This document is a plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Antelope Ground Water Agreement Association (AGWA) and their attorneys. The plaintiff, representing a certified class, seeks to restrain AGWA from communicating with or soliciting absent class members about issues related to the class action. The plaintiff argues that AGWA has already held meetings with class members without the consent or knowledge of class counsel, and intends to hold another meeting during the class notice period, which could confuse class members. The plaintiff believes they are likely to succeed on the merits since AGWA, knowing the class members are represented, has communicated directly with them in violation of ethical rules. A restraining order is necessary to prevent
This memorandum supports the plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery from the defendants. It summarizes that the plaintiff, Izabella Danielli, was seriously injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's tractor-trailer. While the defendants objected to the plaintiff's requests for production, they failed to provide any responses or a privilege log. The memorandum argues that the plaintiff is entitled to any statements made to the defense, as they are neither privileged nor protected work product. It also argues that sanctions should be awarded against the defendants for failing to meet and confer in good faith or provide a privilege log. The plaintiff is requesting an order compelling responses to requests for production and monetary sanctions of $1,500.
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...LegalDocsPro
This sample ex parte application for temporary restraining order in United States District Court also requests the issuance of a preliminary injunction pending the trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (b) on the grounds that the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer, substantial irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. The sample on which this preview is based is 16 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
This document is a complaint filed by Central Asia Institute against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage. It summarizes that CAl had an insurance policy with Philadelphia to cover certain legal claims. CAl and its executive director Greg Mortenson were sued in two matters (the "Pfau Litigation" and "AG Matter") and incurred legal defense costs. However, Philadelphia refused to fully cover and advance these defense costs, in breach of the insurance contract. CAl is suing Philadelphia for declaratory relief and damages for its failure to honor coverage obligations.
Sample California opposition to anti-SLAPP motion LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a special motion to strike or anti-SLAPP motion in California is designed to oppose a special motion to strike on the grounds (1) that it is untimely in that it was filed more than 60 days after service of the summons and complaint in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f); (2) defendant has failed to meet their burden of making a threshold showing that the challenged causes of action are ones arising from protected activity and (3) the motion should be denied as Plaintiff can show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their causes of action. The sample on which this preview is based is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This memorandum supports the plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery from the defendants. It summarizes that the plaintiff, Izabella Danielli, was seriously injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's tractor-trailer. While the defendants objected to the plaintiff's requests for production, they failed to provide any responses or a privilege log. The memorandum argues that the plaintiff is entitled to any statements made to the defense, as they are neither privileged nor protected work product. It also argues that sanctions should be awarded against the defendants for failing to meet and confer in good faith or provide a privilege log. The plaintiff is requesting an order compelling responses to requests for production and monetary sanctions of $1,500.
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...LegalDocsPro
This sample ex parte application for temporary restraining order in United States District Court also requests the issuance of a preliminary injunction pending the trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (b) on the grounds that the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer, substantial irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. The sample on which this preview is based is 16 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proposed order. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
This document is a complaint filed by Central Asia Institute against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage. It summarizes that CAl had an insurance policy with Philadelphia to cover certain legal claims. CAl and its executive director Greg Mortenson were sued in two matters (the "Pfau Litigation" and "AG Matter") and incurred legal defense costs. However, Philadelphia refused to fully cover and advance these defense costs, in breach of the insurance contract. CAl is suing Philadelphia for declaratory relief and damages for its failure to honor coverage obligations.
Sample California opposition to anti-SLAPP motion LegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a special motion to strike or anti-SLAPP motion in California is designed to oppose a special motion to strike on the grounds (1) that it is untimely in that it was filed more than 60 days after service of the summons and complaint in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f); (2) defendant has failed to meet their burden of making a threshold showing that the challenged causes of action are ones arising from protected activity and (3) the motion should be denied as Plaintiff can show a reasonable probability of prevailing on their causes of action. The sample on which this preview is based is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This general order from a U.S. District Court addresses common issues and deficiencies with discovery objections. It instructs parties to avoid vague, nonspecific objections and to explain how requests are overly broad or burdensome. If the scope is disputed, responsive information within the agreed scope should still be provided. Objections must specifically explain why information sought would not lead to admissible evidence. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are insufficient, as are generalized privilege objections without a proper privilege log.
This document is a general order from a United States District Court Magistrate Judge regarding discovery objections. The order specifies that objections must be made with specificity and cannot be vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. If the scope of a request is too broad, responsive information within the proper scope must still be provided. Objections based on relevance must specifically state why the request lacks relevance. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are not allowed. Privilege objections require a detailed privilege log.
The document discusses a response filed by the Killeen Independent School District to a petitioner's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and deposition on written questions for three individuals. The response argues that the petitioner's arguments for quashing the subpoena fail as a matter of law and that the motion to quash should be denied. It discusses the relevance of the information sought in the subpoena and deposition to the subject matter of the case and that the information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The response also argues that the petitioner misquoted rules of evidence in their motion.
Sample petition to vacate arbitration award in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of petition and petition to vacate an arbitration award filed in California Superior Court. It gives notice that a party will petition the court on a certain date to vacate an arbitration award due to claimed issues with the arbitration process such as corruption, misconduct, or the arbitrator exceeding their powers. The petition argues that the arbitration award should be vacated and bases this on documents submitted with the petition, including a memorandum of points and authorities and a supporting declaration with exhibits.
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to vacate a default judgment. It argues that the motion to vacate should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion is untimely as it was filed more than 6 months after the default judgment was entered, exceeding the statutory limit; (2) the required affidavit of fault from the attorney is not included; and (3) the attorney is attempting to cover up for the client's fault. The opposition requests that the court deny the motion to vacate based on the arguments in this document, an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and a supporting declaration.
06/27/11: Response to DOJ Motion Opposing Amicus Briefartba
This document is a reply brief submitted by a group of amici curiae (friends of the court) in support of their motion for leave to file an amicus brief in a case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The amici argue that EPA's opposition to their motion is based on an overly narrow interpretation of the standard for allowing amicus briefs. Specifically, the amici assert that they can provide unique perspectives and expertise to assist the court, including analysis from a renowned economist of the potential nationwide economic impacts of EPA's actions at issue in the case. The amici therefore request that the court accept their amicus brief.
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Law Web
Judgment of US District court on motion for a Negative Inference Based upon Plaintiff’s Alleged Deletion of Emails - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/judgment-of-us-district-court-on-motion.html?#sthash.T5WQGg2Q.dpuf
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darren Chaker and Nicole Chaker in a civil RICO lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Scott McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm. The order summarizes the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which claims the defendants engaged in a pattern of extortion, harassment, and other unlawful acts as part of a RICO enterprise. The order analyzes the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), considering whether the plaintiffs have adequately alleged predicate acts of racketeering, cognizable damages, and other elements of RICO and state law claims.
This document is a court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand a case back to state court. The court order provides additional analysis and comments supporting remand. Specifically, it finds that the plaintiffs' settlement demand of $155,000 did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as settlement demands often reflect puffing and posturing. An affidavit from the plaintiffs' attorney further supported that the demand was made without adequate information and to facilitate settlement discussions. Therefore, the defendants did not meet their burden to keep the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The anti slapp statute is now a powerful tool to discourage enforcement of no...Keystone Law
Statutory changes have further limited the applicability of no contest clauses to apply only to certain specific types of legal actions – the most common being direct attacks on the estate planning documents themselves, known as “direct contests”
Overseer of the Bar - Review of Case and DecisionForTheLoveOfMila
Now also targeting Igor's attorney with harassment for daring to defend his client against Lori's false, malicious claims, Handrahan attempts to have Waxman disbarred.
Sample california demurrer to eviction complaintCharlesmiles8800
This document is a sample demurrer to an eviction complaint in California. It summarizes that the demurrer argues that the three-day notice served to the defendant failed to include required payment information, overstated the amount of rent due, or was served before the rent was actually due. These issues make the three-day notice defective and mean it cannot support an unlawful detainer action. The demurrer asks the court to sustain it and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
This document is a stipulation and order modifying a previous judgment in a divorce case between Gary W. XXXXXX and Barbara K. XXXXXX. It stipulates that (1) Barbara will receive $84,659 from Gary's 401(k) plan, ownership of their Florida condo, funds from rental and personal bank accounts, and levies against Gary's accounts; (2) these transfers settle all child and spousal support claims; (3) the 401(k) transfer is non-taxable; (4) Gary's additional child and spousal support obligations are deemed satisfied; and (5) enforcement actions against Gary will be terminated upon execution of this order.
This document is a motion for stay of judgment pending appeal filed by defendant Eurasian Auto Body, Inc. It requests that the court stay execution of the judgment for possession entered against Eurasian on April 2, 2010 while Eurasian appeals the judgment. The motion argues that Eurasian will suffer extreme hardship if forced to vacate the premises pending appeal as it would incur over $200,000 in moving costs. It also argues that the plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay as long as Eurasian pays rent during the stay period. The motion includes supporting declarations from Eurasian's attorney and principal.
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is made on the same grounds as a motion to dismiss but may be filed even after an answer to a complaint has been filed. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro on scribd.com
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a California default judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake is made under the inherent equitable power of a California Court to vacate a judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
Dead Hand Change of Control Default Provisions PPT 3-25-15Kevin Miller
This document summarizes recent developments regarding dead hand change of control default provisions. It discusses the Healthways case in Delaware Chancery Court where the court found that lenders could potentially aid and abet fiduciary duty breaches by negotiating terms that create conflicts of interest for company directors. It also mentions several similar shareholder lawsuits filed against other companies and banks. The document reviews plaintiffs' attorneys fees awards in recent cases and potential alternatives for banks going forward regarding these contractual provisions. An appendix discusses precedent set in the Amylin and SandRidge cases regarding change of control provisions.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding a previous employment tribunal case.
1) The appellant alleged discrimination on the grounds of race and disability by her employer. The previous tribunal largely rejected her claims over 10 days of evidence. The appeal argues the previous tribunal made errors in its findings.
2) Three grounds of appeal are argued: that certain acts found to be out of time should have been seen as continuing acts; that the tribunal failed to properly consider the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability under the Disability Discrimination Act; and that the tribunal was biased against the appellant in its findings.
3) The appeal tribunal finds the first two grounds do not present an arguable
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
This document is a general order from a United States District Court Magistrate Judge regarding discovery objections. The order specifies that objections must be made with specificity and cannot be vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. If the scope of a request is too broad, responsive information within the proper scope must still be provided. Objections based on relevance must specifically state why the request lacks relevance. Formulaic objections followed by an answer are not allowed. Privilege objections require a detailed privilege log.
The document discusses a response filed by the Killeen Independent School District to a petitioner's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and deposition on written questions for three individuals. The response argues that the petitioner's arguments for quashing the subpoena fail as a matter of law and that the motion to quash should be denied. It discusses the relevance of the information sought in the subpoena and deposition to the subject matter of the case and that the information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The response also argues that the petitioner misquoted rules of evidence in their motion.
Sample petition to vacate arbitration award in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of petition and petition to vacate an arbitration award filed in California Superior Court. It gives notice that a party will petition the court on a certain date to vacate an arbitration award due to claimed issues with the arbitration process such as corruption, misconduct, or the arbitrator exceeding their powers. The petition argues that the arbitration award should be vacated and bases this on documents submitted with the petition, including a memorandum of points and authorities and a supporting declaration with exhibits.
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to vacate a default judgment. It argues that the motion to vacate should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion is untimely as it was filed more than 6 months after the default judgment was entered, exceeding the statutory limit; (2) the required affidavit of fault from the attorney is not included; and (3) the attorney is attempting to cover up for the client's fault. The opposition requests that the court deny the motion to vacate based on the arguments in this document, an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and a supporting declaration.
06/27/11: Response to DOJ Motion Opposing Amicus Briefartba
This document is a reply brief submitted by a group of amici curiae (friends of the court) in support of their motion for leave to file an amicus brief in a case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The amici argue that EPA's opposition to their motion is based on an overly narrow interpretation of the standard for allowing amicus briefs. Specifically, the amici assert that they can provide unique perspectives and expertise to assist the court, including analysis from a renowned economist of the potential nationwide economic impacts of EPA's actions at issue in the case. The amici therefore request that the court accept their amicus brief.
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Law Web
Judgment of US District court on motion for a Negative Inference Based upon Plaintiff’s Alleged Deletion of Emails - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/judgment-of-us-district-court-on-motion.html?#sthash.T5WQGg2Q.dpuf
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darren Chaker and Nicole Chaker in a civil RICO lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Scott McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm. The order summarizes the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which claims the defendants engaged in a pattern of extortion, harassment, and other unlawful acts as part of a RICO enterprise. The order analyzes the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), considering whether the plaintiffs have adequately alleged predicate acts of racketeering, cognizable damages, and other elements of RICO and state law claims.
This document is a court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand a case back to state court. The court order provides additional analysis and comments supporting remand. Specifically, it finds that the plaintiffs' settlement demand of $155,000 did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as settlement demands often reflect puffing and posturing. An affidavit from the plaintiffs' attorney further supported that the demand was made without adequate information and to facilitate settlement discussions. Therefore, the defendants did not meet their burden to keep the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The anti slapp statute is now a powerful tool to discourage enforcement of no...Keystone Law
Statutory changes have further limited the applicability of no contest clauses to apply only to certain specific types of legal actions – the most common being direct attacks on the estate planning documents themselves, known as “direct contests”
Overseer of the Bar - Review of Case and DecisionForTheLoveOfMila
Now also targeting Igor's attorney with harassment for daring to defend his client against Lori's false, malicious claims, Handrahan attempts to have Waxman disbarred.
Sample california demurrer to eviction complaintCharlesmiles8800
This document is a sample demurrer to an eviction complaint in California. It summarizes that the demurrer argues that the three-day notice served to the defendant failed to include required payment information, overstated the amount of rent due, or was served before the rent was actually due. These issues make the three-day notice defective and mean it cannot support an unlawful detainer action. The demurrer asks the court to sustain it and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
This document is a stipulation and order modifying a previous judgment in a divorce case between Gary W. XXXXXX and Barbara K. XXXXXX. It stipulates that (1) Barbara will receive $84,659 from Gary's 401(k) plan, ownership of their Florida condo, funds from rental and personal bank accounts, and levies against Gary's accounts; (2) these transfers settle all child and spousal support claims; (3) the 401(k) transfer is non-taxable; (4) Gary's additional child and spousal support obligations are deemed satisfied; and (5) enforcement actions against Gary will be terminated upon execution of this order.
This document is a motion for stay of judgment pending appeal filed by defendant Eurasian Auto Body, Inc. It requests that the court stay execution of the judgment for possession entered against Eurasian on April 2, 2010 while Eurasian appeals the judgment. The motion argues that Eurasian will suffer extreme hardship if forced to vacate the premises pending appeal as it would incur over $200,000 in moving costs. It also argues that the plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay as long as Eurasian pays rent during the stay period. The motion includes supporting declarations from Eurasian's attorney and principal.
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is made on the same grounds as a motion to dismiss but may be filed even after an answer to a complaint has been filed. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro on scribd.com
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a California default judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake is made under the inherent equitable power of a California Court to vacate a judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
Dead Hand Change of Control Default Provisions PPT 3-25-15Kevin Miller
This document summarizes recent developments regarding dead hand change of control default provisions. It discusses the Healthways case in Delaware Chancery Court where the court found that lenders could potentially aid and abet fiduciary duty breaches by negotiating terms that create conflicts of interest for company directors. It also mentions several similar shareholder lawsuits filed against other companies and banks. The document reviews plaintiffs' attorneys fees awards in recent cases and potential alternatives for banks going forward regarding these contractual provisions. An appendix discusses precedent set in the Amylin and SandRidge cases regarding change of control provisions.
This document summarizes an appeal hearing regarding a previous employment tribunal case.
1) The appellant alleged discrimination on the grounds of race and disability by her employer. The previous tribunal largely rejected her claims over 10 days of evidence. The appeal argues the previous tribunal made errors in its findings.
2) Three grounds of appeal are argued: that certain acts found to be out of time should have been seen as continuing acts; that the tribunal failed to properly consider the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability under the Disability Discrimination Act; and that the tribunal was biased against the appellant in its findings.
3) The appeal tribunal finds the first two grounds do not present an arguable
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
Similar to 31510_ExxPartexAppxforxTROxandxOSCxrexPI.pdf (20)
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Safeguarding Against Financial Crime: AML Compliance Regulations DemystifiedPROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
To ensure the integrity of financial systems and combat illicit financial activities, understanding AML (Anti-Money Laundering) compliance regulations is crucial for financial institutions and businesses. AML compliance regulations are designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities by imposing specific requirements on financial institutions, including customer due diligence, monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities (GitHub Docs).
1. 1
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael D. McLachlan (State Bar No. 181705)
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN, APC
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 215
Los Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 630-2884
Facsimile: (213) 630-2886
mike@mclachlanlaw.com
Daniel M. O’Leary (State Bar No. 175128)
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O’LEARY
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 215
Los Angeles, California 90014
Telephone: (213) 630-2880
Facsimile: (213) 630-2886
dan@danolearylaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Coordination Proceeding
Special Title (Rule 1550(b))
ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER
CASES
___________________________________
RICHARD A. WOOD, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40; et al.
Defendants.
Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4408
(Santa Clara Case No. 1-05-CV-049053,
Honorable Jack Komar)
Case No.: BC 391869
PLAINTIFF’S:
(1) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION;
(2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT THEREOF; and
(3) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D.
McLACHLAN
Date: April 2, 2009
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 17C
2. 2
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 2, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as this matter may be heard in Department 17C of the above-captioned Court, located at
161 North First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Richard Wood will, and hereby
does, apply ex parte for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause why a
preliminary injunction should not issue enjoining the Antelope Ground Water Agreement
Association and their attorneys of record from contacting and soliciting class members in
this case, and enjoining a meeting set for April 7, 2009.
Said hearing shall take place telephonically through Courtcall, pursuant to Exhibit
2 hereto.
This application is based on this notice of ex parte application, the following
memorandum of points and authorities and the Declaration of Michael D. McLachlan
filed herewith, the file and record in this case, and any additional argument that the Court
may consider in connection with this matter.
DATED: March 31, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O’LEARY
By: _______________//s//___________________
Michael D. McLachlan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3. 3
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Richard Wood requests that this Court issue an emergency order
restraining Antelope Ground Water Agreement Association (“AGWA”) and their
attorneys of record from contacting and soliciting class members in this case, and
enjoining a meeting set for April 7, 2009.
Counsel for the Small Pumper Class was recently given a copy of a flyer for a
meeting on April 7, 2009, soliciting class members to a meeting being hosted by AGWA.
(McLachlan Decl., Ex. 1.) This flyer was prepared and circulated by Eugene Nebeker,
the lead representative for AGWA. Class counsel has also learned that Michael Fife, lead
counsel for AGWA will attend and speak at that meeting. (McLachlan Decl., ¶ 3.) Class
counsel has requested that Mr. Fife and his firm not speak to the class members on issues
related to the classes, and he has declined to do so. (Ibid.)
Class counsel has also learned that another such meeting occurred on February 17,
2009, which was attended by a substantial number of class members. One of the primary
messages communicated in this meeting was that those pumping groundwater should join
the AGWA group. (McLachlan Decl., ¶ 5.)
Due to Mr. Fife’s refusal to refrain from such communications with absent class
members or to otherwise resolve this issue in a manner satisfactory to the interests of the
class, class counsel believes that further solicitations of absent class members will occur
at the April 7, 2009 meeting.
Furthermore, the discussion of the boundaries of class membership and responding
to the class notice during the class notice period is something that should be strictly
governed by the Court and should be conducted pursuant to the existing orders in this
case. AGWA’s counsel should not be talking about these issues with the class members,
for not only ethical reasons, but because it is likely to add confusion to an already
complex process.
4. 4
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By this application, Plaintiff is seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and
order to show cause (“OSC”) re preliminary injunction. The TRO is requested to prevent
and prohibit AGWA or its counsel from communicating with any class member prior to
and during the class notice period in this case.
II. ARGUMENT
A. The Standard Applicable to Preliminary Injunctions
A preliminary injunction should be issued in the following cases, among others:
(1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled
to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof,
consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the
act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.
(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the
commission or continuance of some act during the litigation
would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party
to the action.
(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the
action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do so, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the
rights of another party to the action, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.
(4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate
relief.
(5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of
compensation which would afford adequate relief.
(Code Civ. Proc. (“C.C.P.”) ' 526; see also, Universal Life Church, Inc. v. State (1984)
158 Cal.App.3d 533, 536 (“A preliminary injunction may be granted when the party
seeking relief is likely to succeed on the merits of the action, or will suffer irreparable
injury if an injunction is not granted.”); see also 14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Ass’n v.
VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th
1396 (“In determining whether to issue a preliminary
injunction, the trial court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff
5. 5
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is
likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is
likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction.”); Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co.
(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th
1443, 1449-50.)
The decision to issue a preliminary injunction requires that the court weigh two
factors: “the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits, and the relative
interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Hunt v.
Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th
984, 999.) “The trial court’s determination must be
guided by a ‘mix’ of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater that
plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support and
injunction.” (Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal. 4th
(1992) 668, 678;Cinquegrani v
Department of Motor Vehicles (2008)163 Cal.App.4th
741, 750. The greater the relative
hardship to the moving party, the less probability of success must be shown. As
explained at length in the Verified Complaint and the declarations filed herewith, San
Jose meets these requirements and a TRO and preliminary injunction should issue.
B. Plaintiff is Likely to Prevail on the Merits
1. AGWA and its Attorneys Should Not be Communicating with Class
Members
California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 2-100 provides, in relevant part,
that:
While representing a client, a member shall not communicate directly or indirectly
about the subject of the representation with a party the member knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the member has the consent of
the other lawyer.
In this case, the Small Pumper Class has been certified by the Court and class
counsel has been appointed to represent the interests of the approximately 7,500 to 9,000
class members. AGWA and its lawyers have recently held a meeting with class members
6. 6
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and have solicited them to join AGWA without the knowledge or consent of counsel.
AGWA and its counsel apparently intend to conduct another such meeting on April 7,
2009. Class counsel has voiced its objection to this meeting and the discussion of class-
related issues with any class members outside the presence of class counsel. Such
discussions during the class notice period are sure to lead to confusion, and should not be
permitted.
Moreover, Class counsel has substantial concern that AGWA may exercise its
antagonism toward the Small Pumper Class by endeavoring to undermine the integrity of
the class. (McLachlan Decl., ¶ 6.) Improper, confusing, or misleading communications
with members of the class are not something that can easily be undone. Consequently,
they should be not allowed to occur in the first place.
Injunctive relief is appropriate under circumstances where the harm cannot be
quantified or remedied by later action. (Wind v. Hebert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 276, 285;
Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. American Broadcasting Cos. (9th
Cir. 1984) 747 F.2d 511,
519-20; Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc. (9th
Cir.
1991) 944 F2d 597, 603.)
B. The Balance of the Harms Weighs In Favor of an Injunction and the Public is
Not Harmed by the TRO or Injunction
When evaluating a motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order, Courts sometimes consider the harms to the respective parties and consider
whether the public will be harmed by any injunctive relief.
Here, these factors overwhelmingly favor Plaintiff. First, without this Court’s
enjoining AGWA’s conduct, the integrity of the class is threatened, and all ready difficult
process will likely become more confusing for the class members. Moreover, the
solicitation of class members to be represented by other counsel is not acceptable to class
counsel, and is unethical.
AGWA and its counsel have no vested right or interest in this sort of conduct, and
7. 7
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cannot argue any harm from being duly restrained
Second, the public interest in maintaining class actions under strict Court
supervision argues strongly against these sorts of ex parte communications with class
members by counsel for other parties.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff requests that a TRO issue prohibiting AGWA, Eugene
Nebeker, and its counsel from attending the April 7, 2009 meeting, from communicating
with Small Pumper Class members without the consent of class counsel, and from
soliciting class members to join AGWA. Further, the Court should issue an Order to
Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue enjoining such conduct in the
future.
DATED: March 31, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O’LEARY
By: _______________//s//___________________
Michael D. McLachlan
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8. 8
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN
I, Michael D. McLachlan, declare:
1. I am one of the appointed class counsel for the Small Pumper Class, and am
duly licensed to practice law in California. I make this declaration of my own personal
knowledge, except where stated on information and belief, and if called to testify in Court
on these matters, I could do so competently.
2. On March 19, 2009, I was forwarded a copy of a meeting solicitation
directed to class members in this case, which was generated by Eugene Nebeker, the lead
client for AGWA. A true and correct copy of this flyer for an April 7, 20009 meeting is
attached as Exhibit 1. I have had occasion to communicate with Mr. Nebeker by
electronic mail previously, and know that his email address is that listed on the flyer
(enebeker@roadrunner.com). I also am informed that he is the head or the principal of
the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau, one of the sponsors of the meeting.
3. I subsequently put substantial effort into meeting and conferring with
Michael Fife, lead counsel for AGWA, in an effort to learn more about the agenda for the
meeting and to secure his agreement not to speak to the class members. On the latter
point, he would not agree. In numerous e-mails, I, as well as counsel for the Willis class,
expressed our serious concerns about any discussions with class members about class-
related issues during the notice period. After raising the Rule 2-100, Mr. Fife refused to
engage in any further discussion of this subject unless I agreed to keep those discussions
confidential.
4. I learned from Mr. Fife that the April 7, 2009 meeting would be
substantially the same as an earlier meeting held on February 17, 2009 (without the
knowledge or consent of class counsel).
5. I subsequently contacted several Small Pumper class members who
attended the February 17, 2009 meeting, including James Nye and Wayne Scott. These
class members were quite clear that the underlying theme of the presentation given by
9. 9
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gene Nebeker and Michael Fife was that it was in the small pumper’s best interests to
join AGWA. Mr. Nye indicated that it is well known in the community that Mr. Nebeker
is soliciting small pumpers to join AGWA.
6. Mr. Nebeker and Mr. Fife have on numerous occasions voiced his
opposition to the class actions as something he views as playing into the hands of the
public water suppliers. I understand why the interests of this agricultural group are at
odds with the Small Pumper class, and therefore am concerned that the communications
from AGWA may be slanted to indirectly or directly undermine the integrity of the class.
There is great confusion in the community about what is going on in this coordinated
litigation, and I have serious concerns that communications and solicitations from other
counsel will only make matters worse.
7. On March 31, 2009, I have Michael Fife notice of this ex parte hearing by
electronic mail. The courtcall confirmation is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st
day of March, 2009, at Los Angeles,
California.
_______________//s//___________________
Michael D. McLachlan
10. 10
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 215,
Los Angeles, California 90014.
On March 31, 2009, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to be served on the parties in this action, as
follows:
( X ) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by posting the document(s) listed above to the Santa
Clara County Superior Court website: www.scefiling.org regarding the Antelope Valley
Groundwater matter.
( ) (BY U.S. MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice, the above-referenced
document(s) were placed in sealed envelope(s) addressed to the parties as noted above,
with postage thereon fully prepaid and deposited such envelope(s) with the United States
Postal Service on the same date at Los Angeles, California, addressed to:
( ) (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I served a true and correct copy by Federal Express or other
overnight delivery service, for delivery on the next business day. Each copy was
enclosed in an envelope or package designed by the express service carrier; deposited in a
facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or delivered to a courier or
driver authorized to receive documents on its behalf; with delivery fees paid or provided
for; addressed as shown on the accompanying service list.
( ) (BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of
facsimile transmission of documents. It is transmitted to the recipient on the same day in
the ordinary course of business.
(X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
( ) (FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
_______________//s//___________________
Carol Delgado