Public Documents

 
Public Documents - Cases & Codes

Excerpt from a Civil Action Suit in which I served as counsel for the Plaintiff, the SEC.
Posted by Christopher Agbe-Davies on 10.10.14 in Cases & Codes.
Excerpt from a Civil Action Suit in which I served as counsel for the Plaintiff, the SEC.
Posted by Christopher Agbe-Davies on 10.10.14 in Cases & Codes.
P's original complaint included causes of action that were potentially subject to Anti-SLAPP. Before D could file an Anti-SLAPP motion, P filed an amended complaint that removed the potentially objectionable allegations. California Court of Appeal held: The Anti-SLAPP filed after the filing of amended complaint was moot.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 11.14.13 in Cases & Codes - State Cases.
The Federal District court had entered a $172M judgment in favor of MGA Entertainment Inc. and against Mattel, Inc. On appeal, in Case no. 11-56357, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the Judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that MGA's trade secret claims should not have reached the jury, and ordered the trial court to dismiss those claims without prejudice on remand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed attorney's fees awarded to MGA on its copyright infringement claims.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 1.27.13 in Cases & Codes.
In this recent decision of Reynolds vs. United States, the High Court held that Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 1.27.12 in Cases & Codes - Federal Cases.
Chevron U.S.A. sued Franchisee gas station owners for declaratory relief. Franchisee filed a counterclaim. After a 6-day trial, the court ruled in favor of Franchisor and found the conterclaim to be "frivolous." Held: Under the provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. ยง 2805(d), Franchisor is entitled to recover its attorney's fees for defending Franchisee's frivolous counterclaim.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 9.18.11 in Cases & Codes.
This case involved an e-mail advertisement sent to an unwitting individual, enticing her to participate in a "personality test", but in fact it was a prank. The advertisement participation agreement contained an arbitration clause which the participant had to agree to. Held: Since the entire agreement was fraud in inducement, the arbitration clause could not be enforced.
Posted by Robin Mashal on 9.8.11 in Cases & Codes - State Cases.
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions. California Supreme Court Case No. S179115.
Posted by The LawLink Team on 8.18.11 in Cases & Codes.
The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (or Check 21 Act) is a United States federal law, Pub.L. 108-100,, known as Check 21, makes it easier for banks to electronically transfer check images instead of physically transfer paper checks. This writing explains your rights under Check 21 as they relate to substitute checks. Substitute checks are special paper copies of the front and back of your original checks that are created to replace the original check.
Posted by Bryon Gross on 6.28.11 in Cases & Codes - Federal Codes.
Police stopped and questioned petitioner J. D. B., a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two home break ins.
Posted by Bryon Gross on 6.17.11 in Cases & Codes - Federal Cases.