The court should grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant Urbansville Aquarium Corporation. The plaintiff Nancy Knight claimed the aquarium violated the Family Medical Leave Act by terminating her after a four-week absence visiting her father Wayne Knight in Las Vegas. However, Knight's activities in Las Vegas, which involved taking care of her father's therapy dog and playing board games with him for an hour a week, do not constitute "caring for" her father under the FMLA. As such, the aquarium is entitled to judgment as the plaintiff cannot show she was engaged in a covered activity protected by the FMLA.
[Client's Name] wants to sue [Defendant's Name] for intentional infliction of emotional distress over incidents where he publicly ridiculed her weight. However, she cannot establish two key elements of an IIED claim. She did not seek medical diagnosis or treatment for her symptoms like headaches and anxiety, so she cannot prove the conduct caused severe distress or that her distress was worse than a reasonable person would experience. While [Defendant's Name's] behavior targeting her weight was intentional and outrageous, especially drawing a naked caricature, without medical evidence of impacts she cannot meet the legal standard for an IIED claim.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
This document is Darrell Davis's trial brief in support of his motion for summary judgment in the case of Paul Peterson v. Darrell Davis and ABC Insurance Co. Davis argues that he is immune from liability under Wisconsin's recreational immunity statute. The statute provides that a property owner has no duty to keep land safe or warn of dangers for people engaging in recreational activities. Davis contends that Peterson was engaged in a recreational activity - riding a moped on Davis's property - and therefore Davis had no duty towards Peterson when he was injured. Davis cites previous cases to argue that the intrinsic nature of the activity, not Peterson's subjective intent, determines if it was recreational. Davis believes summary judgment is warranted based on the undisputed facts of the case
Defendant Johnson filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to provide documents requested in Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff failed to provide any documents or written responses by the due date of February 18th, 2016. Defendant Johnson's attorney has conferred with Plaintiff's attorney but Plaintiff has not produced the requested documents. Defendant Johnson is seeking an order from the court compelling Plaintiff to allow inspection of the requested documents and is also seeking reimbursement of attorney's fees for bringing this motion.
Sample motion for summary judgment by plaintiff in United States District CourtLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for summary judgment by plaintiff in United States District Court is filed under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The sample on which this preview is based is 16 pages and includes brief instructions, a table of contents and table of authorities as well as a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, statement of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law, sample declaration, proposed judgment granting summary judgment and proof of service by mail.
The district court erred in convicting Samantha Clark under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for statements made during plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's office while representing a criminal defendant. Subsection (b) of § 1001 creates an exception for statements made by a party or their counsel during a judicial proceeding. The district court relied on inapplicable case law that did not address this exception. As Clark's statements were made in her role as defense counsel during a judicial proceeding, she was exempt from prosecution under the plain language of subsection (b).
[Client's Name] wants to sue [Defendant's Name] for intentional infliction of emotional distress over incidents where he publicly ridiculed her weight. However, she cannot establish two key elements of an IIED claim. She did not seek medical diagnosis or treatment for her symptoms like headaches and anxiety, so she cannot prove the conduct caused severe distress or that her distress was worse than a reasonable person would experience. While [Defendant's Name's] behavior targeting her weight was intentional and outrageous, especially drawing a naked caricature, without medical evidence of impacts she cannot meet the legal standard for an IIED claim.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
This document is Darrell Davis's trial brief in support of his motion for summary judgment in the case of Paul Peterson v. Darrell Davis and ABC Insurance Co. Davis argues that he is immune from liability under Wisconsin's recreational immunity statute. The statute provides that a property owner has no duty to keep land safe or warn of dangers for people engaging in recreational activities. Davis contends that Peterson was engaged in a recreational activity - riding a moped on Davis's property - and therefore Davis had no duty towards Peterson when he was injured. Davis cites previous cases to argue that the intrinsic nature of the activity, not Peterson's subjective intent, determines if it was recreational. Davis believes summary judgment is warranted based on the undisputed facts of the case
Defendant Johnson filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to provide documents requested in Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff failed to provide any documents or written responses by the due date of February 18th, 2016. Defendant Johnson's attorney has conferred with Plaintiff's attorney but Plaintiff has not produced the requested documents. Defendant Johnson is seeking an order from the court compelling Plaintiff to allow inspection of the requested documents and is also seeking reimbursement of attorney's fees for bringing this motion.
Sample motion for summary judgment by plaintiff in United States District CourtLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for summary judgment by plaintiff in United States District Court is filed under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The sample on which this preview is based is 16 pages and includes brief instructions, a table of contents and table of authorities as well as a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, statement of uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law, sample declaration, proposed judgment granting summary judgment and proof of service by mail.
The district court erred in convicting Samantha Clark under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for statements made during plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's office while representing a criminal defendant. Subsection (b) of § 1001 creates an exception for statements made by a party or their counsel during a judicial proceeding. The district court relied on inapplicable case law that did not address this exception. As Clark's statements were made in her role as defense counsel during a judicial proceeding, she was exempt from prosecution under the plain language of subsection (b).
02 recurso de apelacion de invita a la resol cpc exp320EXPAUK
En 3 oraciones o menos:
1) La compañía de seguros apela la resolución que declaró fundada la denuncia presentada por el asegurado y los sancionó con una multa, alegando que cumplieron con el contrato de seguros al rechazar la cobertura del siniestro basados en el atestado policial que concluyó que fue causado por imprudencia temeraria del asegurado. 2) Argumentan que la imprudencia temeraria es causal de exclusión de cobertura según sus condiciones generales
The memorandum summarizes a case in which a client, Stephen Christopher, is appealing his drug conviction. Christopher contends his constitutional rights were violated when police used a drug-sniffing dog to search his bag and car without a warrant. The memorandum analyzes relevant Pennsylvania case law and concludes the police were required to obtain a warrant because searching Christopher's bag constituted a search of his person. As the search was of a person, the police needed probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion, to conduct the canine search. Since the police did not have a warrant or probable cause, the search was illegal and Christopher should win his appeal.
Sample special interrogatories for CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
These sample special interrogatories for California is for a California civil case and is intended to be used by a defendant but can be modified for use by a plaintiff. The sample document on which this preview is based is very detailed and is 33 pages long including the declaration for additional discovery and proof of service by mail.
Writing sample (motion for summary judgment- abbreviated) for Martinez, Aaron...Aaron A. Martinez
This motion for summary judgment argues that the plaintiff, Treassa Wren, is not a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and therefore does not have standing to bring DTPA claims. It asserts that Wren's employer, Aldine Independent School District, purchased the school bus and driver's seat that injured Wren to further its business of transporting students, not primarily for Wren's benefit. Therefore, Wren did not acquire or have ownership of the bus and seat, and any benefit to her was incidental. As a result, the motion argues Wren is not a consumer under the DTPA as a matter of law and the DTPA claims should be dismissed.
The memorandum analyzes whether a conversation between a husband and wife in the presence of their children is considered a privileged spousal communication. It concludes that under Illinois law, as established in People v. Sanders, such a communication is not privileged if the children are old enough to understand the conversation. Here, the children were ages 16 and 10 and therefore old enough, so the conversation would be admissible in the husband's criminal assault trial. The memorandum recommends further investigating whether the children actually heard and understood the conversation at issue.
Alistair Jones Motion for Summary JudgmentAlistair Jones
Fred Northrop filed a motion for summary judgment against Acme Insurance in a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination by Northrop's supervisor Helen Redmond. Northrop claims that Redmond offered him a promotion in exchange for sexual favors, and then denied him the promotion and spread false rumors about him after he refused. Northrop argues that as Redmond's actions were in her official capacity as his supervisor for Acme, Acme is liable for sexual discrimination. Northrop is seeking damages, back pay, reinstatement to the denied position, and attorney's fees if found to have experienced discrimination as a motivating factor in being denied the promotion.
Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom after living in free states for several years. His case went through multiple trials in both state and federal courts. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court ruled against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African descent could claim citizenship in the United States. The Dred Scott decision heightened tensions between pro-slavery and abolition forces that contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.
Fred Northrup filed a lawsuit against Acme Insurance Inc. and Helen Redmond alleging sexual harassment and discrimination. Northrup submitted requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents from the defendants relating to Northrup's employment, complaints against Redmond, investigations into harassment claims, and criteria used in promotions. The requests covered topics such as Northrup's job performance reviews, complaints against Redmond, the hiring and disciplinary history of involved employees, and the company's anti-harassment policies and programs. The defendants were instructed to respond to the requests within 30 days.
1) Girardi & Stanton have a common law retaining lien that allows them to hold Mr. Gibson's files until their outstanding legal fees are paid. However, this lien is passive and does not allow them to withhold the files indefinitely.
2) While Girardi & Stanton are entitled to the outstanding $8,250 fee, they must turn over copies of the files to Mr. Gibson and the new law firm so the case is not prejudiced. Retaining liens should only be asserted as a last resort to avoid harming the client.
3) Mr. Gibson and the new law firm are entitled to receive the files, as withholding them would delay the case against Cerone Sporting
This case involves an appeal of a district court ruling that found a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to be unconstitutional. Anne Singh Robinson is appealing the district court's ruling that found an amended provision of VAWA exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief outlines the background of the case, the issues on appeal, and arguments for why the district court erred in its constitutional analysis of the amended VAWA provision under both the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
Alice Wesley filed a complaint against Meticulous Maids, Inc. and Martha Gardner for injuries sustained in a car accident. Wesley alleges that on May 1, 2014, while driving north on Route 51, she was struck by a vehicle driven by Gardner, who was acting within the scope of her employment for Meticulous Maids. Wesley suffered a broken collar bone, lacerations, and $100,000 in medical expenses. She is suing for negligence and seeks damages in excess of $25,000 to compensate for her injuries, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering.
This memorandum analyzes whether Simon Oakland's Sixth Amendment rights were violated in his criminal trial. It summarizes that Oakland's counsel, John Mitchum, was ineffective under the Strickland test for failing to challenge the legal basis of the charges against Oakland, making questionable decisions during jury selection and witness examination, and falling asleep during trial. It also argues that Oakland did not properly assert his right to self-representation under the Faretta test because the court did not warn him of the risks of proceeding without counsel and his statements seemed to stem from frustration, not a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.
This document contains notices of taking deposition for Traian Bujduveanu in a case between Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities Inc. et al. The first notice schedules Bujduveanu's deposition for October 10, 2011 at 9:00am but the location. The second cancels that deposition and reschedules it for November 11, 2011 at the same location. The third notice indicates that Bujduveanu failed to appear for the November 11th deposition and certifies his non-appearance.
Kristen Stevens, a Florida actress, sued Robert Peterson, a Washington actor, for defamation. Peterson and Stevens had a business and romantic relationship and were members of the social media site HEADSHOT, Inc. After photos emerged of Stevens with another man, Peterson posted defamatory statements about Stevens on HEADSHOT. These statements were seen by others and damaged Stevens' reputation in Florida. Stevens is opposing Peterson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the court has jurisdiction due to their ongoing relationship and Peterson intentionally defaming her, knowing she lived in Florida.
Bass Pro Outdoor World opposes EEOC's argument that federal courts don’t have the power to enforce Title VII’s requirement that the EEOC conciliate in good faith.
Sample request for judicial notice in United States District CourtLegalDocsPro
This sample request for judicial notice in United States District Court is pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and requests that the court judicial notice of certain specified adjudicative facts. The sample is available for free download in Microsoft Word format, includes brief instructions and can be easily modified. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 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.
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities Inc. and three employees. The motion argues that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action because he violated terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, so the Bureau of Prisons properly returned him to prison to serve the rest of his sentence. It also argues the individual employees did not commit any tortious acts and the plaintiff has no evidence to support his legal claims against them. The defendants are requesting summary judgment to dismiss all claims.
1) Girardi & Stanton has a common law retaining lien that allows them to hold Mr. Gibson's files until their outstanding legal fees of $8,250 are paid. However, this retaining lien is passive and cannot be enforced through legal proceedings.
2) While Girardi & Stanton is entitled to the retaining lien, they must turn over copies of the files to Mr. Gibson and his new counsel to avoid prejudicing Mr. Gibson's legal matter against Cerone Wholesale Sporting Goods, as time is of the essence in that case.
3) Girardi & Stanton's assertion of the retaining lien to refuse to provide any files in this case would violate the rules of professional conduct
Vijay has over 8 years of experience in mainframe technologies like COBOL, JCL, and DB2. He has worked as a module lead and developer on banking, financial services, insurance, and manufacturing projects. His roles involved requirements analysis, coding, testing, implementation, and production support. He is looking for a lead position that allows him to utilize his experience meaningfully in software development.
Sachin Tendulkar was born in 1973 in Bombay, India. He was encouraged to play cricket by his elder brother and attended Sharadashram Vidya Mandir high school, where his coach Ramakant Achrekar began guiding his cricketing career. Tendulkar went on to become one of the greatest batsmen in cricket history, holding numerous batting records including the all-time leading run scorer in Tests and ODIs and the only player to score a double century in ODIs. He received many national honors over his career recognizing his achievements and contributions to cricket in India.
02 recurso de apelacion de invita a la resol cpc exp320EXPAUK
En 3 oraciones o menos:
1) La compañía de seguros apela la resolución que declaró fundada la denuncia presentada por el asegurado y los sancionó con una multa, alegando que cumplieron con el contrato de seguros al rechazar la cobertura del siniestro basados en el atestado policial que concluyó que fue causado por imprudencia temeraria del asegurado. 2) Argumentan que la imprudencia temeraria es causal de exclusión de cobertura según sus condiciones generales
The memorandum summarizes a case in which a client, Stephen Christopher, is appealing his drug conviction. Christopher contends his constitutional rights were violated when police used a drug-sniffing dog to search his bag and car without a warrant. The memorandum analyzes relevant Pennsylvania case law and concludes the police were required to obtain a warrant because searching Christopher's bag constituted a search of his person. As the search was of a person, the police needed probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion, to conduct the canine search. Since the police did not have a warrant or probable cause, the search was illegal and Christopher should win his appeal.
Sample special interrogatories for CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
These sample special interrogatories for California is for a California civil case and is intended to be used by a defendant but can be modified for use by a plaintiff. The sample document on which this preview is based is very detailed and is 33 pages long including the declaration for additional discovery and proof of service by mail.
Writing sample (motion for summary judgment- abbreviated) for Martinez, Aaron...Aaron A. Martinez
This motion for summary judgment argues that the plaintiff, Treassa Wren, is not a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and therefore does not have standing to bring DTPA claims. It asserts that Wren's employer, Aldine Independent School District, purchased the school bus and driver's seat that injured Wren to further its business of transporting students, not primarily for Wren's benefit. Therefore, Wren did not acquire or have ownership of the bus and seat, and any benefit to her was incidental. As a result, the motion argues Wren is not a consumer under the DTPA as a matter of law and the DTPA claims should be dismissed.
The memorandum analyzes whether a conversation between a husband and wife in the presence of their children is considered a privileged spousal communication. It concludes that under Illinois law, as established in People v. Sanders, such a communication is not privileged if the children are old enough to understand the conversation. Here, the children were ages 16 and 10 and therefore old enough, so the conversation would be admissible in the husband's criminal assault trial. The memorandum recommends further investigating whether the children actually heard and understood the conversation at issue.
Alistair Jones Motion for Summary JudgmentAlistair Jones
Fred Northrop filed a motion for summary judgment against Acme Insurance in a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination by Northrop's supervisor Helen Redmond. Northrop claims that Redmond offered him a promotion in exchange for sexual favors, and then denied him the promotion and spread false rumors about him after he refused. Northrop argues that as Redmond's actions were in her official capacity as his supervisor for Acme, Acme is liable for sexual discrimination. Northrop is seeking damages, back pay, reinstatement to the denied position, and attorney's fees if found to have experienced discrimination as a motivating factor in being denied the promotion.
Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom after living in free states for several years. His case went through multiple trials in both state and federal courts. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court ruled against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African descent could claim citizenship in the United States. The Dred Scott decision heightened tensions between pro-slavery and abolition forces that contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.
Fred Northrup filed a lawsuit against Acme Insurance Inc. and Helen Redmond alleging sexual harassment and discrimination. Northrup submitted requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents from the defendants relating to Northrup's employment, complaints against Redmond, investigations into harassment claims, and criteria used in promotions. The requests covered topics such as Northrup's job performance reviews, complaints against Redmond, the hiring and disciplinary history of involved employees, and the company's anti-harassment policies and programs. The defendants were instructed to respond to the requests within 30 days.
1) Girardi & Stanton have a common law retaining lien that allows them to hold Mr. Gibson's files until their outstanding legal fees are paid. However, this lien is passive and does not allow them to withhold the files indefinitely.
2) While Girardi & Stanton are entitled to the outstanding $8,250 fee, they must turn over copies of the files to Mr. Gibson and the new law firm so the case is not prejudiced. Retaining liens should only be asserted as a last resort to avoid harming the client.
3) Mr. Gibson and the new law firm are entitled to receive the files, as withholding them would delay the case against Cerone Sporting
This case involves an appeal of a district court ruling that found a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to be unconstitutional. Anne Singh Robinson is appealing the district court's ruling that found an amended provision of VAWA exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief outlines the background of the case, the issues on appeal, and arguments for why the district court erred in its constitutional analysis of the amended VAWA provision under both the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
Alice Wesley filed a complaint against Meticulous Maids, Inc. and Martha Gardner for injuries sustained in a car accident. Wesley alleges that on May 1, 2014, while driving north on Route 51, she was struck by a vehicle driven by Gardner, who was acting within the scope of her employment for Meticulous Maids. Wesley suffered a broken collar bone, lacerations, and $100,000 in medical expenses. She is suing for negligence and seeks damages in excess of $25,000 to compensate for her injuries, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering.
This memorandum analyzes whether Simon Oakland's Sixth Amendment rights were violated in his criminal trial. It summarizes that Oakland's counsel, John Mitchum, was ineffective under the Strickland test for failing to challenge the legal basis of the charges against Oakland, making questionable decisions during jury selection and witness examination, and falling asleep during trial. It also argues that Oakland did not properly assert his right to self-representation under the Faretta test because the court did not warn him of the risks of proceeding without counsel and his statements seemed to stem from frustration, not a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel.
This document contains notices of taking deposition for Traian Bujduveanu in a case between Bujduveanu and Dismas Charities Inc. et al. The first notice schedules Bujduveanu's deposition for October 10, 2011 at 9:00am but the location. The second cancels that deposition and reschedules it for November 11, 2011 at the same location. The third notice indicates that Bujduveanu failed to appear for the November 11th deposition and certifies his non-appearance.
Kristen Stevens, a Florida actress, sued Robert Peterson, a Washington actor, for defamation. Peterson and Stevens had a business and romantic relationship and were members of the social media site HEADSHOT, Inc. After photos emerged of Stevens with another man, Peterson posted defamatory statements about Stevens on HEADSHOT. These statements were seen by others and damaged Stevens' reputation in Florida. Stevens is opposing Peterson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the court has jurisdiction due to their ongoing relationship and Peterson intentionally defaming her, knowing she lived in Florida.
Bass Pro Outdoor World opposes EEOC's argument that federal courts don’t have the power to enforce Title VII’s requirement that the EEOC conciliate in good faith.
Sample request for judicial notice in United States District CourtLegalDocsPro
This sample request for judicial notice in United States District Court is pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and requests that the court judicial notice of certain specified adjudicative facts. The sample is available for free download in Microsoft Word format, includes brief instructions and can be easily modified. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 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.
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities Inc. and three employees. The motion argues that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action because he violated terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, so the Bureau of Prisons properly returned him to prison to serve the rest of his sentence. It also argues the individual employees did not commit any tortious acts and the plaintiff has no evidence to support his legal claims against them. The defendants are requesting summary judgment to dismiss all claims.
1) Girardi & Stanton has a common law retaining lien that allows them to hold Mr. Gibson's files until their outstanding legal fees of $8,250 are paid. However, this retaining lien is passive and cannot be enforced through legal proceedings.
2) While Girardi & Stanton is entitled to the retaining lien, they must turn over copies of the files to Mr. Gibson and his new counsel to avoid prejudicing Mr. Gibson's legal matter against Cerone Wholesale Sporting Goods, as time is of the essence in that case.
3) Girardi & Stanton's assertion of the retaining lien to refuse to provide any files in this case would violate the rules of professional conduct
Vijay has over 8 years of experience in mainframe technologies like COBOL, JCL, and DB2. He has worked as a module lead and developer on banking, financial services, insurance, and manufacturing projects. His roles involved requirements analysis, coding, testing, implementation, and production support. He is looking for a lead position that allows him to utilize his experience meaningfully in software development.
Sachin Tendulkar was born in 1973 in Bombay, India. He was encouraged to play cricket by his elder brother and attended Sharadashram Vidya Mandir high school, where his coach Ramakant Achrekar began guiding his cricketing career. Tendulkar went on to become one of the greatest batsmen in cricket history, holding numerous batting records including the all-time leading run scorer in Tests and ODIs and the only player to score a double century in ODIs. He received many national honors over his career recognizing his achievements and contributions to cricket in India.
This memorandum discusses the legal justification for the USS Rescue's pursuit and capture of pirates in the territorial waters and land of Subland. It argues that this action would be justified if:
1) Subland gave prior consent, such as through a shiprider agreement or UN Security Council resolution, allowing other states to pursue pirates in its territory.
2) The pursuing vessel was clearly marked as governmental and had reasonable grounds to believe the pirates' boat was engaged in piracy.
3) If jurisdiction over the pirates is established, the US could prosecute them or transfer them to another state for prosecution, considering the nationality of the pirates' boat.
This document provides briefing for Project Two, a landscape site analysis project. Students will form groups of 7-8 members to analyze an existing residential property. They must measure the site, note existing conditions, and produce a base plan, site inventory diagram, and site analysis diagram. The site inventory records existing site features, while the analysis evaluates the features. Students will also produce an individual site synthesis diagram with design solutions. Submission includes a booklet with the group and individual diagrams. The project is due on October 13th and accounts for 20% of the group grade and 10% of the individual grade.
1. XO Group is transforming into a digital marketplace to connect brides with wedding vendors, leveraging its position as the #1 online wedding property and growing baby brand.
2. The presentation outlines strategic investments to improve the company's marketplace capabilities and unlock new revenue opportunities by facilitating transactions between brides and hundreds of thousands of local vendors.
3. By capturing a larger share of the $60 billion spent annually on local wedding services, the digital marketplace aims to accelerate growth and increase monetization of XO Group's first-party data, content and vendor network.
Contributor purpose and contribution at every level are important for success according to the principles outlined. The document then outlines the career journey of an individual, starting as a medical officer in 1990, obtaining opthamology admissions and qualifications through 1994, and working in various medical roles and hospitals over the following years, including starting a private hospital in 2008. It notes the importance of innovation at the start of one's career as well as maintaining quality results and treatment for patients, rather than simply focusing on earnings, in order to build a successful practice.
The document provides an investor presentation for XO Group. It summarizes that XO Group is transforming into a digital marketplace focused on weddings and new parents. It is the #1 online wedding property with growing visitors. The presentation outlines XO Group's strategic transformation to accelerate growth, including investing in its core assets like TheKnot.com to replicate the success of its mobile apps and enable true marketplace connections. It also discusses reviewing underperforming businesses and focusing on high growth assets.
August 2016 investor relations q2 2016 presentationXOGroup
The document is an investor presentation by XO Group Inc. summarizing the company's financial performance and growth strategies. It discusses XO Group achieving 7% revenue growth in the second quarter of 2016 compared to the previous year, with transaction revenue increasing 55%. Adjusted EBITDA also rose 13% year-over-year. The presentation outlines XO Group's plans to accelerate revenue growth through expanding its marketplace offerings and transactions business.
This document provides an investor presentation for XO Group from March 2015. It begins with safe harbor statements noting that projections are estimates and actual results may differ. It then outlines XO Group's investment opportunity as the #1 online wedding property with a solid financial foundation and strategic transformation underway. Key metrics on revenue, earnings, and brands are provided. The presentation discusses initiatives to transform The Knot into a wedding vendor marketplace and leverage assets to capture a larger share of the $60B local wedding services market. It also outlines the business strategy, including investing in growth areas and taking decisive action on underperforming assets. Product roadmap and app investments are highlighted, as well as leadership changes and investments in the business.
- XO Group is the #1 online wedding planning company and owns other lifestyle websites such as The Bump for babies.
- It is undergoing a strategic transformation to evolve its wedding vendor marketplace and capture a larger share of the $70 billion local wedding services market.
- In Q2 2015, revenue increased 8% excluding merchandise operations, gross margin was 92%, and adjusted EBITDA was $8.7 million. The company has $85.6 million in cash.
This document contains projections and forward-looking statements from a company about its financial performance and estimates regarding third parties. It notes that actual results may differ from projections. It also lists factors that could cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements, such as failure to generate sufficient revenue, history of losses, inability to adjust spending quickly, and increased competition reducing market share. The document provides an investment opportunity in the company by highlighting its leading position in the wedding market, growing baby property, strong brand, diversified revenue streams, transformed leadership and operations, and target for new growth and margin models.
Temple University's Campus Recreation said goodbye to two staff members, John Doman and Chris Hopkins, who took new positions at the University of Pennsylvania. Doman had worked at Temple since 2000 in various roles before becoming Senior Associate Director. Hopkins had worked at Temple since 2005 in roles such as Operations Manager and Assistant Director before becoming Associate Director of Fitness and Administration. Both reflected fondly on their time at Temple and the family atmosphere of Campus Recreation. Campus Recreation will hold an event called Swim for MS to raise awareness and funds for multiple sclerosis research. The event organizer's sister was diagnosed with MS at a young age and hopes this event helps support those with the disease.
This document lists 17 contributions and accomplishments of Barack Obama during his presidency, including ending the war in Iraq, eliminating Osama bin Laden, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, improving fuel efficiency standards, passing health care reform, and investing in renewable energy technology. It was prepared by Dewang Gamit and provides an overview of Obama's policies and achievements as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2016.
This document outlines the requirements for Project 2 of the Constructed Landscape course. The project involves analyzing an existing residential property with outdoor space. Students will work in groups to conduct site analysis of a property, including its context, topography, drainage, vegetation, microclimate, structures, and views. Individually, students must provide a conceptual design solution or "site synthesis" diagram. Submissions must include a group site analysis booklet and individual design solution. The work will be assessed based on understanding the brief, research depth and quality, graphic communication skills, collaboration, and design solution originality.
The document provides information about body weight training and sample workout routines of varying difficulty levels that can be done without gym equipment during fall break. It also discusses the importance of warming up and cooling down when doing workouts. Other sections provide updates about recent Campus Recreation events and activities, recipes, tips for staying healthy and productive in the fall semester, and an interview with a student about her study abroad experiences on a semester at sea program.
Metro Building & Architectural Services Ltd is a family-owned construction business established in 1981 that operates out of East London. The company has three divisions - Construction, Architectural, and Surveying & Project Management. Metro undertakes projects throughout Greater London and the Home Counties, including commercial refurbishments, fit-outs, new builds, and restorations for a variety of private and public sector clients. Metro prides itself on high quality workmanship and flexible client services.
E-How; "How to Get Your Child to Live a Healthy Life"Alyssa Marie
The document outlines an e-how website that will provide concise, step-by-step instructions on various health and nutrition topics for children, such as making healthy snacks, reading food labels, balancing an active lifestyle, encouraging healthy eating habits, and teaching nutrition basics. It aims to educate both parents and children in an easy to understand format supported by pictures. The direct, visual instruction style has proven popular in other health e-how sites and will help readers learn the necessary steps for each topic.
March 2016 investor relations presentation 3 3-16XOGroup
This document provides an overview of XO Group Inc., including its financial performance, business segments, leadership team, and growth strategy. Some key points:
- XO Group owns wedding planning site The Knot and parenting site The Bump, with diversified revenue streams including advertising, transactions, and publishing.
- The company has transformed under a new leadership team, upgrading products/technology, evaluating assets, and setting a target of double-digit revenue growth and 20% adjusted EBITDA margins.
- In 2015, revenue was $142 million across its brands and business segments. The Knot remains the #1 online wedding property with nearly 10 million monthly unique visitors.
- Moving forward, the
This document lists 20 artworks created by Jason Alber between 2012-2014 including drawings, prints, paintings, sculptures, and mixed media. The works cover a range of materials like graphite, acrylic, watercolor, woodblock, bronze, and found objects. Sizes vary from small prints to large sculptures but most works are approximately 1-3 feet in their dimensions.
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docxwrite12
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps, upholding their right to peacefully picket military funerals with offensive signs under the First Amendment. The case involved a lawsuit by Albert Snyder against Westboro for picketing his son's funeral with signs containing messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". While recognizing the distress caused to Snyder, the Court found that Westboro's speech addressed public issues and did not disrupt the funeral, and was therefore protected. Only Justice Alito dissented, arguing the picketing constituted brutalization beyond the scope of free speech protections.
This case, as one of the justices put it, has to do with the "power of an unelected official, Andrea Palmer, and her order to all people with Wisconsin" and does not directly pertain to gubernatorial powers. It does put limitations on the powers of these unelected officials (bureaucrats) and does not constrain gubernatorial powers.
FindLaw | Court of Appeals Reverses Entry Bar to Islamic ScholarLegalDocs
This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case regarding the denial of a visa for Tariq Ramadan, an Islamic scholar. The three organizational plaintiffs claimed the denial violated their First Amendment right to have Ramadan share his views in the US. The government denied the visa because Ramadan had contributed funds to a charity that supported Hamas, which the government deemed material support to a terrorist organization. The Court of Appeals concluded that the consular officer who denied the visa did not properly confront Ramadan with the allegations, which prevented Ramadan from demonstrating that he did not know the charity supported terrorism. The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Plaintiff Joan Silver was injured during a hypnotherapy session with Defendant Stanley Fine, a Baltimore County volunteer. Silver did not provide formal notice to the county of her potential lawsuit as required by law. Instead, some months later, she sent an informal email to her former boss, the County Executive, hinting at a possible lawsuit but not explicitly stating her intent. Defendant argues that Silver did not substantially comply with the notice requirement or show good cause for failing to comply. As such, Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
Indiana Senate = answer to plaintiffs complaint and other defensesAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
As Indiana lawmaker attempt to hire their own counsel to represent them in the sexual harassment case involving Attorney General Curtis Hill, they also spell out their own defenses as to why the state is not liable.
This motion seeks to set aside a summary judgment entered against Walter Castillo Martinez and for leave to withdraw or amend his response to requests for admissions. It argues that extraordinary circumstances prevented Castillo from defending himself. Specifically, Castillo received a forged letter threatening his life and went into hiding in Europe for safety. As a result, he could not respond to the requests for admissions or motion for summary judgment. The motion argues this satisfies the standards for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and that withdrawing the admissions would allow the case to be decided on the merits. It seeks to set aside the $10 million default judgment against Castillo.
The paper should discuss the different types of baby gates available, including pressure-mounted gates and hardware-mounted gates. It is important to measure openings accurately and choose a gate style suitable for its intended use and location. Safety certifications like JPMA should be examined. The paper should also explore factors like ease of use, durability, and fall prevention features that parents should consider when selecting the best baby gate for their home and family needs.
The document provides instructions for creating an account and submitting a paper writing request to the website HelpWriting.net. It outlines a 5-step process: 1) Create an account with a password and email. 2) Complete a 10-minute order form providing instructions, sources, and deadline. 3) Review bids from writers and select one. 4) Review the completed paper and authorize payment. 5) Request revisions to ensure satisfaction, with the option of a full refund for plagiarized work. The purpose is to guide users through obtaining writing help and assignment assistance from the website.
Appellant's Reply Brief in Georgia Court of AppealsJanet McDonald
Reply Brief filed into Georgia Court of Appeals. The Court had treated the Plaintiff/Appellant very unfairly, most likely because he was proceeding in propria persona. Legal argument, very informative.
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Gregory B. Clark's parents after he died from injuries sustained in a car accident. Clark was a passenger in a car driven by an intoxicated minor. The plaintiffs sued the state of Arizona, arguing the state was partially responsible because it had abolished its dram shop act, which had previously allowed for liability against establishments that served alcohol to minors. The appellate court ruled that abolishing the dram shop act was a discretionary function of the state legislature and did not create a special relationship between the state and minors, so the state was immune from liability under the public duty doctrine
This order grants summary judgment to defendant Hawaii Family Forum and defendant Fuddy, denies summary judgment for plaintiffs, and denies defendant Abercrombie's motion for summary judgment as moot. The order also denies Hawaii Family Forum's motion to dismiss defendant Abercrombie. The court finds that plaintiffs' claims that Hawaii's laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate due process and equal protection are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's dismissal in Baker v. Nelson. Alternatively, the court finds plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits, and that Perry v. Brown does not control this case due to differences in California and Hawaii's same-sex marriage histories. The court concludes Hawaii's laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests.
The defendants filed a motion to amend the judgment to add various trusts, foundations, and business entities including LLCs as judgment debtors. The plaintiffs' counsel argued the court does not have jurisdiction over the trust assets and proper notice was not provided to the beneficiaries or trustee as required by the Probate Code. The court questioned why these jurisdictional and notice arguments were not included in the opposition filing. Plaintiffs' counsel said he was late to the case and specially appearing to raise these issues, and offered to allow further briefing to address the arguments.
This article argues that the common law should recognize and protect a right to privacy. As civilization advances, the law must expand to protect individuals' mental and emotional well-being, not just physical security and property. Recent technological advances like instant photography and widespread media now threaten privacy in new ways. Unless courts recognize and enforce a right to privacy, press overreach will continue to spread private gossip and lower social standards. While similar to defamation, privacy invasion causes spiritual rather than just material harm by disturbing one's inner self instead of just reputation.
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MOOT
______________________________________________________________________________
MS. NANCY KNIGHT,
Plaintiff, Civil No. 14-3456 (ABC/DEF)
v.
URBANSVILLE AQUARIUM
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Due to the fact that Defendant Urbansville Aquarium Corporation (hereinafter
“Aquarium”), is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law in this case, the Court should find in
favor of Aquarium on this motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff claimed Aquarium violated the
Family Medical Leave Act (hereinafter “FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2611, by terminating her for a
pattern of unexcused absences during her trip to Las Vegas from September 2014 through October
2014. However, Plaintiff’s alleged request for leave is not covered by the definition of “care” under
the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). Predicated on the plain meaning, legislative intent
and purpose, agency and judicial interpretations of 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009), and
incorporating by reference the opinion of Dr. Thaddeus Green, it is clear that Plaintiff’s four week
trip to Las Vegas is not covered by the definition of “care” in the FMLA. Accordingly, this Court
should grant summary judgment in favor of Aquarium.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff was employed as an Animal Technician at Aquarium, and her supervisor was Ms.
Caroline Juniper. (Compl. ¶ 7.) On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff’s father, Mr. Wayne Knight, was
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
2. 2
diagnosed with Billiard Halls Syndrome (hereinafter “BHS”). (W. Knight Decl. ¶ 2.) Mr. Knight
was subsequently told by Drs. Reginald White and Thaddeus Green of Urbansville University
Hospital that effective treatment for his disease could be administered in Urbansville, but the best
treatment facility was the Colonel S. Mustard Institute (hereinafter “CSM Institute”) in Las Vegas,
Nevada. (W. Knight Decl. ¶ 3.) Even though he could have received effective treatment at
Urbansville University Hospital, Mr. Knight decided to go to Las Vegas, insisting he bring his dog
Mittens with him to the CSM Institute. (W. Knight Decl. ¶ 4.) After Mr. Knight asked if “bringing
Mittens to Las Vegas would be alright,” Drs. White and Green informed him that, while BHS is
highly contagious between humans, it is not transmissible to dogs. (Id.) However, Dr. Green told
Mr. Knight that a therapy dog was not medically necessary for the BHS drug treatment and, if
anything, would likely make it difficult for Mr. Knight to obtain the amount of rest he needed. (Id.)
Dr. White allegedly disagreed with Dr. Green and told Mr. Knight that bringing the dog could help
Mr. Knight manage his stress levels and potentially make his BHS drugs more effective. (Id.)
Following his diagnosis on the morning of September 18, Mr. Knight allegedly contacted
his three children. (W. Knight Decl. ¶ 6.) Then, even though Mr. Knight admits he and Plaintiff
“have drifted apart over the years,” speaking only once or twice a year, Plaintiff volunteered to
make the trip to Las Vegas the following day. (Id.) Plaintiff admitted she saw the trip to Las Vegas
“as a great opportunity to reconnect with [her father] and to see Las Vegas for the first time.” (Pl.’s
Decl. ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff is admittedly an avid poker player, and also asserted the trip to Las
Vegas would “give [her] a chance to test [her] poker skills against the best.” (Id.)
The same day of his diagnosis on September 18, Mr. Knight wrote a letter to his insurance
company, Cash Savers Insurance Company (hereinafter “Savers Insurance”) requesting funds to
cover Plaintiff’s airfare and rent for her trip to Las Vegas. (W. Knight Fax to Savers Insurance
3. 3
9/18/2014.) Mr. Knight substantiated his claim for these funds by stating that Plaintiff was joining
him in Las Vegas to take care of Mittens and that “Mittens [would] act, in effect, as a secondary
medication to supplement [his] treatment for BHS.” (Id.) Mr. Knight also attached a letter from
Dr. White, in which Dr. White states that Plaintiff and Mittens “will both be providing valuable
assistance to Mr. Knight” and that Mitten’s presence “should ease [Mr. Knight’s] anxiety and
potentially improve the odds that his other treatment will be successful.” (emphasis added) (Dr.
White Letter to W. Knight 9/18/14.)
On the morning of September 19, Mr. Knight contacted CSM Institute via e-mail about its
therapy dog policies. (W. Knight Email to Mr. Valencia 9/19/14.) CSM Institute responded that
therapy dogs are only allowed in the facility from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Id.) CSM Institute also
informed Mr. Knight at this time that other therapy dogs were available in the Las Vegas area.
(Mr. Valencia Email to W. Knight 9/19/14.) That afternoon, Savers Insurance sent a letter to Mr.
Knight denying coverage of Plaintiff’s transportation and housing cost. (Savers Insurance Letter
to W. Knight 9/19/14.) Savers Insurance enclosed a letter from Mr. Knight’s doctor, Dr. Green,
which stood as the basis for their denial of coverage for Plaintiff’s transportation and housing
costs. (Id.) In Dr. Green’s letter he specifically states that “[Plaintiff’s] presence in Las Vegas to
take care of the therapy dog is not medically necessary, and [he is] skeptical that her presence
would do anything except bother Mr. Knight.” (Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance 9/19/14.) Dr.
Green based this hypothesis on his observation of Plaintiff and Mr. Knight interacting in the
hospital, opining that their relationship did “not strike [him] as [a relationship] that would be likely
to help Mr. Knight maintain positive morale.” (Id.) Additionally, Dr. Green observed that “the
nature of Mr. Knight’s illness is such that the only thing that matters is whether his body accepts
the medication,” and to his knowledge there is no evidence which shows that a therapy dog would
4. 4
“have any impact on Mr. Knight’s body’s ability to accept the medication.” (Id.) Thus, Dr. Green
concluded neither Plaintiff nor Mittens were necessary for the successful treatment of Mr. Knight.
(Id.)
However, Mr. Knight was set on bringing Mittens. (W. Knight Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff still
needed to figure out a way to get time off of her job at Aquarium, as she had already spent all of
her vacation time on a trip to Belize. (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 3.) So, on September 19 Plaintiff handed in her
application for unpaid leave under the FMLA to her supervisor Ms. Juniper. (Id.) Without waiting
for approval, Plaintiff left for Las Vegas on September 20. (Id.) On September 24, Aquarium
denied Plaintiff’s application for leave under the FMLA. (Compl. ¶ 17.)
Because her father needed to be kept quarantined throughout the duration of Plaintiff’s stay
in Las Vegas, Plaintiff’s relevant activities included simply dropping Mittens off at his room and
picking the dog back up at 5:00 p.m. (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Knight admitted that he “did not spend
a great deal of time with [Plaintiff]” over the course of her stay in Las Vegas. (W. Knight Decl. ¶
7.) The only time that Mr. Knight would see Plaintiff was when she would pick up Mittens from
the CSM Institute to take him for a walk and when she played board games with Mr. Knight for
around an hour a week, through the glass of Mr. Knight’s room. (Id.) Instead of spending any
significant amount of time with her father, Plaintiff spent her last two weeks in Las Vegas with
her fiancé, describing the experience as “a good trip to Vegas.” (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff was absent from work for a period of four weeks from September 22, 2014 until
her return to Urbansville on October 20, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 16.) On October 21, 2014, due to her
absence without authorization for a period of four weeks, Plaintiff’s employment at Urbansville
Aquarium was terminated. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint under FMLA
with this Court on December 20, 2014. (Compl.)
5. 5
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A summary judgment movant bears the burden of showing the court “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of the
law.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Additionally,
“[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be
insufficient [to defeat a summary judgment motion]; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
Thus, in order to survive a summary judgment motion, the non-movant must show that there is a
genuine dispute as to the material facts of a case and that a jury could reasonably find for its
position. If the movant shows there is no such factual dispute, and no reasonable jury could find
in favor of the non-movant, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law on such issue.
ARGUMENT
It is clear from the plain meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009) and the undisputed
material facts that Plaintiff did not “care for” her father during her four weeks of absences from
her employment at Aquarium. Thus, because no reasonable juror could find for Plaintiff on this
issue, Aquarium is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Additionally, the intention of the legislature enacting the FMLA,
interpretations of the Department of Labor, the interpretations of circuit courts across the country,
as well as policy reasons suggest that Plaintiff’s four week trip to Las Vegas was not covered by
the definition of “care” in the FMLA. Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108 (1990) (stating
that courts look to legislative history, motivating policies and judicial interpretations for guidance
in statutory interpretation after they look to the language and structure of the statute). Accordingly,
this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of Aquarium.
6. 6
I. PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE “CARE” PURSUANT TO THE WORD’S PLAIN
MEANING IN THE FMLA DURING HER ABSENCE FROM EMPLOYMENT AT
AQUARIUM, THUS AQUARIUM IS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT AS A
MATTER OF THE LAW.
When interpreting the scope of a statute, courts look first to the plain meaning of the words
used. Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108 (1990). In determining the plain meaning of the
words used, courts look to contemporary dictionary definitions of the words in their context.
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997). The relevant section of the FMLA in this motion
reads that eligible employees are entitled to twelve (12) workweeks of leave during a twelve (12)-
month period “[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if
such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.” (emphasis added) 29 U.S.C.
2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). One dictionary defines “care for” as “[l]ook after and provide for the needs
of.” Oxford Dictionaries, (emphasis added)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/care (last visited Feb. 15, 2015). Another
dictionary ascribes “care for” the meaning “to do the necessary things for someone who needs help
or protection.” Macmillan Dictionary, (emphasis added)
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/care-for (last visited Feb. 15, 2015).
A third dictionary provides that “care for” means “to protect someone or something and provide
the things they need, especially someone who is young, old or ill.” (emphasis added) Cambridge
Dictionaries, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/care-for-sb (last visited Feb. 15,
2015). Thus, all of these dictionaries define “care” as providing for someone’s needs. Accordingly,
no reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff provided “care” for her father in this case, as all she
did during her four weeks of absences was take care of her father’s dog and play board games with
her father. Specifically, Dr. Green testified that “the nature of Mr. Knight’s illness is such that the
only thing that matters is whether his body accepts the medication” and that a therapy dog will not
7. 7
have any impact on the acceptance of medication. (Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance 9/19/14.)
While Dr. White contradicted Dr. Green, asserting “the presence of his therapy dog should ease
[Mr. Knight’s] anxiety and potentially improve the odds that his other treatment will be
successful,” the fact that Dr. White hedges his language, using the words “should” and
“potentially,” suggests that he doubts the validity of this opinion and thus needs to hedge his
language in order to save his medical reputation. (Dr. White letter to W. Knight 9/18/14.)
Furthermore, even if Dr. White’s opinion is taken as valid, it does not change the fact that Mittens,
and tangentially Plaintiff, were not necessary to the amelioration of Mr. Knight’s BHS—as the
dog’s presence would admittedly only “potentially improve” the likelihood Mr. Knight would get
better. (Id.) Consequently, because neither Mittens nor Plaintiff’s board games were necessary to
Mr. Knight’s needs, primarily the amelioration of his BHS, Plaintiff’s activities in Las Vegas
cannot reasonably be construed to be covered by the plain meaning of “care” in 29 U.S.C.
2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). Accordingly, this Court should grant judgment as a matter of the law for
Aquarium on this motion.
Further, when interpreting a statute in which “items expressed are members of an
associated group or series,” the doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius justifies “the
inference that items not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.” (internal
quotations omitted) Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003). The relevant section
of the FMLA makes eligible employees entitled to leave “to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter,
or parent, of the employee. . . .” (emphasis added) 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). Accordingly,
“spouse,” “son,” “daughter,” and “parent,” make up the associated group, or human beings who
are close in relation to the relevant employee, to which expressio unius applies. Consequently, its
application justifies the inference that Congress deliberately excluded therapy dogs, or anyone else
8. 8
who is not a close family member with a “serious health condition,” as it meant for the section
only to apply to the direct “care” administered by the eligible employee to the family member.
Thus, even if a juror was to find that Mittens provided “care” for Mr. Knight in this case under the
FMLA, a reasonable juror could not conclude that providing “care” for Mittens was covered by
the plain meaning of “care” in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). As a result of the fact that no
reasonable juror on the undisputed material facts could construe Plaintiff’s activities in Las Vegas
as providing “care” within the definition provided in the FMLA, this Court should grant summary
judgment in favor of Aquarium on this motion.
II. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND FMLA SHOWS THAT PLAINTIFF DID
NOT PROVIDE “CARE” AS COVERED BY ITS PROVISIONS, THUS
AQUARIUM IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF THE LAW.
If the meaning and scope of a statute remain ambiguous after looking at the plain meaning
and structure of the words, courts look to the legislative history and purpose of the statute for
guidance. Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108 (1990). Two of the primary purposes
Congress gave for the FMLA are “to entitle employees to take reasonable leave . . .for the care of
a child, spouse, or parent” and “to accomplish [these] purposes . . .in a manner that accommodates
the legitimate interests of employers.” (emphasis added) H.R. Rep. 103-8, at 2 (1993). The
application of the latter purpose to the former explicitly suggests that both “reasonable leave” and
“care” should be construed narrowly so that employees are not taking advantage of the Act at the
expense of their employers. Read in this way, a reasonable juror could not possibly construe “care”
in the FMLA as providing indirect care to a therapy dog which does not in fact provide for the
needs of the seriously ill family member. Nor could a reasonable juror read “reasonable leave” to
encompass four consecutive weeks during which the employee spent little more than an hour a
week with her seriously ill father. Consequently, accounting for the FMLA’s purpose pursuant to
9. 9
cited legislative history, no reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff’s activities in Las Vegas are
covered by the FMLA, and thus Aquarium is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law on this
motion.
Further, the specific legislative interpretations of “to care for” in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C)
(2009) only strengthen this conclusion. While Congress states that it “intended [‘to care for’] to be
read broadly to include both physical and psychological care,” it did so in the context that:
Parents provide far greater psychological comfort and reassurance
to a seriously ill child than others not so closely tied to the child. In
some cases there is no one other than the child's parents to care for
the child. The same is often true for adults caring for a seriously ill
parent or spouse.
S. Rep. 103-3, at 24 (1993), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 26. First, Plaintiff did not provide any
physical care to her father, as she did not enter his room during her four weeks of absences. (Pl.’s
Decl. ¶ 4.) Additionally, far from providing “psychological comfort and reassurance,” Plaintiff’s
limited presence most likely only bothered Mr. Knight. (Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance
9/19/14.) Thus no reasonable juror could find, pursuant to the enacting legislature’s intent, that
Plaintiff is covered by the FMLA, and Aquarium is consequently entitled to judgment as a matter
of the law.
Finally, Congress commented that “[‘to care for’] is also intended to assure employees the
right to a period of leave to attend to a child’s, spouse’s, or parent’s basic needs . . . .” (emphasis
added) S. Rep. 103-3, at 24 (1993), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 26. This comment strengthens
the fact that the plain meaning of “care” as construed in the FMLA pertains to providing for a
seriously ill family member’s needs; and, as already established, because neither Mittens nor
Plaintiff were essential to the amelioration of Mr. Knight’s BHS, no reasonable juror could find
10. 10
Plaintiff covered by the FMLA in this case. (See, e.g., Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance
9/19/14.) Accordingly, Aquarium is entitled to judgment as a matter of the law on this motion.
III. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FMLA SHOW
THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE THE “CARE” THAT THE FMLA
PROTECTS, THUS AQUARIUM IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
OF THE LAW.
If Congress has not spoken directly on an issue in a statute, courts must give deference to
agency interpretations of statutes when it “appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency
generally to make rules carrying the force of law,” and the agency interpretation claiming
deference was promulgated in exercise of that authority. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S.
218, 226-27 (2001). Further, in order to grant deference to an agency interpretation, a court must
determine it is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron, USA v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). However, “[i]nterpretations such as those in
opinion letters—like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and
enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law—do not warrant Chevron-style
deference.” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus the weight afforded by
courts to agency interpretations of their own regulations normally “will depend upon the
thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier
and later pronouncements,” and any other factor that may make it persuasive authority. Skidmore
v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
If this Court feels the meaning of “care” in the FMLA is still ambiguous after the arguments
posited above, the Department of Labor’s (hereinafter “DOL”) regulation is entitled to Chevron
deference, as Congress explicitly granted it the power to “prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out” the provisions of the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2654 (1993). The DOL’s
regulation defines “care” as construed in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009) to include “providing
11. 11
psychological comfort and reassurance which would be beneficial to a child, spouse or parent with
a serious health condition . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a) (2013). Thus the only difference between
this regulation and S. Rep. 103-3, at 24 (1993) is the qualification of “care” to be “beneficial” to
the family member. This albeit obvious qualification to the definition of “care” in 29 U.S.C.
2612(a)(1)(C) (2009) unambiguously demonstrates that Plaintiff’s activities during her four weeks
of absences from Aquarium are not covered by the FMLA. Specifically, as Dr. Green stated,
neither Plaintiff’s nor Mittens’ presence would have any effect on the amelioration of Mr. Knight’s
BHS, and thus could not possibly be beneficial to him. (Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance
9/19/14.) Further, given the fact that Plaintiff and her father had a poor relationship (see, e.g., W.
Knight Decl. ¶ 6; Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance 9/19/14.), it is likely that Plaintiff’s presence
in Las Vegas only bothered Mr. Knight and thus had a detrimental effect on him. Additionally,
even if Plaintiff’s presence did not bother Mr. Knight, being in proximity to him for little more
than one hour a week could not possibly be construed by a reasonable juror as being beneficial to
Mr. Knight’s health so as to satisfy the interpretation in 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a) (2013). Finally,
the application of expressio unius once again implies that the DOL interpreted “care” as providing
direct care, as it did not include any language referring to caring for individuals outside of the
protected group, or close family members. Thus, based on 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a) (2013), no
reasonable juror could find for the Plaintiff on the undisputed facts and Aquarium is accordingly
entitled to summary judgment in its favor.
If this Court finds 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a) (2013) to leave the meaning of “care” in the
FMLA ambiguous, it must grant full deference to the DOL’s interpretations of this regulation.
Auer v. Robins, 519 U.S. 452, 457 (1997). If, however, this Court finds that 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a)
(2013) provides a significantly clear interpretation of “care,” it should still give the DOL’s
12. 12
interpretations the “power to persuade . . . .” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
The DOL’s interpretations of 29 C.F.R. § 825.124(a) (2013) reflect S. Rep. 103-3, at 24 (1993),
defining “care” as “providing physical and psychological care and comfort . . . .” Opinion Letter
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 1998 WL 1147751, at 1 (Feb. 27, 1998); U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
Field Operations Handbook: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), at 22 (2013) (defining
“care” as “[p]roviding psychological comfort and reassurance to a child, parent, or spouse . . . .”).
Accordingly, these interpretations further strengthen the arguments posited above for why Plaintiff
did not “care” for her father as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009). Thus no reasonable
juror, on the undisputed facts of this case, could find that Plaintiff is covered by the definition of
“care” in 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009), and therefore this Court should find in favor of
Aquarium on this motion.
IV. THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS ACROSS THE U.S.
SUGGEST THE FMLA PROVISION “CARE” SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED
SO BROADLY AS TO ENCOMPASS PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS IN THIS CASE,
THUS AQUARIUM IS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF THE
LAW.
Courts are entitled to look at prior judicial constructions of a statute if they “follow[] from
the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leave[] no room for agency discretion.” Nat’l Cable
& Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv., 545 U.S. 967, 983 (2005). Thus, because the plain
meaning and structure of 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009) is unambiguous, and the interpretation
of “care” is one of first instance in this circuit, this Court should look to the interpretations of other
circuits to guide its decision on this motion. First, many circuits across the country have interpreted
“care” in the FMLA to require the direct administration of physical or psychological comfort and
reassurance which is beneficial to the employee’s seriously ill family member. See, e.g.,
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 305–06 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that
13. 13
a reasonable factfinder could find the employee covered by the FMLA for providing direct
psychological comfort to her mother in the emergency room); Ballard v. Chicago Park Dist., 741
F.3d 838, 839 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that an employee who cooked her mother’s meals,
administered insulin and other medication, drained fluids from her mother’s heart, bathed and
dressed her mother was covered by the FMLA). Further, courts tend to find that “care” under the
FMLA necessitates “close and continuing proximity to the ill family member.” (emphasis added)
Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an employee
traveling across the country to retrieve a family car and calling his wife to reassure her while she
was in the hospital was not covered by the FMLA); see, e.g., Scamihorn v. Gen. Truck Drivers,
Office, Food & Warehouse Union, 282 F.3d 1078, 1080–84 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the
employee was covered under the FMLA when he moved in with his father, provided direct
psychological comfort and support for his father’s depression through daily conversations, and
drove his father to his psychologist); Marchisheck v. San Mateo Cnty., 199 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th
Cir. 1999) (holding that “care” under the FMLA “involves some level of participation in ongoing
treatment of that condition”). Additionally, courts have held that satisfying the definition of “care”
under the FMLA requires an eligible employee to show that he/she provided some level of care to
the seriously ill family member on all of his/her absences from employment. Miller v. State of
Nebraska Dept. of Econ. Dev., 467 Fed. App’x. 536, 540 (8th Cir. 2012). Finally, a recent circuit
court decision which stands as an exception to these general jurisprudential trends pertains to
Gienapp v. Harbor Crest, 756 F.3d 527, 531 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding that the employee might be
covered by the FMLA if providing care to her grandchildren was found to be beneficial to her
daughter’s health). However, Gienapp is distinguishable from the case at bar for two reasons: (1)
taking care of someone’s children is a much greater and different task than taking care of
14. 14
someone’s dog, and (2) Dr. Green’s letter already establishes that Mittens could not have had an
effect on the amelioration of Mr. Knight’s BHS. (Dr. Green Letter to Savers Insurance 9/19/14.)
Accordingly, a reasonable juror could not find on the facts of this case that Plaintiff is
covered by the FMLA, as caring for Mittens is not directly caring for Mr. Knight. Further, the
record supports the conclusion that neither Plaintiff, nor Mittens was in close and continuing
proximity to Mr. Knight on every day of her absences, as she only dropped Mittens off Monday
through Friday (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 4), and only spent around an hour per week with her father (W. Knight
Decl. ¶ 7). Thus, even if a juror were to find on the facts of this case that Plaintiff was providing
“care” when she was playing board games with her father or taking care of Mittens, no reasonable
juror could find that these activities were sufficient as to be covered by the FMLA. As a result,
this Court should find in favor of Aquarium on this summary judgment motion.
V. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BAD PUBLIC POLICY TO CONSTRUE “CARE” IN
FMLA TO INCLUDE THE ACTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE,
AQUARIUM IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF THE LAW.
As the baby-boomer generation comes of age, the number of Americans taking care of
elderly parents is going to increase exponentially in the years to come. Specifically, by 2020 40%
of the American workforce expects to care for an elderly relative, and by 2030 20% of Americans
will be 65 and older. Peggie Smith, Elder Care, Gender, and Work: The Work-Family Issue of the
21st Century, 25 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 351, 352 (2004). Thus, the number of employees
bringing FMLA claims will only increase in the years to come, correlating with the increase in
employees needing leave to care for elderly parents. Consequently, a reading of “care” so broad
as to apply to the circumstances of this case will only incentivize the bringing of FMLA claims
which are already expected to increase exponentially. This will put an extreme burden on
employers, and especially smaller businesses that cannot afford litigation or for their employees
to be taking leave ad libitum. As a result, a decision in favor of Plaintiff in this case will not only
15. 15
hurt the American economy, but will completely contradict one of the primary purposes of the
FMLA: to “accommodate the legitimate interests of employers.” H.R. Rep. 103-8, at 2 (1993).
Accordingly, this Court should grant judgment as a matter of the law in favor of Aquarium on this
motion.
CONCLUSION
The plain meaning of the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) shows that Plaintiff’s
actions during her four weeks of absences from work at Aquarium are not covered by the definition
of “care” under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) (2009), and thus Aquarium is entitled to judgment as a
matter of the law. The intent of the legislature enacting FMLA, the Department of Labor’s
interpretations of the Act, judicial interpretations in circuits across the union, and policy reasons
all support this conclusion, and caution courts against reading “care” to include the circumstances
of this case. Accordingly, because no reasonable juror could find in favor of the Plaintiff in the
question at bar on the material facts of this case, this Court should grant summary judgment in
favor of Aquarium.