If International Life can prove fraudulent joinder of Maloney, the case is removable under diversity of citizenship. In McCabe v. General Food Corp., the court held that when Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the resident Defendant and the failure is obvious, the joinder is fraudulent. McCabe v. General Food Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987). The defendants presented facts showing the joinder was fraudulent. Id. Additionally, Defendants were fraudulently joined because they were working in a managerial capacity. Id. General Food had ratified their actions. Id. If plaintiff alleged they acted on their own initiative, then joinder was valid. Id. Similarly, International Life can show that Maloney was working in the capacity of a salesperson during presentation in Alameda. The sales pitch was standard for the company and the policy was not out of the ordinary. Plaintiff claims Maloney received significant commissions for the sales. However, this does not equate to Maloney acting on his own initiative. It is likely the court will hold that there was fraudulent joinder. Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted …show more content…
28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) (2016). International Life received the complaint on August 31, 2016. However, in Murphy Bros, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing the court held that if the complaint is filed in court, prior to any service, then the removal period runs from service of the summons. Murphy Bros, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999). International Life has received the complaint and no summons. Thus, the period for removal begins when the summons is received. Removal should be
The facts of the case are as follows: Douglas Castro had access to clients with a combined net
A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.
Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? (P.166)
Our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Incorporation, leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. The Defendant, Mr. Calkin was involved in a collision by failing to stop at a stop sign, therefore colliding with Jane White, the Plaintiff. Ms. White filed a negligence law suit against Mr. Calkin and Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. In the complaint, the Plaintiff claims that our client is required to carry insurance under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act and therefore, has the duty to assume liability for the Defendant’s negligent collision. This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint.
Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be
In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their
2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great
When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).
Levy introduced me to is contractual law. Mr. Levy allowed me to assist on insurance cases, which included observing meetings, summarizing depositions, and reviewing contracts. Even though I had experience reviewing contracts while working a couple of summers for a General Counsel at a large business, this was completely different because these agreements were among insurance companies and individuals, instead of insurance companies and businesses. Mr. Levy works on behalf of insurance companies, mostly State Farm, when they have disputes with their clients over wind and hail coverage. These cases are interesting because Mr. Levy has to not only deal with the individuals that are claiming the insurance company didn’t follow the contract, but he also must deal with the adjuster in each case. Mr. Levy gave me the responsibility of summarizing the depositions of the adjusters to confirm that none of them said anything that was contradictory or detrimental to State Farm’s case. Often these cases end with settlements or dismissals because either the insurance company decides to compensate the individuals or the attorney representing the insurance company gets a favorable summary judgment. Mr. Levy and other attorneys representing insurance companies frequently seek summary judgments when the plaintiffs don’t have significant evidence to prove that the insurance companies violated the contract. In most of the insurance cases that I assisted Mr. Levy on he was able to receive summary judgment because the plaintiffs didn’t have enough evidence to prove that State Farm was responsible for paying the
1) Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. He wants to settle the case. Write a memo to him which states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws which apply and any precedential cases either for or against Teddy’s case which impact liability. Include in the memo your suggested “offer of settlement” to Virginia. Back up your offer using your analysis of the case against Teddy’s.
Mr. Brent alleges that GEICO did not have the authority to act on behalf of the patient with respect to the Settlement Agreement and did not receive consent for the settlement from the patient or the patient’s attorney. He characterizes this as GEICO “misrepresenting” its ability to act for the patient. Mr. Brent indicates that as a result of GEICO’s alleged misrepresentation, he is contemplating adding GEICO as a defendant to the pending lawsuit between the patient and GEICO’s insured. Mr. Brent also states that if GEICO is added as a defendant, he will have no choice but to add Hospital as a defendant to “avoid the empty chair.” Mr. Brent does not identify any alleged wrongful conduct by Hospital, let alone how it engaged in misrepresentation
Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.
II. Can our client show a special injury from another earlier suit against him, as required to have an action for malicious prosecution, when his charter boat was seized pending the suit as allowed by state, and when his professional reputation was damaged because of the suit?
"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.
This case happened during the economy recession recently. Overall, the point views from the company were claimed from the