Remove Cause of Action Remove Punitive Damages Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Condé Nast Says Models Are “Inhibiting Free Speech” in Vogue Runway Lawsuit

The Fashion Law

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).

Statute 131
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Limits Standing for Class-Action Suits Under FCRA

Constitutional Law Reporter

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 punitive damages. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Supreme Court’s Decision.

Court 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon: a unique class action against fossil fuel companies presses for climate accountability in the United States

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

They also seek punitive damages, 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.

article thumbnail

Australia High Court Delivers Major Blow to Free Speech In Defamation Ruling

JonathanTurley

The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. 47 U.S.C. §

Tort 33
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute. The plaintiffs asserted a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and requested that the court award them compensatory and punitive damages.

Court 56
article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. County of Maui v. The plaintiffs plan to appeal.