ARGUMENT Sample Clauses

ARGUMENT. Oral argument or briefs on a motion may be ordered by the As- sistant Administrator or the adminis- trative law judge.

ARGUMENT argument of the complaining Party;

ARGUMENT. As noted above, this case is in its early stages of discovery and involves a complex subject matter and dozens of parties. In an effort to minimize judicial intervention in the discovery process and better streamline the production of documents and information, Plaintiffs circulated a proposed stipulated Protective Order (Ex. A), a Clawback Agreement (Ex. B), and an ESI Protocol (Ex. C) to all parties. These proposed discovery protocols lay out the handling of protected information and documents, the process for handling inadvertent productions of privileged or confidential information, as well as the method for preserving ESI, collecting and exchanging search terms for ESI, the form of production, prior productions, the handling of privileged information, and more. ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Aug 22 11:08 AM - CHARLESTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP1002574 These protocols lay out, in detail, proposed plans and limitations on discovery, as well as the form of production and other issues relating to ESI and protocols for claims of privilege or protection of requested information. These proposed protocols lay out, in detail, all of the information required under Rule 26(f) for the setting of a discovery conference. Plaintiffs have made multiple good faith efforts to reach agreement with opposing attorneys on the issues presented in this motion. Plaintiffs have circulated proposed stipulated protective orders and ESI protocols to all parties on multiple occasions requesting and implementing feedback as it is received. Plaintiffs also circulated the latest forms of the Protective Order (Ex. A), Clawback Agreement (Ex. B), and ESI Protocol (Ex. C) on August 14, 2024, requesting that the Parties advise whether they consent or object to same. Plaintiffs received a response from the original developer, Defendant 10 West Edge Owner, LLC providing its consent to the Clawback Agreement and entry of the proposed Protective Order and ESI Protocol. Plaintiffs have not received a response from the remaining Defendants advising whether they consent or object to the proposed Protective Order, Clawback Agreement, and ESI Protocol in their current forms. Thus, Plaintiffs believe that a discovery conference before the Court will encourage open discussion between all parties to come to an agreement on proper discovery protocols to better streamline the discovery process given the complexity of the case.

ARGUMENT. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews the district court's granting of the preliminary injunction under an "abuse of discretion standard." ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RET. HEALTH SYS. OF OHIO, 160 F.3d 310, 312 (6th Cir. 1998). Such injunctions "will seldom be disturbed unless the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard. ID. (citing BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD MUT. OF OHIO V. BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ASS'N, 110 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1997)). Appellate courts afford district courts' decisions to grant preliminary injunctions "great deference," BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD MUT. OF OHIO, 110 F.3d at 322, and "will reverse a district court's balancing of the equities only in the rarest of circumstances." ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 160 F.3d at 313. As shown below, the district court properly granted SPG's motion for a preliminary injunction.

ARGUMENT. 21 The 2015 Decision should be upheld because it properly addressed the two key issues that C. District Court ordered the Secretary to reconsider: whether the Tribe’s membership was 23 limited to five people, and whether the 1998 Resolution established a valid Tribal government.

ARGUMENT. There is no genuine dispute as to the basic facts of the challenged conduct.16 Respondents’ rules and practices benefit ocean carriers while increasing costs to motor carriers, the shipping public, and ultimately American consumers. These practices are unnecessarily restrictive to accomplish the purported goals of the procurement of chassis and interoperable chassis pools. And ocean carriers—as common carriers—have a duty to the shipping public beyond maximizing short term profits at the expense of the rest of the supply chain. Nor can Respondents dispute the legal effect of these facts. Distribution Services is on all fours here. There, the Commission struck down an ocean carrier conference rule controlling reimbursement of “transshipment” services, which governed the transfer of cargo from an ocean container to an inland container at an off-port location. That rule incentivized minimizing the transportation of empty ocean carrier containers back to port, shifting the cost of transporting empty containers elsewhere. Distribution Services, 1988 WL 340659, at *2. Although minimizing the transportation of empty ocean containers and preventing false billing were “worthy objective[s],” the Commission found the ocean carriers’ regulations to be “excessive and thus unreasonable” because “less intrusive methods” existed to accomplish those goals. Id. at *7. The same analysis applies here.

ARGUMENT i) Argument of the complaining Party ii) Argument of the Party complained against. [iii) Argument of the Third Part (y) (ies)]

ARGUMENT. ASIC’s Appeal is Subject to De Novo Review (Issue Not Raised Below) “The existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement poses a question of law, and as such, [this Court's] review of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is de novo.” ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ & Co., Inc., 442 N.J. Super. 599, 605 (App. Div. 2015). See also ▇▇▇▇▇ v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 N.J. 30, 46 (2020) (“Whether a contractual arbitration provision is enforceable is a question of law, and we need not defer to the interpretative analysis of the trial or appellate courts unless we find it persuasive.”) (citing to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Home Warranty Adm'r of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301, 316 (2019) and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430, 445-46 (2014). Further, the issue of whether a party waived its arbitration right is also subject to de novo review. Cole v. Jersey City Med. Ctr. , 215 N.J. 265, 275 (2013). Here, the trial court's denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration on the grounds that ASIC waived its right to arbitrate and that the arbitration clauses do not apply here should not be given any special deference. The FAA governs the enforcement of the arbitration clauses in the ASIC policies, and state courts are required to “honor and enforce agreements to arbitrate.” ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 71 (2009). The FAA applies to any contract “evidencing a transaction involving commerce” that is subject to a written agreement to arbitrate. See 9 U.S.C. § 2. The United States Supreme Court has held that the phrase “involving commerce” in the FAA is the “functional equivalent of the more familiar term ‘affecting commerce,’” which signals the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇, ▇▇ (2003) (citing Allied-▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Cos., 513 U.S. 265, 273–74 (1995). Here, ASIC is an Illinois corporation headquartered in New York. Newport Associates Development Company is a New Jersey general partnership and Newport Associates Phase I Developers Limited Partnership is a New Jersey limited partnership. Da53-54, ¶¶ 9, 10 and 14. Thus, the issues in this coverage action involve commerce. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. BDO ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, LLP, 393 N.J. Super. 560, 574 (App. Div. 2007) (“A nexus to interstate commerce is found when citizens of different states engage in the performance of contractual obligations in one of those states because such a contract necessitates interstate travel of both personnel and payments.”) Thus, it is in...

ARGUMENT. THE AGREEMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST A. THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT