• Monique Sykes et al. v. Harris, 09 Civ. 8486 (DC)

    Publication Date: 2011-01-03
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District
    Judge: Circuit Judge Denny Chin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: For Plaintiffs: By: Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq., Elisha Jain, Esq., Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, New York By: Susan Shin, Esq., Claudia Wilner, Esq., Josh Zinner, Esq., Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, New York, New York By: Carolyn E. Coffey, Esq., Andrew Goldberg, Esq., Anamaria Segura, Esq., MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York, New York
    for defendant: For Mel Harris Defendants: By: Brett A. Scher, Esq., Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, New York For Leucadia Defendants: By: Adam R. Schwartz, Esq., Mcelroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York, New York For Samserv Defendants: By: Jordan Sklar, Esq., Babchick & Young, LLP, White Plains, NY

    Case Number: 09 Civ. 8486 (DC)

    Cite as: Monique Sykes et al. v. Harris, 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), NYLJ 1202476897389, at *1 (SDNY, Decided December 29, 2010)Circuit Judge Denny Chinp class="dec

  • August 17, 2012 | Legaltech News

    Technology Change Agents Make E-Discovery Better or Worse

    Covering all bases when it comes to legal discovery isn't what it used to be for organizations. Just as technology forever changed the way we do business, communicate, and live our day-to-day

    1 minute read

  • August 9, 2007 | The American Lawyer

    Where Have All the Securities Class Actions Gone?

    The era was marked by mysterious envelopes. When opened, the official-looking documents inside informed the reader that, because he owned three shares of, say, Microsoft Corp. stock some years

    1 minute read

  • August 26, 2004 | New Jersey Law Journal

    Knock It Off!

    One of the most coveted remedies potentially available to victims of trademark infringement is an award of the infringer's profits. This remedy, however, is not always available to the company

    1 minute read

  • August 13, 2003 | New York Law Journal

    Judge Refuses To Reconsider Merrill Cases

    Citing a host of media reports that he said put the "reasonably intelligent investor" on notice about the perils of the Internet analysis, Southern District Judge Milton Pollack has rejected a

    1 minute read

  • June 23, 2003 | Legal Times

    Does U.S. Trump States in Pesticide Cases?

    The Supreme Court will soon consider a pair of cases that could place the justices in the middle of a high-stakes battle over whether herbicide and pesticide manufacturers can be held li

    1 minute read

  • Villa Vecenza Homeowners Association v. Nobel Court Development, LLC

    Publication Date: 2010-05-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-05-27
    Court: C.A. 2nd
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Epsten Grinnell & Howell, Jon H. Epsten, Douglas W. Grinnell and Anne L. Rauch for Cross-complainant and Respondent.
    for defendant: Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps and Charles A. Bird; Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis and Valentine S. Hoy VIII for Cross-defendant and Appellant.

    Case Number: No. D054550

    Cite as 10 C.D.O.S. 6700 VILLA VICENZA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. NOBE

  • November 16, 2009 | Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report Newsletter

    How Lawyers Can Address the Challenge of Too Much Information

    In the midst of a legal recession, one might assume that lawyers' greatest challenge is to attract and retain clients, increase revenues, control costs and operate more effici

    1 minute read

  • Eleven Line Inc. v. North Texas State Soccer Assoc. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2000-05-31
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2000-05-26
    Court: 5th Cir.
    Judge: DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: No. 98-11102

    The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion.EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: This case concerns allegedly exclusionary, anti-competitive conduct b