|
|
|
Court Rules For Private Lawyer Hired By CA City
Law Center |
2012/04/17 09:31
|
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that private individuals hired temporarily by local governments have the same protection against civil rights lawsuits as public employees.
Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday that it makes no sense to treat people differently because one person is a full-time government employee and another has been retained for a discrete task.
The court sided with attorney Steve Filarsky, who was hired by the city of Rialto, Calif., to investigate the possible misuse of sick leave. Filarsky and several full-time Rialto employees were sued by a firefighter who was under investigation.
Lower courts threw out claims against all the city employees, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco said Filarsky's case was different because he was not employed by Rialto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York Securities Industry Litigation Law Firm
Law Center |
2012/03/14 10:19
|
We have an extensive track record of successful engagements that can be matched by few firms of our size. With a dedicated focus on the financial services arena, we represent broker-dealers, registered representatives and other industry participants in a broad spectrum of securities disputes in court and in FINRA arbitration. Our principal attorney has handled approximately 200 FINRA arbitrations and has a lengthy record of success in those matters that have been tried to verdict.
Securities Litigation and Arbitration
Our clients have entrusted us to litigate sales practice disputes of virtually every type, encompassing a wide variety of products. As a small law firm, we are free from the conflicts faced by many larger law firms. This flexibility enables us to represent investors with substantial claims, along with claims in which one broker-dealer is adverse to another. Our founding partner is a certified arbitrator for FINRA and the NFA and formerly served as in-house counsel for an NYSE-member broker-dealer. This in-the-trenches experience provides unique insight to our advocacy.
Herskovits Law is a New York based law firm and has expertise in defending clients facing allegations of market manipulation and assorted FINRA rule violations. Their experience consistently guides their approach to successfully help fight for the rights of the victims of industry allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court orders May 29 primary date for Texas
Law Center |
2012/03/03 10:19
|
The federal court in San Antonio has ordered Texas to hold its primary elections on May 29, resolving for now one of the biggest issues in the state's redistricting battles.
The three-judge panel issued the election schedule two days after releasing political maps for Texas to use in the 2012 election. Legal disputes over the maps for congressional and House districts have kept Texas from holding elections.
In the primary schedule released Thursday, the filing period for candidates reopens Friday and closes March 9.
While the court order clarifies the election schedule, some minority groups complain that the election maps are unfair and still are seeking changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business & Corporate Law Firm
Law Center |
2012/02/29 09:41
|
Entity Selection & Formation
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
Contract Drafting & Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is a Business & Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Law Center |
2012/02/26 10:16
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Bankruptcy Law Firm - Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP
Law Center |
2012/02/12 10:13
|
Creditor’s Rights
The Firm’s creditors’ rights expertise also includes such areas as foreclosures and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure; appointment of receivers; replevin, garnishment and attachment proceedings, pre-judgment and post-judgment; suits on guaranties, Uniform Commercial Code issues, and other commercial litigation matters.
Debt Relief
Our attorneys help individuals, consumers, business investors and small businesses file for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, whether it be a liquidation under Chapter 7 or a reorganization under Chapters 11 or 13. We strive to provide a high degree of service and personal care to each of our clients. Our philosophy is simple: provide competent and high quality bankruptcy services for a reasonable fee.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based law firm. Their attorneys have substantial experience collecting monies owed to their business clients in Indiana state courts and in federal bankruptcy courts. The firm continues to focus on maximizing their client's recovery in an fast and cost-effective manner. Their goal is to provide high quality services and they have a lengthy record of success to show for it. Visit www.rbelaw.com to see more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP Secures $10 Million Settlement
Law Center |
2012/02/08 09:40
|
Labaton Sucharow LLP announced a nationwide class action settlement valued at $10 million with All Market, Inc., the leading manufacturer and seller of coconut water in the United States.
Coconut water is one of the fastest growing beverages sold in the United States. Vita Coco markets its coconut water as “super-hydrating,” “nutrient-packed,” “mega-electrolyte,” and healthy “super-water.” Labaton Sucharow filed a proposed nationwide class action, styled Fishbein et al., v. All Market Inc., No. 11-cv-05580, against the company after an independent study revealed that Vita Coco’s products do not contain the electrolyte levels indicated on the products’ labels. The class action complaint alleges that Vita Coco’s coconut water products are mislabeled and do not hydrate more effectively than less expensive sports drinks.
Kellie Lerner, one of the attorneys in the action, stated: “For the millions of consumers who pay for products that claim to improve their health, this settlement sends a message that companies will be held accountable when they exaggerate or misstate the health benefits of their products.”
Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York City and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country’s premier law firms representing institutional investors in class actions and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive or deceptive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for close to 50 years, seeking recovery of losses and the adoption of necessary corporate governance reforms to protect investors, businesses and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
