of attorney’s fees to “charges caused by the administration of the Trust.” Restated Revocable Living Trust dated May 1, 2006, DN 27-6, p. 13.
Conversely, when the majority of the evidence weighs against the claim, “[the Board] necessarily has determined that the evidence is not ‘nearly equal’ or ‘too close to call,’ and the benefit of the doubt rule therefore has no application.” Ortiz v. Principi 274 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2001).
Broad preventive bans that fail to ‘respond exactly to the substantive problem which lawfully concerns’ the State cannot resist intermediate examination.” 838 F.3d at 73 (quoting Members of City Council of City of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 810, 104 S.Ct.
The underlined provision is referred to as the “disclosure-allowing provision” and in Johnson 2015 the Supreme Court decided that the provision “rejects reasonable warning to respondents and invites subjective application by judges,” and, therefore, violates the legal requirements provision of the Constitution.
Sony attached the images with its message "User's current photo downloads included the following:..." It is only possible that a natural person can know about Susan_214's photos with a use of a filter like hash value system.
The court saw “no way for the government to obtain a meaningful share in a whole property without losing the right to have some part of the innocent spouse’s interest, as long as the spouses remain married to each other and do nothing to end the whole property.”
The bankruptcy court decided in favor of NBI without full a full trial on November 9, 2011. White can no longer sue NBI before the courts whether he committed fraud against NBI. White is sentenced to damages in the amount of $378,486.17.
However, the DOC accepts that it is unfamiliar with the billing practices of most Minnesota shops. The DOC reached this conclusion from statements from Reid, Rosar, Schmultz, and a few others associated with Minnesota’s auto-glass industry.
Accordingly, Ms. Cheeo could have been granted an extension of deadline to submit her claim if she had been careful enough to avoid liability between July 6, 2011 — the date of the Board decision — and October 6, 2011 — the date on which the Board decision was resent to her at her new address.
Over a year, the Plaintiff received $108,500.00 from the $424,233.00, which is missing. However, it is unclear whether the $108,500.00 came from one of the Trust Enterprise accounts, Defendant Birch’s IOLTA account, or an unknown account.”
The District Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim that they worked beyond normal working hours was inadequate based on facts. The reason is that despite numerous claims, the plaintiffs could not prove a specific instance where a named Plaintiff worked for more hours, for which he was not compensated.
Haddad alleges that Midland Funding is a collection agency licensed by the State of Illinois. It uses the mail and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others. It seeks to collect the debt of consumers who failed to pay on time.
The Court concluded that the lawmakers used the phrase to mean the interpretation of Defendants, rather than of Plaintiff, based on the examples of the lawmaker’s other uses of the disputed phrase, the ones similar to it in other versions of the statute and the enactment applicable here.
The court needs additional facts to conclude that Benedetto’s arrest was either “a basic assumption on which the contract was made” or “foreseeable.” Thus Delta cannot assert with the given facts that the arrest is unforeseen making the performance of the contract impossible to defeat Benedetto’s claim that Delta breached its obligations under the contract.
"Retention” and “maintaining the status quo” used by plaintiffs in the minutes cannot be certainly interpreted by the Committee as an intent to provide enhanced benefits to employees whose entities were sold but who continued working for the purchasing employer.
Defendant notes that Department of Justice applies the highest willfulness standard to campaign finance violations for almost 20 years. This was indicated in both its manual published soon after Cheek and Ratzlaf but before Bryan and by its manual published almost 10 years after Bryan.
Although the Plaintiff asks for the termination of the note and mortgage in his Complaint, he argues that deciding whether Blake properly terminated the promissory note does not require the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the property. It also does not result in the Court awarding possession of the property to any party.
The contracting officer wants to choose the approach that provides the best overall value to the Government. He understands that the importance of cost or price may change. For example, cost or price may play affect source selection when the requirement is clearly definable and the risk that parties are unsuccessful to execute the contract is low.
First, the court must examine the elements of a claim. Second, the court should identify claims that are no more than conclusions, which cannot be assumed as true. Finally, the court should assume the accuracy of well-defended claims, and determine whether they reasonably give rise to an entitlement for relief.
He alleged three federal claims. The first claim is that the defendants, acting individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, deprived Beaman of a fair trial by hiding evidence, which could be used to prove Brady’s claims case (individual liability). The second claim is that the defendants conspired to deprive Beaman of evidence that could be used to prove Beaman’s case(conspiracy liability). The third claim is that the defendants should have prevented the violation of his rights but did not (failure to intervene liability).
Plaintiffs further allege that despite the termination of their license agreements, Daewoo and its owner, Ro, continued to rent and sell pirated copies of plaintiffs’ works. These were obtained from the Internet, from unauthorized personal copying, and/or from defendant Korean Korner, Inc. (“Korean Korner”) and defendant Sun Yop Yoo (“Yoo”), the former owner of a now-defunct video store by the name of Ann Bang Video.
Darren L. DeFlanders (“DeFlanders”) appeals from the decisions of the United States of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), approving the decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“The Board”): (i) finding that DeFlanders had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claims for a service-connected disability compensation for a left knee disability and spots on the lungs; (ii) denying compensation for spots on the brain; and (iii) denying a disability rating in excess of 10% for non-cardiac chest pain. 
Briefly stated, the Secretary’s argument that §4.85(a) requires the effective date for an increased disability claim to be set in accordance with the date a Maryland CNC test is administered, not only adds words to the regulation that are not there, but it also conflicts with the plain meaning of section 5110(b)(3), which requires the effective date of an award of increased compensation to be “the earliest date as of which it is conclusive than an increase in disability had occurred.” 38 U.S.C
Given the decision in Koloms, the question remaining for the Court, then, is whether the underlying suits are like the furnace leak in Koloms, namely, the type of isolated, ordinary result from day-to-day operations and properly covered, or whether they arise from “traditional environmental pollution.” Though it may be more art than science to determine when the isolated consequences of normal business operations end and “traditional environmental pollution” begins, the instant case falls cleanly within the definition.
Works Co. are: (1) the defendant's good faith effort to comply with the statute: (2) the defendant's degree of fault; (3) the defendant’s history of previous violations; (4) the nature of the public interest in ensuring compliance with the regulations involved; (5) the nature and circumstances of the violation at issue; (6) the seriousness of the violation; (7) the defendant’s ability to pay; (8) the appropriateness of the size of the penalty to the defendant’s business and the effect of a penalty on the defendant’s ability to continue doing business; (9) that the penalty not otherwise be highly unjust to the observer; (10) the economic benefit gained by the defendant through the violation; (11) the degree of harm to the public; (12) the value of clearing the agency authority of blame; (13) whether the party sought to be protected by the statute had been adequately compensated for the harm; and (14) such other matters as justice may require.
In its negligence claim, the Claimant alleges that Defendant Nonindustrial Disability Insurance’s (NDI) which provides partial wage replacement to eligible State employees who have a loss of wages due to a non-work-related disability, potentially negligent on some conduct included. It is failing to ensure an appropriate chain of custody of the sample in question and failing to share with Claimant and the testing facilities all factors that could affect or influence testing. Also it is failing to consider and eliminate all factors that could improperly influence testing, failing to prevent "false positives" and/or reporting of test results and failing to have pre-test discussions with Claimant to rule out irregularities that could and/or did affect testing. Lastly the NDI is failing to maintain and/or ensure the maintenance of appropriate quality control testing and/or reporting mechanisms and/or protocols; failing to comply with applicable procedures, regulations, protocols and/or laws regarding reporting and/or testing; and failing to monitor and/or control the compliance of others.
For instance, the Two Left Feet treatment supplements the real amateur competitors with a few “goofballs” for “comic relief of course,” and “a few ringers to make the other guys envious and competitive.” Likewise, the treatment describes one host as an “ex law enforcement officer, federal agent, with a masters degree in Social Work,” who would use this background to “manipulate” the other host, a “biochemist with a cool analytical nature, yet a vicious temper,” and who would focus on analyzing competitors using various scientific parameters, such as “bodyfat” and other statistics.
Judge Gordon Graham signed an order appointing Respondents McQueen and Tonigan as special state’s attorneys to investigate and accuse individuals for using their official position in the SAO to give benefits in criminal trials to friends, relatives, and supporters.
At the time, the state-sponsored terrorism exception did not provide an independent ground to file a law suit, but instead acted “as a ‘gateway’ to substantive ground to sue against private individuals that ... may exist in federal, state or international law.”
The claim is based on conduct that occurred before 2004, so in order for the Kansas Securities Act to apply, the case must have been instituted within that limit set for legal action, or by July 1, 2010, five years after the effective date of the Uniform Act. 
To resolve the plot against him, Mr. Blaney requested that the Veterans Court gather a special investigating committee, enter summary judgment on his claims, and issue an decision that would enable Mr. Blaney to sue the Veterans Court and the VA. 
The District Court held a Held a court session for the defendant to raise objections to the evidence and heard statements from one witness for the Government — Officer Hough — and five witnesses for the defense — Ismail, Delaine, Siddiqah, Tazke-yah, and Richard Thomas, III, a friend of Mallory’s.
Although it is generally the case that “when an expert relies on the opinion of another, such reliance goes to the weight, not to the admissibility of the expert’s opinion,” Ferrara & DiMercurio v. St. Paul Mercury Ins.
“Under Twombly’s construction of Rule 8 [a claimant’s] complaint [must] ‘bring[ ] [any] claims’ ... ‘across the line from believable to credible .’ Ibid.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680, 129 S.Ct.
To do this, “a Claimant may show that the employer’s explanation is “unconvincing ... because it has no truth behind it.” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1047 (8th Cir.) 
He stated that he did not understand courtroom procedures, or phrases such as “constitutional right,” “consult with attorney,” “assumption,” or “extent” — all terms that were used by the trial judge in formal conversations with Newman. 
The legal sufficiency of each.claim said against the defendant, a foreign embassy, which is assumingly exempt from suit under the' theory of foreign sovereign immunity,'see Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA"), 28 U.S.C.
One statement was that alcohol dependence can “develop[] to a point where it is permanent without professional help” and “[a]t such time, the person by himself, may lack the capacity to avoid the continued use of alcohol.” Amicus App.
Similarly, in American Power & Light, the Court confirmed an appointment to the SEC to take such actions as necessary to prevent companies from “unfairly or arbitrarily distributing] voting power among security holders.” 329 U.S. at 104-05, 67 S.Ct.
The Board correctly found that “[t]he delayed time between VA’s receipt of notice in January 2009 and its response in September 2009 does not change the fact the [v]eteran had knowledge, nor does it reduce his responsibility.” R. at 9.
The Goldmans contend that HALO has no applicable fraud claim because it “undeniabl[y]” had “full knowledge of the loss of the Track Group.” Under Missouri law, a claimant must lawfully rely on a false statement to put forward a claim of fraud.
The plaintiff said that she went to the clinic almost every month from January 2009 to December 2009. She went there because she had trouble breathing and experienced symptoms such as body pain, fast heart rate, feeling like she was dying, and constant coughing and spitting.
If a claim requests for more than $10,000 in monetary compensation from the federal government, then it may be subject to the Tucker Act. Kidwell v. Dep’t of Army.
In their meeting, the parties refer to this warning of limitation as the May 23 Notice, but the Court will refer to it as the May 24 Notice because the Policy’s 61-day time allowance, began on the 24th when the notice was sent.
In June 5, 2007, Holzrichter received a letter with a question from WisDOT saying: "Is it your decision not to join the Union?" Holzrichter replied saying that it was his own decision because he had some concerns about it related to money, principles, and values.
As a result of this holding, we need not address whether section 5121 of title 38 could be irrelevant to FVECF claims for the additional reason that section 5121 may be preempted by ARRA section 1002(c), which regulates the scope of FVECF survivor claims.
Mr. Lewis has claimed wrongdoings, regarding tuition and fees, and he has asserted that Full Sail charged him for classes he did not attend. However, he has not given any details about false information provided by Full Sail or any other defendant.
Even though Wesolowski has claimed wrongdoing, stating that he initially requested dental treatment on October 1, 2001, and that he was not examined by a dentist until April 11, 2002, he fails to present any factual evidence to support that the delay can be attributed to one or more of the defendants.
Dr. Wood was also unable to arrange a permanent accommodation that would have allowed Crider to fulfill her responsibilities with respect to site visits, conferences and other weekend events without at least some work or travel on Friday nights and Saturdays.
The purpose of the invention is to achieve four goals: (1) stop bubble fluid or air from flowing back through the tube; (2) hold enough bubble fluid to ensure high-quality bubbles; (3) prevent any excess bubble fluid from dripping down the outside of the tube; and (4) prevent this dripping from reaching the user.
The RO granted Mr. Delisle a 100 percent disability rating from April 7, 2010, to May 31, 2011, and assigned a 60 percent rating, as well as a total disability rating based on individual employability for the period after May 31, 2011.
To simplify matters, we'll refer to the other creditors as the "Lender Group." Mittman acted on behalf of the Lender Group and engaged in significant legal disputes with the Judgment Creditors over the right to receive approximately $841,000.00 owed to the Debtor by Vonage.
The Board recognized that DC 5280 could be relevant due to Mr. Copeland's hallux valgus diagnosis, but decided that his condition was not severe enough to warrant a separate disability rating because it was only "slight to moderate" without surgery.
The cases Regions cites in support of its argument do not thoroughly analyze this supposed requirement, but only briefly mention being "charged for the call." See Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 859 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1329 (S.D.Fla.2012); Knutson v.
If not, the ALJ proceeds to step four, where they assess the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform physical or mental work activities on a regular basis, despite limitations caused by the combined impairments.
Given that Huitink used established engineering standards and that similar designs exist in the market, and he admits creating his proposed alternative design solely for the purposes of this lawsuit.
After reviewing the relevant Ohio and federal statutes, he found that “abuse” is defined as “the willful pain of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental agony.”
In the performance, Plaintiffs provide legitimate accusations that MacIntyre was not paid for a total of 76 hours of overtime between 2012 and 2014, and Sullivan was not paid overtime for a total of 48 hours in 2013 and 2014.
The Government argues that Mr. Haddad lacks the right to bring a lawsuit for the '844 patent, as he gave away all significant rights to Astornet, the sole exclusive licensee of the '844 patent.
The First Circuit has ruled that “punishment claims are preserved so long as the punishment is reasonably related to and grows out of the discrimination complained of to the agency.”
To avoid being dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must present enough factual information in their claim to make it "plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct.
Generally, more weight is given to the opinions of treating sources. If they are supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and align with other important evidence, then even authority is given. (20 CFR 416.927(d)2).
Trooper Rivera, working under the name "Jose," told Haskell that he could make up for the failed drug deal by burning down a house in Springfield and an abandoned property in Holyoke, Massachusetts. This act is part of a fictional insurance scam "Jose" was supposedly arranging.
Suppose an example of an unusual disability is found. In that case, the RO or Board must determine whether related factors exist, such as noticeable interference with employment and frequent periods of hospitalization that make the regular schedular standards impractical. 38 C.F.R.
In open court, the judge noted what he had decided on but not why he reached these conclusions or how he thought a jury could properly use the tax evidence. He would allow evidence about Lawson failing to report income but not filing tax reports.
As I explained in the pretrial decision, courts examine the projects to determine whether a defendant has shown the routine maintenance exemption. Courts consider the activity's nature, extent, purpose, frequency and cost to reach a common-sense conclusion.
To obtain a favorable decision, the suer must show the following: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) was sexually harassed; (3) the harassment was based on sex and (4) worsened the work environment; and that (5) the employer is responsible at least indirectly.
Several courts have decided that placing child pornography in a shared folder on a file-sharing network requires distribution enhancement. However, no court has used the Sentencing Guidelines definition of "distribution" to clarify the term's meaning.
Therefore, if a restriction or condition is purposeless, a court may assume by law that the purpose of the governmental action is an unfair and unusual punishment.
Lastly, he claims that on August, 2014, he learned the “forms never reach[ed] [the New] Orleans[] [RO]” and “the counselor [] was upset that [he] continue® to call asking about these form[s] and want[ed] to know who [] [he] had been talking to,” and refused to file a notice of application.
A jury does not have to accept an expert's opinion, and defendants' experts present different views. However, based on suers' experts' views, a jury could somewhat find that it is more likely than not that one of the defendants' PIFs was contaminated and caused E.B.'s illness,
About one week later, the FTC and the defendant decided on a Consent Judgment and Order. Defendant agreed to this. This included not assessing or collecting “any Fee for a Default-Related Service unless it is a reasonable Fee charged ... for a Default-Related Service that is actually performed.” (Doc.
The date of admission of a veteran maintained at VA expense at a non-VA hospital is the date of receipt of a claim if VA maintenance was previously authorized. However, if VA maintenance was granted after the admission, the date VA received is the date of admission.
Ms. Haynes later submitted a request to the Regional Office to reopen her claim on the presentation of new documentation. This showed a decision by the Army Board of Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) to award Ms. Haynes an annuity as a “former spouse” under the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (“USFSPA”).
Mayor Grad published a “From Your Mayor” opinion piece in the Farmingdale Observer after he was elected five months ago. This opinion piece stated: “We have defined an area of the Village for possible redevelopment and have ... put this plan on the ‘front burner.’ Much of the property [near] Secatogue Avenue ... is within the ‘blighted’ area.”
The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law gross negligence claim and federal question jurisdiction over the 1983 claim. According to the law, "a federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is bound to apply the law of the forum state to the same extent as if it were exercising its diversity jurisdiction." Bass v. First Pac
The guidelines in the 2005 Flow Plan are set clearly in “SunTrust Mortgage guidelines that are currently being used and have been mutually agreed upon.” The partial integration policy is unlike this guideline in a few situations. The situations are: the written instrument is indecisive on a material discussion and fails to create a “complete legal obligation” afterwards.
While contacting this court, the suer argued that she satisfied the requirements for non-service-connected burial support due to a few reasons. These reasons include: (1) veterans deserving compensation at death should be included in the phrase “in receipt of compensation” in section 2302(a)(1), and (2) Mr. Wingard deserved compensation at his death because 38 U.S.C.
The suer must show four things to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981: (1) it is a member of a protected group; (2) it sought to enter into a contractual relationship with the defendant; (3) it satisfied the defendant's normal requirements to enter into a contract with it; and (4) it was denied the opportunity to enter into a contract with the defendant that was typically granted to businesses owned by white people.
Courts may order an official to complete their duties only if the following three conditions are met: 1) the petitioner must show that he lacks a decent alternative way to gain the desired relief, guaranteeing that the order is not used as a substitute for the appeals process, 2) the petitioner must show a clear and undeniable right to the order, and 3) the court must be convinced, given the situation, that the order is required.
To determine when the Secretary of Labor starts an action under this subsection for the purposes of the statutes of limitations outlined in section 255(a) of this title, it will be considered to have started in the case of any individual claimant on the date the complaint is filed if he is specifically named as a party plaintiff in the complaint, or if his name did not so appear, on the subsequent date on which his name is added as a party plaintiff in such action.
A federal court may give extra decisions over state law if the state law claims are closely related to the main claims in the case. However, if the court dismisses all the primary claims, it can choose not to handle the state law claims. If it's not more efficient, convenient, and fair for everyone involved, the court should be cautious about handling state law claims. Because the Plaintiffs' complaint doesn't have a valid federal claim, and because this case is in the early stages of the legal process, the Court declines to give extra decisions over the Plaintiffs' state law claims right now.
The Thurman opinion doesn't have any evidence that the plaintiff challenged the use of the limit provision because of the change in the company's structure. However, this Court considers the Sixth Circuit's application of the Chrysler Corporation provision as helpful. Unless there is evidence or legal support against it, the agreement with Pinnacle prevents a valid claim of expecting fair employment conditions.
In this case, Dr. Pence has four opinions: (1) BSC didn't test the Pinnacle product enough before selling it; (2) the Pinnacle product didn't have proper labels; (3) patients couldn't give proper consent for the surgical implantation of the Pinnacle because of the incorrect labeling of these products; and (4) BSC didn't meet the post-market safety standards for their products, which caused more incorrect branding.
But even if the Plaintiff does that and proves a clear case of retaliation because "there is evidence that the unfair job action was partly motivated by protected speech, the government can avoid legal action if it can show that it would have taken the same action even without the protected speech." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998).
Also, any such conclusion is contradicted by Commerce's mention of its final decision in the case of Galvanized Steel and Wire From the People's Republic of China, which describes that Commerce's offsetting practice for the AD cash deposit rate is based on the idea that domestic subsidies have an equal impact on both export and domestic prices.
Ms. Swanson also says that the Veterans Court didn't make the right decision on an issue, but she doesn't back up this claim with anything other than the phrase "controversies to which the United States shall be a part" and mentions two Supreme Court cases related to the power of the courts under Article III.
However, other cases in the Ninth Circuit explains us when detention is considered "prolonged." For example, in the case of Nadarajah v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit looked at Supreme Court cases and saw that the Court used the six-month period as the base for reasonableness.
Considering all the information available—the anonymous caller claiming to have seen everything, the immediate reporting of the incident, and the detailed description of the person with the gun, which matched Rivas-Castro according to the PRPD—the call was reliable.
Citadel also claims that it suffered harm because the agreement between the parties was broken because of losing the benefits that Citadel would have gotten if they could have finished the project and rented it to WRMC, as the agreement stated.
Plaintiffs also says that "the complaint and the exhibits ... claim that there was a pattern of organized criminal activity for around a year." but they claim that the two year rule in order to achieve limited time continuity is not a right rule.
In her summary for the judgment, Otico made an unexpected argument (it was a surprise to Hawaiian and the Court) that Hawaiian didn't pay her for ten minutes of work on eight separate days after she finished the training program.
Even though the title is about war times, section 1157 increases the payment rates in sub-chapter II for veterans who served in wartime and also in other times, as long as they got a disability while on duty during each period of service.
Tutin also wrote that Santangelo had problems to adapt even though he was expected to remember problems and act more quickly progressing and that Tu-tin expected Santangelo to turn Alsip into a more strong and flexible group able to address industry challenges.
If GEICO did not admit it, there is no medical testimony from an expert or her doctor, and there are no circumstances that regular jurors could understand and link to show the causal connection between the accident and her injury. Blair cannot prove that as a matter of law.
The Board also concluded that the medical evidence available, particularly the report from the examiner in 2011, indicated that the cause was other injuries that happened after his service, as well as the natural effects of aging and his job as a truck driver. It did not seem to be any injury during his basic training, Vann's lower back pain was likely cause.
Lastly, going against what Defendant Hernandez claims, the Report stated that, after looking at the evidence, it seems that EPFCU experienced a loss of at least $19 million because of their former employee, Hernandez.
The Second Amended Complaint states that the person bringing the lawsuit is claiming that Boston Heart made "legally false" statements, beacause according to the person, Boston Heart certified that the tests it performed were medically necessary, even though they were not necessary for certain populations.
Using these cases and a textual analysis of the of the rules in question, Husic argues that § 212(h) has only been unavailable for outsiders who was admitted an an LPR, not for someone like Husic who became an LPR after entering the United States lawfully as a visitor.
Similarly, the fact that the rule allows for one additional evaluation "extra-schedular evaluation" based on the "disability or disabilities" suggests that the referral for such an evaluation can be based on the overall impact of all the veteran's disabilities.
Taking into account the policy and reason behind Rule 13(a), the court allowed the claim to proceed because it didn't see any indication of the "circuity of action that Rule 13(a) was aimed at preventing," since the plaintiffs were obligated to bring multiple actions according to the law.
Second, appointing an interim director does not need the appointing authority to provide the same benefits; indeed, if it did, then the on-leave employee could contend that the position was filled on a non-temporary basis while she was on FMLA leave.
Once the movant properly configures a summary-judgment motion, the burden transfers onto the nonmovant—or “the party who bears the burden of proof at trial,” Geshke v. Crocs, Inc.
Furthermore, the plaintiff acknowledges in her Opposition that the Act was enacted “to keep D.C. residents out of harm’s way,” and therefore establishes a “general public duty.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot.
In addition, the Secretary argues that “it is clear [that DC] 5284 is not suitable in this case,” as the plain language of that DC “foreclose[s] rating a foot condition ... that was not the consequence of an in-service injury.”
Plaintiff concedes that her wrongful discharge claim “does not fit within the restrictions of the WLAD, FMLA or WFLA because she did not meet the required number of hours worked in the year previous to the accrual of her claim.”
Because the State of South Dakota filed suit on its own accord in state court in this case, at a time of its own choosing, with its hand-picked defendants, no such unjust prejudice is present, and FAG Bearings can appropriately be acclaimed.
The Government has called at trial two so-called “cooperating witnesses,” ie, alleged co-conspirators of the defendants who have pleaded guilty and who are “cooperating” with the Government by testifying at trial in hopes of receiving a sentence cut.
A farmout agreement is "[a] very common form of agreement between operators, whereby a lease owner not eager for drilling at the time agrees to assign the lease, or some part of it (in common or in severalty) to another operator who is desirous of drilling the tract."
To the extent Mr. Washington argues that the Veterans Court should have decided the gunshot wound claim in his favor without requiring a remand, he raises truthful .issues of adequacy of the evidence concerning his duty status at the time he was shot, and issues of his reliability.
The Fourth Circuit reasoned that Geriatric Release does pot provide juveniles with the chance to acquire release “based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” as required by Graham, because the Parole Board has the authority to reject release “for any reason whatsoever.”
Before this court, Mr. Smith characterizes the Plan as a settlement agreement and states that the Veterans Court failed to “enforce” the settlement agreement; Mr. Smith demands that we remand his case to the Veterans Court with instructions that it “enforce” the settlement agreement approved by this court in NOVA.
In this case, where the plaintiff has not created time-sheets and the defendant has failed to respond, the Court will accept Martinez’s declaration, submitted under the penalty of perjury, as to the hours she worked and wages she received, except to the extent that her statement seeks comfort beyond that sought in the complaint.
In all, the development of the Plan brought an action of shifting and re-shifting parts of the County from one district to another, reviewing the resdlt, and trying again.” The Commissioners deferred greatly to Brace in developing the remedial plans, and further deferred to Brace and their attorneys regarding the plans’ legality.
The quagmire of alternative definitions for offense on a female is further highlighted in the more current cases arising out of the North Carolina appellate courts, which seem to recognize proof of either force or violence, specifically in cases where a battery based on force alone, even if only slight, provides the basis for the “assault” component of the crime.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court finalized that chapter 980 did not require dismissal of Gilbert’s commitment petition because the chapter does not contain language permitting for dismissal in his circumstances, does not arrange a time period for execution of a commitment order, and provides that an individual may be simultaneously committed under chapter 980 and incarcerated at a DOC facility.
Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police Penn-Jersey Lodge 30 (“FOP”) brought this action against Defendant Delaware River Port Authority (“DRPA”) to move the Court for a compulsory injunction ordering the DRPA to submit to binding interest arbitration over the terms and conditions of employment for the patrol officers, corporals, and sergeants whom FOP represents and whom DRPA employs.
Third, because applications for second or consecutive petitions based on Johnson arguably must be filed before June 26, 2016 (we do not decide that question now), if the Supreme Court concludes in Welch that Johnson is retroactive, failing to hold the applications in abeyance could strip petitioners of the benefit of Johnson’s ret-roactivity and render a determination of retroactivity pointless, as a practical matter.
Finally, this Court has took into account Peters’s reliance on United States v. Quinones, wherein the court, faced with a similar motion, granted the defendant’s demand for a stay of forfeiture, reasoning that “[i]f the government were to sell the four parcels in such a [slumped] market, they [sic] would, in effect, be foregoing any potential for appreciation in value once the market recovers; this loss will ultimately be borne by [the defendant] if the forfeiture order is reversed on appeal.”
On appeal, Niehaus reevaluates the accepted facts of this case and attempts to paint USB as an “ ‘eyes wide open’ participant in the fraud.” She bases her allegation that USB conspired with her on the assertions that (1) USB knew of her unlawful conduct by early 2010 when it confronted her about her cheat and asked her to resign; (2) one of USB’s owners refused her resignation and thereby permitted her to continue to embezzle funds; (3) USB advised her to withdraw D.C. and J.C.’s funds and move the money to another bank; arid (4) in the civil suit, USB agreed to release Nie-haus from any and all claims relating to the litigation.
Witness, for example, his proceeded emphasis on the facts that Mr. Mitchell could have appealed the September 2003 decision, challenged its determination that fresh and material evidence had not been submitted, and raised the truth that VA never respond ed to the December 1973 audiogram, but failed to do so, post at 445, even though the Federal Circuit explicitly denied almost identical objections in Beraud, see 766 F.3d at 1406 n. 1.
The court's main purpose to granting a third party joining into the lawsuit is to promote judicial efficiency. This is achieved by eliminating the necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third individual who may be indirectly liable to the defendant for all or part of the claimant's original claim.
A corresponding insurance exchange, in its pure form, is a web of contractual relationships between subscribers who agree to insure one another, completed through a common agent with power of attorney. The overriding question is whether USAA is properly treated as a corporation or an unincorporated association for purposes of Federal Court's authority on subject matter.
Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C.
See e.g., Potts, 882 F.2d at 1324 (“A statute modifying the content of state tort law doctrines of contributory and comparative lack of care seems to us to be a classic example of the type of fundamental rule of law binding upon a federal court in a diversity case.”); Winningham v. Swift Trans.
“If the conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if it was objectively reasonable for the [official] to believe that his conduct did not violate such a right, then the [official] is protected by qualified immunity.”
In this case, the plaintiff claims, based on the affidavit of their president, that stock ownership in Patriot Lines and Vessel Operations was limited to the Brophy family and that these two companies were essentially a front for the Brophys' activities.
In essence, we have a responsibility to offer greater support and protection to the families experiencing what is undoubtedly the most dreadful period in their lives.
Instead, “[vigorous other party interrogation, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”
Such standards are critical because even in cases where a regulation is content- neutral on its face, “placing unconstrained freedom to decide in the hands of a government official or agency ... may result in censorship.” Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 758, 108 S.Ct.
The Agreement further states that the “arbitrators must make their decision within 60 days following the ending of the hearing” and that “[t]he majority decision of any two arbitrators” of the three-arbitrator panel “will be final and binding” on the parties.
Here, Giwa has presented no evidence at all to counter Landes’ statement under oath. That sets forth her understanding of the facts, on which she based her conclusion that Giwa was under-performing as a Senior Urban Planner or that he made mistakes that deserved a lower rating.
Underwriting purposes include, among other things, the decision whether or not to issue a policy, the amount and terms of coverage, and whether to renew or cancel a policy, but an insurer may not obtain a consumer report for the purposes of evaluating a claim.
That record also stated that on that date the “[c]ourt found defendant guilty as charged in the information and ordered a Judgment of guilt to be entered on the record.... Court ordered defendant placed in bail into the custody of the Milwaukee County Sheriffs Department.”
The issue here is whether an insured can round up general settlements from its subcontractors, unilaterally decide that they will be allocated to uncovered compensation, and then go after the insurers that would cover the damages if the loss was properly allocated to that policy.
The Supreme Court briefly addressed the issue within the scope of the Fair Housing Act, summarizing that if a tester has “suffered injury in precisely the form the statute was intended to guard against,” then regardless of the motivation behind bringing the suit, an injury has occurred.
For past performance, the solicitation informed offerors that “[t]he Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon the past performance of major or critical aspects of the requirement as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements.”
When a federal court sits in diversity, it “authortiy over a non-resident defendant if (1) an applicable state long-arm statute grants authority and (2) the assertion of that authority is consistent with constitutional fairness of proceedings.” Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 991 F.2d 1195, 1199 (4th Cir.1993).
A decision is considered “final and ... re-examinable where it 1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines the seperate issue to which it is addressed.” Dye v. Brown (In re AFI Holding, Inc.), 530 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Schulman v. California (In re Lazar), 237 F.3d 967, 985 (9th Cir.2001)).
Once admitted into the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) system, Brooks received a chemical-dependency assessment, as all new persons under confinement are required to have under Minnesota law, and was ordered to complete treatment in order to be transferred to a lower-security prison, qualify for work release, and avoid disciplinary sanctions.
Such a need is established if either: (1) failure to obtain expedited processing would pose an “fast approaching threat to the life or physical safety of an individual”; or (2) the requester is “primarily engaged in spreading information” and shows an “urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C.