167 results for 'filedAt:"2024-03-20"'.
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hodgens upholds the denial of a property owner’s motion to dismiss a real estate company’s complaint, in which the company seeks enforcement of its right of first refusal to purchase the owner’s property. The owner failed to demonstrate that the company’s claim was frivolous. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hodgens, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 22-P-1139, Categories: Property, Real Estate
J. Palafox finds a lower court partially erred in a complicated fraud case in which the suing company, which was working with several other companies to build a solar power facility in Nicaragua, accused its former partners of mislabeling and supplying lower quality solar panels than the parties had agreed to. The lower court was wrong to find that one company involved in the case still had a right to exercise a forum-selection clause in its contract, because the company had “consciously litigated” in Texas and only attempted to exert this option “after receiving an adverse ruling.” Otherwise, the court ruled correctly, including issuing a take-nothing judgement against another company after the suing company failed to address the individual elements of its fraud by nondisclosure claim. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00244-CV, Categories: Fraud, Contract
J. Pulliam issues several rulings, including denying an Air Force worker’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, after that worker sued the secretary of the Air Force in a pro se case for failing to accommodate her alleged disability and retaliating against her. Multiple ripe motions stacked up because the worker has not responded to filings, which she says is a result of service issues. Regardless, the worker’s delays have been “particularly egregious” and have caused undue prejudice, and this court is “uncertain” why she has been unable to receive court orders.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pulliam, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv1186, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment
J. England grants, in part, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment in this slip-and-fall case brought by a customer claiming of negligence and wantonness. The customer argues that Walmart the broken tile should have been discovered by employees as it was part of the premises creating a hazard. Her testimony and evidence support the defect, the piece of tile was present and the reason for her fall. Therefore, the wantonness claim is dismissed and the remaining claim for negligence is denied. The parties are ordered to confer and file a joint status report regarding the next steps.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: England, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv643, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Evidence, Negligence, Premises Liability
J. Goldman holds that a challenge to the trial court's guardianship order is moot since the order expired before appellate briefing was complete. The statutory one-year period of conservatorships poses an inherent risk of mootness for appeals. Appellants requesting extensions should inform appellate courts of a challenged order's expiration date to allow for a timely good cause evaluation.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: A166825, Categories: Civil Procedure, Guardianship
[Consolidated.] J. Bell partially grants the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co.’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in a suit involving more than 200 litigants claiming a design defect in its human papillomavirus vaccine, Gardasil, after they experienced adverse health effects including mobility issues, short-term memory loss and chronic fatigue. However, Merck does not violate the federal Vaccine Act’s direct warning statute just because the litigants’ medical providers failed to issue a warning of the vaccine’s potential side effects.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 3:22md3036, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Corporations, Health Care, Tort
J. Kindred adopts the report and recommendations regarding the government's allegations that a locksmith and security services business and its owner did not pay federal employment and unemployment taxes as required for employers. The government seeks sanctions against the company. The "business does not operate lawfully" as it has "failed to comply with federal tax law, as well as this Court’s orders, for years" and currently owes nearly $2 million in unpaid taxes. The recommended permanent injunction is warranted.
Court: USDC Alaska, Judge: Kindred, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv134, NOS: Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) - Federal Tax Suits, Categories: Employment, Tax, Injunction
J. Douglas finds the district court properly dismissed most claims made by the black property owner against the postal service and two employees. Though the alleged conduct does not fall within tort claims act exceptions, and sovereign immunity does not bar tort claims, the owner fails to state a viable equal protection claim. No facts support her assertion the carriers continued to deliver to similarly situated white property owners while denying her delivery. Affirmed in part.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Douglas , Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 23-10179, Categories: Civil Rights, Government, Tort
J. Nachmanoff grants the cybersecurity employer's motion to dismiss an employment discrimination suit. The employee suffered from various orthopedic and nerve disabilities stemming from his military service, including lumbar strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome, requiring 18 different medicines and accommodations for a parking space and a workable chair. The employee claims the employer harassed him due to his negative assessments of the software and subsequent recommendations. The employee's complaint lacks any factual allegations suggesting that his supervisors’ actions like changing his hours to coincide with personnel in different time zones, or requesting that he attend onsite meetings, had anything to do with his race, age or disability.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Nachmanoff, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv164, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly dismissed the third-party complaint, which alleges the companies had a duty to provide indemnification in an underlying workplace accident complaint. While the drywall that fell on the worker was not being hoisted or secured, the claimed labor laws still apply, and there remains a question of whether the employee was a recalcitrant worker. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: CA 22-01231, Categories: Negligence, Indemnification
J. Grimberg adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and partially grants the employer's motion to dismiss the employee's civil rights and employment retaliation action alleging that she was fired after refusing her supervisor's sexual advances. The employee's claims alleging race, age, disability and religion-based discrimination are dismissed. However, the employee's Title VII sexual harassment claim may proceed. The employee sufficiently alleged that her supervisor fired her for violating a policy against discarding food products when she had not violated the policy.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Grimberg, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv914, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Logue finds the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice the condo owners' lawsuit against their condo association's general counsel in part alleging that the counsel's legal advice caused the association's president to breach his fiduciary duty to them. The counsel's contractual relationship with the association does not mean the counsel has a contractual relationship with the owners, and there is no implied fiduciary relationship between the owners and the counsel as the owners argue. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Logue, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 22-2040, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, Contract
J. Fernandez finds the trial court partially erred in its decision granting leave to add punitive damages claims to the loan recipients' counter-complaint in the lending company's foreclosure lawsuit involving alleged fraud committed by the loan recipients. The trial court's order is affirmed in terms of the claim for punitive damages against the loan processor, but it is reversed as to similar damages against the lending company and the underwriter of the loan. Affirmed in part.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Fernandez, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 23-0559, Categories: Fraud, Foreclosure