Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
1,126 results for '* court:"U S District Court of Delaware"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel Charles Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jennifer Marie Kinkus, William Edward Gamgort, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-00249-SB
Breach of fiduciary duty claim was untimely under statute of limitations where plaintiff was on inquiry notice of his claim no later than his receipt of an IRS audit notice investigating transactions involving defendant.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hughes
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ian Connor Bifferato, The Bifferato Firm, Wilmington, DE; Rosemary M. Rivas, David Stein, Kyla J. Gibboney, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA; William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO; Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY; Simon Wiener, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boston, MA; Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 22-00518-TMH
Vehicle purchasers' claims arising from manufacturers destination charge practices failed where federal law only required vehicle window stickers to list the price charged by a manufacturer to a dealer to ship vehicles from the factory to the dealer lot and there was no evidence that allegedly inflated destination charges caused consumers to pay more for vehicles as ultimate purchase prices were set by dealerships.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-679-WCB
Plaintiff's claim for insurance proceeds was not necessarily barred by contractual limitations period on indemnification claim where plaintiff asserted that the proceeds constituted retained property that defendant had an ongoing obligation to turn over after closing.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm LLC, Dover, DE; Brian R. Della Rocca, Compass Law Partners, Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Soldo, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Hilary Oran, Katherine M. Bolger, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Stephen R. Terrell, Attorney, Torts Branch, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, DC; David J. Margules, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lauren Russell, Ballard Spahr LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin M. Gurney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Abbe David Lowell, Sanaya M. Tamboli, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Kolansky, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 23-247 (MN)
Applying the four factors enumerated in Pioneer, the court determined that plaintiff's counsel's late filing of an opposition to a motion to dismiss due to his mis-reliance on the rules was not "excusable neglect" and denied his motion to reconsider the court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Premises Liability
Industry: Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Minuti, McCann Dillon Jaffe & Lamb, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gardenia L. Brooman, Verlin & Brooman, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: William R. Adams, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, Wilmington, DE; Sean T. Stadelman, Stephen A. Sheinen, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-76-SRF
Injured decedent's interrogatory responses were admissible under the residual hearsay exception as they were sufficiently trustworthy due to being made under penalty of perjury and were corroborated by other evidence.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Jonathan H. Lomurro, Gary L. Riveles, Abbott S. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 23-157-CFC
Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-365-SRF
Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.
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: 2023-10-02
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read