Civ Clause Samples
Civ. P. 23, except for purposes of settlement. The history of this litigation is summarized in Part 1 of the Settlement Agreement. In brief, this case was filed on December 12, 2017 in California Superior Court, and Defendant removed 18 the case to this Court on January 11, 2018. Defendant asked the Court to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims individually. Plaintiff opposed the motion by arguing, inter alia, that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. After the Court held that the issue of enforceability was for the arbitrator to decide, granted ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the Litigation pending that the arbitrator’s decision, Plaintiff initiated arbitration. Plaintiff successfully argued that the arbitrator should refuse to hear the arbitration because the agreement was unenforceable. The Court confirmed the arbitrator’s decision. Defendant then moved to strike Plaintiff’s class allegations or deny certification of the Class. The Court denied that motion. The Parties engaged in significant discovery, including written discovery requests to, responses from, 27 and production of documents by, both parties. 28 On January 27, 2020, the Parties to this case participated in an all-day mediation conducted by the Honorable ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇’d) at JAMS in San Francisco, California. That mediation resulted in the Settlement that is the subject of this Order.
Civ notice requirements; will include individual mailed notice where practicable; and will include a website and toll-free number.
Civ. P. 1.220, and be effectuated pursuant to provisions set forth below, the costs of which shall be Costs of Settlement Administration.
Civ. P. 23(a)(3); and (iv) Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with, and are co-extensive with, those of absent Class Members, all of whose claims arise from the identical factual predicate, and Plaintiff and Class Counsel have adequately represented the interests of all Class Members, FED.
Civ. Pro.
1. 280(b)(3) (2011). Parties are not allowed to have standing or continuing agreements but rather must wait until actual or threated litigation arises before shared information will be deemed protected under a joint defense agreement.xiv
ii. The members must share a common litigation-related interest.
iii. There must be an objective agreement among the members to maintain confidentiality.
iv. Shared information must further the joint defense effort and be related to common issues of strategy and defense.
v. Shared information must not be communicated to non- team members. Part IV: Weighing the Pros and Cons
Civ. Pro. Rule 41(a)(1), this Stipulation has been signed by the attorneys for all parties who have appeared in this action. Each Party has agreed to bear such party's own costs and attorneys' fees.
Civ. 1-93-CV-971 MHS (D. GA, Atlanta Div) 06CC-004039 (St. Louis County, MO) 01-L-150 (St. Clair County, IL)
Civ. P. 1.530(b). Here, Respondents did not file a motion under rule 1.540 or a timely motion under rule 1.530 for rehearing of the trial court’s final order of August 21, 2018. Accordingly, the successor judge lacked case jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the trust accounting and to rule on discovery disputes.
Civ. No. 01-3446, Superior Court of Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts - The SEC inquiry and the investigations currently being conducted by the United States Attorney's for the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of Illinois The Company further acknowledges that, pursuant to such Section 3, the Company has authorized Executive to employ Hunton & Williams as his counsel with respect to the matters set forth above. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇knowledgement shall not limit in any way the right of the Executive to employ his own counsel with respect to other indemnified claims, as provided in such Section 3.
Civ. No. 11 -10921 (D. Mass). The Parties incorporate herein by reference the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness letters executed by each Relator and their counsel. Nothing in this subparagraph (B) is intended to address whether or to what extent any ofthe relators in these actions are entitled to a share of any of the proceeds allocated to the federal and state drug claims listed in Paragraph l(a).