November 8, 2013 BY REGISTERED MAIL Case: Carmella vs. Macy’s and Farberware, Index # 2581/13, file # 462/13. Dear Ms. Soprano: This letter is to provide you with the status of above referenced case we are handling for you. Farberware and Macy’s were served with a summons and complaint regarding your product liability lawsuit regarding the cappuccino maker by our office. In response to our summons and complaint both defendants had requested to inspect the cappuccino maker.
Gallo vs Spider Web, Ltd. In the case of Fred, Steve and Pierce Thumann who are the creators of Spider Webs, Ltd verses E & J Gallo Winery, the court should rule in the favor of the Gallos because Spider Webs, Ltd is guilty of cybersquatting: “the act of registering a domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, the trademark of another and then offering to sell that domain name back to the trademark owner” (Miller & Jentz, 2010). Spider Webs “develop Internet address names and registered nearly two thousand Internet domain names at an average of $70.00 each, including the names of cities, buildings, names related to businesses of trade (such as air conditioning or plumbing), and the names of famous companies” (Miller & Jentz, 2010). Spider Webs would even place these domain names up for sale via its own webpage and even on eBay.com. When E & J Gallo found out that Spider Webs, Ltd had registered a domain name similar to their winery name, “ErnestandJulioGallo.com”, they decided enough was enough and filed a suit against Spider Webs citing the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and asked the court that Spider Webs to pay statutory damages as well as transfer the domain name to the Gallos.
Walmart administrative assistant Chalace Eply Lowry was hired by the company in January 2007 soon after she filed a complaint against a vice-president of corporate communications, Mona Williams for the possibility of an ethics issue. Lowry was asked by Williams to copy papers that she thought were related to stocks, and a few days later it was announced that Walmart was planning a $15 billion stock buyback, and she was concerned that Williams may have used insider information to exercise her stock options and make money off of the buyback. Walmart responded that Lowry was simply confused and that she mistook a deferred compensation form for an options exercise request and that there was no wrong-doing by Williams. Soon after she filed for the complaint, her identity was disclosed to Williams, something Walmart claimed Lowry agreed to. Lowry, however, stated that she was never given a choice, and subsequently requested a transfer to another department.
Roy L. Pearson, Jr., Appellant v. Soo Chung, et al., Appellees The case was tried in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Pearson v. Soo Chung, 961 A.2d 1067; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 486 (D.C. 2008).). It has been widely regarded as a frivolous lawsuit, but before dissecting the case itself to determine the frivolity of the suit, the facts of the case will be stated. In 2005, Washington D.C., administrative judge Roy Pearson took some garments to Custom Cleaners to be altered.
Mark Fountain v. First Reliance Bank Andrea Y. Steele Susan Carr, JD Leg 100 July 27, 2012 1. Summarize the actions that led to the lawsuit. Brought before the Circuit Court of South Carolina, Mark Fountain filed defamation lawsuit and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Thomas C. Ewart, chief banking officer of First Reliance Bank, and Ernest Pennell defendant. The suit was based on a statement that was made by Ewart to why the bank would not make a loan on a business venture between Fountain and Pennell. In the late 2008, Pennell, with encouragement and assistant from Fountain, sought to refinance or obtain a new loan in order to satisfy a $1.2 million delinquent mortgage held by Carolina First Bank.
Gilberto Hernandez and Ruth Elizondo v Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria McGill decision by Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division FACTS: Gilberto Hernandez and his wife, Ruth Elizondo, filed a complaint against Schering Corporation, Schering-Plough Corporation and Victoria McGill, R.N. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for bodily injuries because of loss of eye sight from use of a drug sold by Schering. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to six of the counts of the complaint but denied summary judgment on the remaining counts. Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. December 2001, Mr. Hernandez, plaintiff, tested positive for Hepatitis C (HVC) AND exposure to Hepatitis A and B.
Unit 5 Assignment Breach of contract LS311-03 Business Law Lisa Schwartz September 25, 2012 Unit 5 Assignment Case Study Read the following news story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/charlize-theron-settles-2_n_140920.html , involving a breach of contract. For this assignment, answer the following questions based on the above news story: Breach of Contract: is the non-performance of a contractual duty (Miller &Jentz, 2008). Charlize Theron allegedly breached her contract by wearing a Christian Dior watch during a press event. The contract stated that during the time frame of October 2005 through December 2006 Charlize would only wear Raymond Weil watches. Raymond weil contract was that Charlize was to use the photographs
10 Steps of Critical Thinking Name Course School What are the issues and conclusions? The memo (R. Fabowlus, personal communication, January 30, 2014) regards whether the union SAG-AFTRA should support Eugenia Glover publicly in a lawsuit that she filed against FOX News for interfering with her ability to work, and also for wrongful termination against Al Jazeera America (AJAM). Browne & Keeley (2012) explain that sometimes the author of a document will mention the issue during their introduction or even in the title of the writing. In the case of the memo, not only does Fabowlus’ (2014) phrase, “You wanted to know if the union should publicly support the union member in publicizing their legal case(s)” state the issue in her introduction, but she also restates and alludes to it repeatedly throughout the document. The conclusion of the memo is also stated plainly at the end of the document.
Plaintiff, Andrew Hall, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of persons other than the defendants who purchased common stock of Medicis for the time period 30 October 2003 through 24 September 2008 filed a class action complaint against Defendants, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Jonah Shacknai, Richard D. Peterson, and Mark A. Prygocki, Sr. The complaint was filed to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Medicis, is a Delaware corporation that develops and markets products in the United States for the treatment of dermatological, aesthetic, and podiatric conditions. During the relevant times in the case, Medicis’ common stock was trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under ticker MRX. In addition to Medicis, three executives were also defendants in this class action complaint.
Toys R Us.com, LLC v. Amazon.com Docket No. C-96-04 (Superior Ct. N.J., March 1, 2006) After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site. Finding that this breach went to the substance of the parties' agreement - which as interpreted by the Court provided that Toys R Us was to be the sole third party toy retailer on Amazon's web site - the Court granted Toys R Us's request that the agreement be terminated. Notwithstanding its finding that such a breach had occurred, the Court did not award Toys R Us damages. The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us's alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand.