This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In the answer that it filed on November 13, Condé Nast argues – by way of seventeen affirmative defenses – that the model plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action against it should be dismissed. The case is Champion et al., Moda Operandi, Advance Publications d/b/a/ Conde Nast , 1:20-cv-07255 (SDNY).
The FCRA also creates a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain violations. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded each class member statutory damages and punitivedamages. Congress may enact legal prohibitions and obligations.
A 25-person legal technology company in California is fighting back against one of the world’s largest law firms in a lawsuit over ownership rights to legislation-drafting software that each side says was its idea. This litigation should be a warning to all innovative legal technology providers.”. Series of Meetings.
The causes of action in the suit include strict product liability and negligence, and specifically addresses the following questions of law: whether Facebook (i.e. .” The core of this Complaint is similar in that it accuses Facebook of putting “market penetration” and profits before the lives of the Rohingya people.
The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to allege an injury in fact since he “never explained why he had any legal right to have the document distributed.” EPA’s brief is due December 15. National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. Williams , No.
They also seek punitivedamages, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ and expert witness fees and other costs, and other equitable, declaratory, and/or injunctive relief “to assure … an effective remedy.”. Cases brought by cities.
The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by the plaintiff states’ argument that “precedent requires a broad, fact-intensive inquiry into whether altering an injunction is equitable, even if the legal duty underlying the injunction has disappeared.” County of Maui v. The plaintiffs plan to appeal. Her Majesty the Queen (Canadian Federal Court).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content