NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA or the Act), 15 U.S.C.§ 2615(a), and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 325 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11045 (EPCRA or the Act) and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(2)(A), (CWA or the Act) and Sections 22.13(b) and
NATURE OF ACTION. The following is a general indication of the nature of the action that has been commenced. (Check the boxes that best reflect what the action involves.) ☐ breach of contract ☐ inducing breach of contract ☐ negligence ☐ breach of fiduciary duty ☐ breach of trust ☐ defamation ☐ statutory claim, i.e. oppression, The Business Corporations Act ☐ estates, i.e. validity of will ☐ other, as listed below: Resolved Issues The following issues raised by the pleadings have been resolved. (Check the issues that have been resolved by agreement, court order, consent or otherwise and provide a brief description of the resolution.) ☐ liability ☐ amount of damages ☐ injunctive relief ☐ costs ☐ other, as listed below: were resolved as follows: Issues for binding pre-trial conference The following issues raised by the pleadings have not been resolved and are directed to a binding pre-trial conference. (Check the issues that have not been resolved and provide a brief description of the nature of the suit with respect to each issue.) ☐ liability ☐ amount of damages ☐ injunctive relief ☐ distribution of estate ☐ sale of property ☐ costs ☐ other, as listed below: CHOICE OF PROCESS The parties agree to resolve the issues identified in paragraph 3 of this agreement by participating in a binding pre-trial conference presided over by a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan. The parties confirm they have entered into this agreement voluntarily and have not been coerced or threatened in any way to agree to participate in a binding pre-trial conference nor promised anything in exchange for agreeing to participate in a binding pre-trial conference. The parties understand and agree that, in the absence of a settlement agreement being reached by them with respect to any or all issues identified in paragraph 3 of this agreement, the judge assigned to the binding pre-trial conference may do one or more of the following: make a binding decision on one or more of the issues or claims submitted by the parties for determination in accordance with this written agreement; adjourn the binding pre-trial conference or delay making a binding decision on such terms, conditions and directions that the judge considers appropriate; determine it is not appropriate to make a binding decision on any or all of the issues; make an award of costs. The parties acknowledge and agree that: a party may withdraw consent to participate in a binding pre-trial conference on any issues at any time up to 1...
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. Vinyl siding is a widely-used exterior wall material on homes in the United States. Vinyl is a plastic, and like many plastics, it can be dissolved by chemical solvents. Prior to the invention described in the Stuart Patent, it was widely recognized that attempting to clean vinyl siding with chemical solvents could damage the siding.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 325 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11045 (EPCRA), and Section 109 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9609 (CERCLA), and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
NATURE OF ACTION. Defendant/Counterclaimant alleges that Plaintiff Counterclaim- Defendant TD Auto Finance, LLC, n/k/a TD Bank, N.A. (“TDAF”) engaged in unlawful acts in connection with the repossession and sale of her Vehicle purchased as part of a consumer transaction in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). In particular, Defendant/Counterclaimant alleged that the notices mailed to her before and after the disposition of her Vehicle by TDAF, the “pre-sale notice” and “post-sale notice,” respectively, were misleading or otherwise unreasonable in violation of RSMo § 400.9-611 to § 400.9-616. Defendant/Counterclaimant also alleged that TDAF violated RSMo § 408.553, and therefore the UCC, by charging her interest after default but before a final judgment. TDAF disputes and denies all of Defendant/Counterclaimant’s claims. TDAF contends that it has fully complied with all applicable laws at issue in this matter.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. On or about May 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Santa Xxxxx County Superior Court bearing Case No. 106CV064688 (“Action”) for alleged defects in construction and design of a golf course named Rancho Del Pueblo Golf Course, located on King Road and San Antonio Streets in San Jose, California. (“The Project”).
NATURE OF ACTION. 5 1. On June 26, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or 6 “Commission”) issued a citation to Defendant Discover Financial Services for violations of the 7 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the 8 “TCPA”). The FCC found that Discover Financial Services made prerecorded telephone calls to 9 consumers who “had not expressly invited or authorized the call(s).”
