LEGAL STANDARDS. SUPPLIER shall comply fully with, and shall be solely --------------- responsible for, all safety standards, health code requirements and regulations, specifications, and other requirements imposed by law, regulation, or order in the Territory, that are applicable to the design, manufacturing, and testing of the Products and Pre-Commercial Units and the provision of Services by SUPPLIER. SUPPLIER shall establish and maintain a program, to the mutual satisfaction of SUPPLIER and DISTRIBUTOR, in order to create ongoing product design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and other safety and quality-related processes that are adequate to assure the safety and reliability of SUPPLIER's Products and Pre-Commercial Units (the "Product Quality and Safety Assurance Program").
LEGAL STANDARDS. A. Review of a Magistrate's Disposition Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to review "de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." "Conclusory objections that do not direct the reviewing court to the issues in controversy" are not proper under Rule 72(b). Xxxxx-Xxxxx v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc., 465 F.3d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 2006). Moreover, "[a party is] not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised" before the magistrate judge. Xxxxxx v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987). "Parties must take before the magistrate, 'not only their best shot but all of their shots.'" Id. (quoting Xxxxx v. Superintending Sch. Comm. of City of Portland, 593 X. Xxxx. 1315, 1318 (D. Me. 1984). Waiver of de novo review by failing to file proper objections does not entitle a party to "some lesser standard" of review. Xxxxxx x. Xxx, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); see also Costa x. Xxxx, No. 00–12213–MLW, 2010 WL 5018159, at *17 (D. Mass. Dec.2, 2010) ("Absent objections, the court may adopt the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge."). However, review by the court in such circumstances is not prohibited, and some level of oversight, even if not de novo, is encouraged. See Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxx, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3rd Cir. 1987).
LEGAL STANDARDS. We expect our business partners to be law abiding as individuals and to comply with legal requirements relevant to the conduct of their business.
LEGAL STANDARDS. 11. Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from administering or operating their programs in a manner that discriminates against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”).
LEGAL STANDARDS. Funds from a receivership are first distributed to pay “[a]ll taxes legally due and owing by the assignor to the United States, state, county or municipality”61 and are only then distributed 55 Id. at ; 133 S Ct at 1868-1869. 56 Xxxxxxxx v Holder, 673 F3d 1089, 1093 (CA 9, 2012). 57 Id. (“Xxxxxxxx’x timely petition for review of this decision . . . is the second of those consolidated here.”). 58 Id. at 1094. 59 Xxxxx, 441 Mich at 56. 60 McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197; 747 NW2d 811 (2008); Xxxxx v Metro Indus Contracting, Inc, 261 Mich App 569, 571; 683 NW2d 242 (2004). 61 MCL 600.5251(1)(a). to pay “[t]he cost of administration[.]”62 “When the Legislature has prescribed the order of priority, our courts may not vary it by resort to equity.”63
LEGAL STANDARDS. You must ensure that any electrical equipment, earthing grid and earthing connections that is (directly or indirectly) connected to the distribution system at the connection point (Connected Equipment) is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to comply with:
LEGAL STANDARDS. The arbitrator(s) (and if applicable, the courts) will apply California law to the merits of any dispute or claim, without reference to rules of conflicts of law. The arbitration proceedings will be governed by the Rules without reference to any other arbitration standards. You hereby consent to the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in Santa Xxxxx County, California for any action or proceeding arising from or relating to this Agreement or relating to any arbitration in which the parties are participants.
LEGAL STANDARDS. Funds from a receivership are first distributed to pay “[a]ll taxes legally due and owing by the assignor to the United States, state, county or municipality[,]” and are only then 49 Xxxxxx, 197 Mich App at 472 (citations omitted). 50 Id. at 473. 51 Xxxxx, 441 Mich at 40; Xxxxxxxxxx v Xxxxxxxxxx, 351 Xxxx 216, 222; 88 NW2d 416 (1958). 52 McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197; 747 NW2d 811 (2008); Xxxxx v Metro Indus Contracting, Inc, 261 Mich App 569, 571; 683 NW2d 242 (2004). distributed to pay “[t]he cost of administration[.]”53 “When the Legislature has prescribed the order of priority, courts may not vary that order by resorting to equity.”54
LEGAL STANDARDS. The Xxxxxx Act establishes and limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2012). The Xxxxxx Act affords this court jurisdiction over “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Id. § 1491(a)(1). Although the Xxxxxx Act waives the sovereign immunity necessary for a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages, United States x. Xxxxxxxx, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), it does not confer any substantive rights upon a plaintiff, United States x. Xxxxxx, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Therefore, a plaintiff must identify an independent source of substantive law that creates a right to money damages in order for the case to proceed. Xxxxxx v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time by the parties or by the court sua sponte.” Xxxxxx v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (2004). When 3 Instead, plaintiff’s response challenges the court’s February 2014 decision. See Pl.’s Resp. 27–37, ECF No. 73. To the extent that plaintiff wishes the court to reconsider its February 2014 decision, the court directs plaintiff’s attention to Rule 59 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which governs motions for reconsideration. The court declines to construe the filing plaintiff’s counsel has styled as a “Response” as a motion for reconsideration. Cf. Def.’s Reply 1 n.1, ECF No. 74 (“If the Court were to deem plaintiff’s response to be a motion for reconsideration, defendant would oppose and would respectfully request permission to address separately the arguments presented therein.”). considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court accepts as true the undisputed allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Xxxxxxxx v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(1) “is warrante...
LEGAL STANDARDS. It is unlawful for any IAR in connection with the purchase or sale, directly or indirectly, of a security held or to be acquired:
