(Attorney in tampa florida) Liberty Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
More info…
(U.S. 3d Cir., Civil Procedure, Retail, Wholesale) In a dispute over a franchise fee program, district court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is reversed and remanded where the district court did not make the necessary finding of irreparable harm to grant the injunction, as plaintiff’s harm was incorrectly measured in solely monetary terms.
Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
(Cal. App., Aerospace & Defense, Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Product Liability) In a products liability action involving an aircraft, trial court’s dismissal order is reversed where the court erred in dismissing the matter for failure to bring it to trial within three years of commencement of the action, as the court’s jurisdiction was suspended for all but seven months of the period between the filing of the complaint and entry of the dismissal order.
Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Okla. v. US
(U.S. D.C. Cir., Civil Procedure, Indian Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In Plaintiff Indian tribe’s action to quiet title to certain lands, dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the District Court properly dismissed the action without permitting jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff failed to specify what facts such discovery would produce.
Chavez v. Carranza
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, International Law) In an action under the Alien Tort Claims Act for crimes against humanity by the government of El Salvador, judgment for Plaintiffs is affirmed, where equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was proper because the situation in El Salvador at the relevant time precluded the administration of justice.
US ex rel Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In an action involving the False Claims Act, district court’s denial of leave to amend and motion to alter or amend the judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court’s properly denied plaintiff’s motion after he conceded his initial complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement; and 2) plaintiff’s subsequent amended pleading did not explain how it cured the Rule 9(b) deficiencies in the initial complaint.
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 23, 2009 5:25 am
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe