11 results for 'cat:"Civil Procedure" AND cat:"Corporations"'.
J. Kelly finds that the trial court improperly ordered a hosting facility to restore electricity to a premises used by a bitcoin mining operation. The trial court's injunction fails to satisfy the requirement under the rules of Civil Procedure 683 that temporary injunctions describe in "specific" and "reasonable detail" the acts being restrained. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Kelly, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 03-23-00853-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations, Injunction
J. Ashe grants a request by the president and majority owner of an oilfield services company, dismissing on jurisdictional grounds its fired COO’s suit to dissolve the company, and for an accounting and access to company records. The president, a citizen of Florida, and the ex-COO, the company’s minority owner, is a citizen of Texas, so the company is a citizen of both states. The minority-shareholder's suit must be dismissed because it cannot proceed without the company, but adding the company would destroy the diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Ashe, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv6409, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations, Partnerships
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. Penzato finds that the trial court properly dismissed the individual's petition for writ of quo warranto relating to his suspension as a member of the NAACP. The record supports the finding that the accused parties had authority to suspend his membership based on the organization's bylaws. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Penzato, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 2023CA0667, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations
J. Fouratt denies the doctor and his corporation's motion to dismiss, ruling the former employee's piercing the corporate veil claim is not barred by issue preclusion. The state court action for damages related to sexual harassment did not deal with the merits of the claims, but instead dismissed them on jurisdictional grounds after a judgment had been entered in the employee's favor.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Fouratt, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv378, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations, Fraud
J. Arthur upholds the lower court's determination that an appeal should be heard in Pennsylvania (PA), not in Maryland (MD), after a realty investment trust demanded payment from a limited liability corporation because the trust's commercial tenant in PA defaulted. The corporation filed suit in Montgomery County, MD, seeking a declaration that it does not have liability on the guaranty, and moments later, the trust filed suit in Montgomery County, PA, the location of the property. In this case, the trust anticipated the corporation's filing in MD, so filed its own in PA because it thought MD may review the corporation's damages claims with more scrutiny than PA. Typically in a case like this, the rule is to proceed with litigation in the county where either party filed first. However, in this case, because the trust filed in PA in anticipation of the corporation's MD filing, the first-to-file rule will not be used and PA is the appropriate venue.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Arthur, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 485946-V, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations, Trusts
J. Kelly finds that the trial court properly ruled to dismiss the customer's suit against a pharmaceutical company after the customer failed to provide any witnesses at trial. Although the customer argues that the court should not have dismissed his suit because he had documentary evidence with him, the record does not contain any such evidence, so there is nothing to review.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Kelly, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 03-22-00170-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, corporations