Civil Litigation
Showing 856–870 of 1216 resultsSorted by price: low to high
Filter by: FEDERAL DISTRICT
Filter by Price
Filter by: FILE TYPE
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint & Add Punitive Damages
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint & Add Punitive Damages
Motion to Strike Exhibits
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBITS A – D TO DEFENDANT MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Motion for New Trial or to Amend Judgment
PLAINTIFF CLIENT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FED.R.CIV.P. 59 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Defendant’s Motion in Limine – Civil Litigation
I. Plaintiffs should be precluded from eliciting opinion testimony from Defendant’s employee, NAME, CNA.
II. Plaintiff should be precluded from referring to “never events.”
III. Plaintiffs should be precluded from making “negligence in the air” arguments.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash & Motion for Protective Order for Deposition
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH and MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR Deposition
Motion in Limine to Exclude Statements
PLAINTIFF MOTION IN LIMINE RE: PRECLUSION OF STATEMENT MADE TO POLICE REGARDING ACCIDENT OCCURENCE
Motion in Limine to Exclude – Alcohol Use
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EXCLUSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO USE OF ALCOHOL
Motion in Limine Regarding Social Media
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: PRECLUSION OF PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, AND STATEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF’S FAMILY OR ACQUAINTANCES FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
Motion in Limine to Include Traffic Citation
DEFENDANT _______________ MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE OF TRAFFIC CITATION
Motion for Bifurcation RE: Negligent Entrustment Claim
MOTION FOR BIFURCATION RE: NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CLAIM AGAINST
Motion For Damages – Post Lawsuit
Motion for damages after winning the lawsuit
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Other Respond to Complaint
A motion for extension of time to file and answer or respond to complaint in a civil action, with a proposed order
Motion to Dismiss – Civil Litigation
Plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation fail because the Defendants did not know of the allegedly misrepresented conditions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were not justified in relying upon the representations made by the defendants. To the extent the purported defects existed at the time of contracting, they were open and obvious and could have been detected through reasonable diligence. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails because there is no genuine dispute that the defendants did not have actual knowledge of the presence of bats under the roof tiles on the house. Accordingly, they did not breach a contractual duty owed to Plaintiffs as prescribed by the Seller’s Property Disclosure form. Plaintiffs’ claim for civil conspiracy likewise fails because the defendants have not committed an unlawful act.
Motion for Expedited Telephone Hearing: Spoliation & Destructive Testing
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TELEPHONE HEARING RE: SPOLIATION AND DESTRUCTIVE TESTING