17 results for 'cat:"Fiduciary Duty" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Partida-Kipness finds that the lower court properly granted the appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction in this suit involving the appellant's property taxes and allegations that his payments were not properly applied against a judgment. The pro se appellant fails to adequately brief his issues, and the court additionally finds that the appellees were "entitled to dismissal" based on governmental immunity. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Partida-Kipness, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00224-CV, Categories: Tax, fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Hall grants the law firm's renewed motion to dismiss the individual's RICO, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract action alleging that the firm stole nearly all of his incentive award from an underlying lawsuit. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the firm, which is in California. The firm agreed to represent the individual in the then-pending California case while the individual was still living in California. The parties' interactions afterward with the state of Georgia resulted only from the individual's move to Georgia.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Hall, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv178, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: fiduciary Duty, Conversion, jurisdiction
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. Reichek finds that the lower court improperly denied the special appearances filed by four of the five appellants in this suit asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Accordingly, the claims against those parties should be dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction. Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Reichek, Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00011-CV, Categories: fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Byrne finds that the trial court improperly ruled to dismiss a businessman's breach of fiduciary duty claims against business partners for lack of personal jurisdiction. The determination that the claims be made in a Canadian court was improper and the trial court should have honored the businessman's wishes to litigate the case in the state in which his business resides. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: J. Byrne, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 03-22-00093-CV, Categories: fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction, Venue
J. Traynor rules that the lower court improperly dismissed shareholder derivative claims seeking to hold directors and officers of a giant pharmaceutical distribution company liable for lack of oversight during the opioid epidemic. The trial court gave too much weight to the bellwether decision entered in federal court in West Virginia since plaintiffs possessed derivative standing and entered well pleaded "Caremark" claims. Reversed.
Court: Delaware Supreme Court, Judge: Traynor, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 22, 2023, Categories: fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Simon denies the majority shareholders' motion to dismiss the minority shareholder's complaint that the majority shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to him as a minority shareholder of PPV Inc. The majority shareholders claim that the minority shareholder could have brought up his fiduciary duty claim during a prior bankruptcy proceeding, but the bankruptcy court already concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over that claim, and the majority shareholders do not have an argument for why the bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Simon, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv526, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: Bankruptcy, fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Slomsky dismisses a shareholder derivative action claiming a corporation issued false or misleading statements about commitments to diversify its workforce because aspirational diversity statements cited in the proxies did not constitute material misrepresentations. All state law claims should be dismissed since the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of the dismissal of the federal claim. Meanwhile, the shareholder may easily file the remaining claims in state court.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Slomsky, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv169, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Goodwin adopts the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation granting the automobile dealer’s motion to dismiss the suit claiming fraudulent inducement an unfair debt collection after the dealership assigned the security agreement in the retail installment contact on the 2021 Audi Q7 SUV they signed on Aug. 13, 2021, to United Bank. Finding the dealership is not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the customer’s dispute is one of simple contract and tort law.
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Goodwin, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv507, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Debt Collection, fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction
J. Torres finds the lower court properly refused to dismiss a doctor from a suit stemming from previous litigation between him and a North Carolina hospital that was removed by the medical practice to Guam following an auction of the doctor’s shares of the practice. The doctor’s constant appeals to different courts are noncompliant with court rules and the court had proper jurisdiction to deny the motion even while those other appeals remained pending. Affirmed.
Court: Guam Supreme Court, Judge: Torres, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: CVA22-3, Categories: fiduciary Duty, jurisdiction