Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
40 results for '* judge:"District Judge Bibas"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Business Torts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John David Simmons, Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Megan E. O'Connor, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, De; John Ambrogi, Richard Saldinger, Latimer LeVay Fyock LLC, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D69778
The court allowed plaintiff to amend its complaint for violation of trade secrets law and deceptive trade practices claims.
Publication Date: 2022-02-22
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Colin T. Reardon, Gabriel S.H. Hopkins, Jane M.E. Peterson, Stephen C. Jacques, Tiffany Hardy, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Megan Ix Brison, Michael A. Weidinger, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69722
The court certified two issues for appeal though there was no final judgment because they were both novel and controlling questions of law with substantial ground for difference of opinion and the appeal would advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Copyrights
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ifedoo Enigwe, pro se plaintiff,
for defendant: Philadelphia, PA; Craig E. Pinkus, Philip Zimmerly, Bose Mckinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IA; Craig E. Pinkus, Philip Zimmerly, Bose Mckinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IA; Nicholas D. Mozal, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69716
Copyright infringement claims failed where settlement between author and publisher did not expressly terminate publisher's contractual right to publish and sell the author's book.
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Telecommunications
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel John McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mitchell A. Kamin, Mark Chen, Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Lindsay Barnhart, Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Howard J. Symons, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY; Megan B. Poetzel, Lina R. Powell, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D69691
Federal court lacked federal jurisdiction over breach of contract claim where FCC antitrust regulations were not sufficiently substantial enough to the case to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Cargo and Shipping | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey G. Grivner, Andrew Hope, Craig Mills, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Wilmington, DE; George R. Zacharkow, Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, LTD, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Frank P. DeGiulio, Kevin G. O’Donovan, Michael B. McCauley, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. McCauley, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69690
The court held that plaintiff successfully pled a cause of action for promissory estoppel where it alleged defendant promised to pay the new tariff, that plaintiff relied on that promise, and that plaintiff suffered harm when Dole refused to pay. Motion to dismiss denied. However, plaintiff's claim for promissory fraud and punitive damages failed to state the mandatory requirements that defendant knew their statements about reimbursement were false and that defendant had a meritorious defense such that punitive damages were not applic
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-12-28
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carolyn I. Hahn, Colin T. Reardon, Gabriel S.H. Hopkins, Jane M.E. Peterson, Stephen C. Jacques, Tiffany Hardy, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff;
for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, McCarther & English LLP, Wilmington, DE; Megan Ix Brison, Michael A. Weidinger, Pinckney Weidinger Urban & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69660
Agency enforcement action filed by agency head who was subject to an unconstitutional removal provision was not automatically void, thereby eliminating the need for the agency to later timely ratify the action within the statute of limitations.
Publication Date: 2021-12-07
Practice Area: Toxic Torts
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kimberly Ann Evans, Kyle John Mcgee, Kelly L. Tucker, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Frank M. Petosa, Marcio W. Valladares, Michael Ram, Rene F. Rocha, T. Michael Morgan, Morgan & Morgan, Fort Lauderdale, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Miranda N. Gilbert, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Zi-Xiang Shen, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Athena D. Dalton, Stephen A. Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D69635
The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for tort claims because they were unable to plead that they had received an injury from defendant's allegedly negligent leaking of a known carcinogen around where plaintiffs lived.
Publication Date: 2021-11-16
Practice Area: Trade Secrets
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody Barillare, John P. Bramble, Michael P. Jones, Nancy L. Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Leslie B. Spoltore, Dove Burns, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69611
Misappropriation and tortious interference claims survived dismissal where company plausibly alleged that competitor solicited trade secrets from its chief executive officer and worked with the CEO to poach other key employees, in violation of the CEO's employment agreements.
Publication Date: 2021-11-09
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard A. Barkasy, Kristi J. Doughty, Stephen A. Fogdall, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel M. Pereira, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs
for defendant: Catherine A. Gaul, Michael Dean Walker, Jr. Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Loh, Davis G. Mosmeyer III, Sara A. Brown, Foley & Lardner LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
Case Number: D69605
Motion for leave to amend granted where the new proposed claims were based in part on facts that were not known to plaintiff until revealed during discovery.
Publication Date: 2021-11-02
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Kelly, Andrew S. Dupre, Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Spears, Charlita Mays, Cynthia Chen, Spear & Simes LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69593
The court held that the contract between the plaintiff subsidiary and a third-party was entered into prior to the existence of the parent company such that the parent company was not liable.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read