Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Attorney tampa florida) Stearn v. County San Bernardino

More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiff’s challenge to defendant-county for its approval of 14 conditional use permits sought by respondent-real party interest to erect billboards, judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant-county is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in dismissing the fourth cause of action for administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5; 2) the expedited judicial review provided by section 1094.8 was available only when the license applicant or the issuing public agency filed an action challenging the grant or denial of a license for expressive conduct, not when a third party did so; and 3) the court disagreed with respondent’s main alternate ground for dismissal that plaintiff must wait to challenge the Board’s rezoning actions and permitting of the billboards.

attorney in tampa florida

(Tampa lawyer) Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.

More info…
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim.

Advantedge Bus. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker
&
Assocs., Inc.

(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, ERISA, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In litigation concerned a health-insurance plan plaintiff, a professional employer organization providing payroll and health insurance services, purchased to cover its clients and employees, dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in the decision to dismiss without prejudice; 2) the circuit court adopts a prudential rule allowing the appellate court to review an interlocutory order preceding a dismissal for failure to prosecute in rare cases when it makes sense to do so; and 3) this was not one of the rare cases.

Telco Group, Inc. v. Ameritrade, Inc.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Per Curiam) Dismissal of a claim for failure to prosecute is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not challenge this dismissal on the merits; 2) because plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed with prejudice, reversing the denial of class certification would afford plaintiff no relief; and 3) as its claims have been dismissed, plaintiff is no longer a member of and therefore cannot represent the putative but uncertified class.

Thomas
&
Wong Gen. Contractor v. The Lake Bank, N.A.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Banking Law, Civil Procedure) In a suit for failure to perform under a collateral transfer agreement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the suit is not barred by Minnesota’s credit-agreement statute of frauds since, although the collateral transfer agreement was an agreement to make a financial accommodation and therefore a credit agreement, plaintiff was not a debtor with respect to the agreement.

Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lake

(U.S. 10th Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Civil Procedure, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Remedies, White Collar Crime) An interlocutory order, requiring plaintiff-company to advance past and future legal fees incurred by defendant for his criminal defense, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) although the order was not labeled a preliminary injunction, it meets the elements of a preliminary injunction and thus there was appellate jurisdiction over the matter; 2) the retrospective relief ordering the payment of past attorneys’ fees could not be upheld as a preliminary injunction as the remedy is not necessary to prevent irreparable harm; 3) the prospective relief ordering future advances, on the other hand, satisfied Rule 65 and the equitable standards necessary to justify a preliminary injunction; but 4) the district court erred in effectively assigning plaintiff the burden of disproving the reasonableness of defendant’s advancement requests.

Florida Attorney

(Tampa attorney) Van de Kamp v. Goldstein

More info…
(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In the context of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 civil rights suits, a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to failure to: 1) properly train prosecutors; 2) properly supervise prosecutors; or 3) establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants.

Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

(U.S. 1st Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an appeal from a remitted jury award to plaintiff based on the failure of defendant-employer to accommodate his disability as required by federal and state law, the judgment below is affirmed over: 1) defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support either liability or the remaining damages award; 2) its claim that the statute of limitations had run on the claims; and 3) plaintiff’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on punitive damages and in denying attorney’s fees pending final judgment.

tampa florida lawyer

(Florida lawyer) In re TS Tech USA Corp.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Transportation) In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner’s motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.

Hyatt v. Director, Patent and Trademark Office

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a consolidated case involving four civil actions brought by plaintiff under 35 U.S.C. section 145 (2000) regarding plaintiff’s twelve patent applications, decision in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly interpreted 37 C.F.R. section 1.192(c)(7); and 2) the district court’s remand order did not require defendant-board to consider arguments waived by plaintiff.

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a drug-eluting expandable stent with a coating that has a non-thrombogenic surface, denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following a jury verdict of infringement of a patent claim is reversed where the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to hold the patent at issue to have been obvious.

tampa divorce attorney