Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kate Butler, Kate Butler Law LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Scott G. Wilcox, Moore and Rutt, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N22M-02-006 EMD
Concluding that plaintiff did not have a present right to join the state pension plan, the court ruled that it could not issue a writ of mandamus. Moreover, the petition for a writ of mandamus to allow plaintiff to participate in the state pension plan was barred by the three-year statute of limitations as no claim as to a present right to mandamus was presented.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Eric A. Loverro, Joshua L. Simmons, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Andrew L. Brown Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Joachim B. Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher J. Banks, Shira Liu, Margaux Poueymirou, Anna Z. Saber, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Crinesha B. Berry, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
Case Number: 20-cv-613-SB
Court excluded economic expert's testimony as unsupported by data and methodology where expert claimed there was little likelihood of a market for plaintiffs' product, since there were insufficient facts about the attributes of the product or whether there were current substitutes for the product already on market.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Casey B. Howard, Jeffery S. Kramer, Locke Lord LLP., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael R. Tein, Gaye L. Huxoll, Tein Malone PLLC, Coconut Grove, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 22-cv-01255-GBW
Dismissal of breach of contract claim denied where plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that defendant was the mere continuance or assignee of plaintiffs' contractual counterparty.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Freeman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-3121
District Court properly dismissed insurance coverage dispute for lack of personal jurisdiction where neither party was headquartered in Delaware and the underlying policy did not cover any property or loss in Delaware.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: James G. McMillan, III, William E. Green, Jr., Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark C. Rifkin, Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Arthur Susman, Law Office of Arthur Susman, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, Max B. Walton, Christina M. Thompson, Lisa R. Hatfield, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 22-611-CJB
Concluding that a litigant does not have a cognizable property interest in abandoned property, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Law. In addition, the court dismissed the complaint on ripeness grounds concluding that because the questions of whether plaintiff would actually make a claim on the property and be able to sufficiently demonstrate his ownership rights were unanswered, the parties' interests were not sufficiently adverse to give rise to
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: A Project of The Dallas Bar Association
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Whistleblower Laws
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Lugg
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Keith R. Jones, plaintiff pro se.
for defendant: John M. Nolan III, Morgan D. Hollander, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Margaret M. DiBianca, Clark Hill PLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N21C-10-020 SPL
Finding that plaintiff's minimal participation in pursuing the case "evidenced a pattern of dilatoriness" culminating in his failure to produce evidence in support of his claim, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute despite noting that the court had a "strong policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits."
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry: Construction | Federal Government | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge McKee
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lisa A. Mathewson, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
for defendant: Paul G. Shapiro, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA; David E. Troyer, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 19-3679
District court erred in setting the loss calculation at defendants' total profits where defendants lawfully performed work on the public construction project, with the DOT/PennDOT merely expecting defendants to obtain certain construction materials from a qualifying supplier.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert C. McDonald, Adrienne M. McDonald, Silverman McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert M. Goff, Jr., City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2019-0969-KSJM
Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over former police officer's complaint challenging his termination for failure to comply with later-voided revised residency requirement, where declaratory judgment or certiorari review would be unlikely to afford relief given city's continued assertion, despite the striking down of the revised policy, that officer's termination was proper.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Copyrights
Industry: Consulting | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-325-WCB
Court declined to stay civil suit pending related criminal action against defendant's former employees where the procedural posture of the criminal action meant any delay would likely be long, while there was the potential that factual overlap between the cases would be eliminated through dismissal of charges and any prejudice to defendant was limited to being unable to obtain evidence from its former employees.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Wallach
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Russell D. Paul, Amey J. Park, Abigail J. Gertner, Natalie Lesser, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, Laura E. Goolsby, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA; Steven Calamusa, Geoffrey Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Thomas L. Azar, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 21-cv-00906-EJW
Vehicle purchasers' fraud claims against manufacturer failed where their evidence failed to permit an inference that the manufacturer had pre-sale knowledge of an alleged design or manufacturing defect in one of the vehicle's components, and where there was no allegation that the manufacturer knowingly concealed or misrepresented the alleged defect.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read