Civil Litigation
Showing 721–735 of 980 resultsSorted by price: low to high
Filter by: FEDERAL DISTRICT
Filter by Price
Filter by: FILE TYPE
Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order
Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order
Second Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order
Second Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 56
Motion to file Second Amended Complaint
Motion to file Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion to file Second Amended Complaint
Amended Motion to file Second Amended Complaint
Early Motion For Partial Summary Judgement of Liability
PLAINTIFF EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY ON FIRST (CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE) CLAIM” and “PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF LIABILITY ON FIRST (CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE) CLAIM
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
Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice
STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash & Motion for Protective Order for Deposition
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH and MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR Deposition
Motion For Damages – Post Lawsuit
Motion for damages after winning the lawsuit
Brief in Support to Motion to Dismiss (Patent Law)
A 12B brief in support for a motion to dismiss for patent infringement
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.