Complaint : Complaint, And Complain Of Defendants

The facts of the case are as follows: Douglas Castro had access to clients with a combined net

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

Plaintiffs contend the forum selection clause limits them to Virginia state court, where a class action remedy would be unavailable to them; this, they contend, violates California public policy favoring consumer class actions and renders the forum selection clause unenforceable.” (Doe 1 v AOL LLC, 2009) The district court granted AOL’s motion and dismissed the action.

In West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004), a California resident, Patricia Sanford, filed a class action complaint against West Corporation and WTC (a subsidiary of West Corp.), telemarketing firms organized in Delaware and headquartered in Nebraska, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the consumers legal remedies act; (2) unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices; (3) untrue and/or dishonest advertising; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud and deceit; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Essentially, one of West’s telemarketers had misrepresented a product during a sales pitch in which the caller (Sanford) had purchased the product over the phone. West claims that the California court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them because they did not maintain any offices or employees in California, was not licensed to do business in California, nor did they own any property located in California. Moreover, West motioned the court to quash the service of summons; however, the court denied the request and ruled that the court was authorized to assert personal jurisdiction over their corporation.

2. Defendants Eric A. Northbrook and Curtis M. Lockey were, and at all times mentioned in this complaint were residents of San Diego County, California. Defendant Eric A. Northbrook is a resident of the city of Encinitas.

The first key moment is fifteen minutes, forty-one seconds into the oral argument. Robert Hilliard, the representative of Hernandez, argues that the jurisdiction of the United States extends into

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

The district court had jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this issue involves a federal question. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March, 2018. Petitioner’s filed their notice of appeal within the 30-day limit allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides for review of all final decisions of district courts.

Christine Rotolo, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. San Jose Sports and Entertainment LLC, al., Defendants and Respondents.

Defendants, Gerry Goldman and Mary Goldman, by their attorneys, ADLER, MURPHY, & MCQUILLEN LLP, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss their the Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2-603 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, dismiss Counts, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2014)).

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due