IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARTHA JONES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 13CV2045-JWL
v. )
)
NOBLE & HARKNESS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant, Noble & Harkness LLC, submits the following Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order.
I. INTRODUCTION
Summary judgment should be granted for Defendant on the Plaintiff’s claim. Her claim springs from her time as an intern for Noble and Harkness. Plaintiff claims that during this time she was an employee and is entitled to wages. Yet, she fails to dispute the facts supporting Defendant’s claim that she was a trainee and lacks evidence to support that she was an employee. For these reasons, summary judgment should be granted.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. In May 2013, Plaintiff was offered a position at the firm of Noble and Harkness. (Jones Dep. 2:1-3.)
2. Plaintiff accepted the job after being told that there was no pay and that a job after was not guaranteed. (Jones Dep. 3:9-20.)
3. Plaintiff worked as an intern at Noble and Harkness from June 3, 2013 to August 9, 2013. (Jones Dep. 3: 26-32.)
4. Two Senior Associates named Rose Tyler and Jackson Lake supervised plaintiff on a day-to-day basis. (Jones Dep. 2:29-38.)
5. Plaintiff’s responsibilities included interviewing clients and witnesses, memo writing, legal research, and drafting of motions. (Jones Dep. 5:25-45.)
6. Either Tyler or Rose edited and revised all of Plaintiff’s work. (Jones Dep. 6:8-16.)
7. Associates at the firm sacrificed their billable hours in order to train...
... middle of paper ...
...ed.
Motion for protective order should be denied. The Asia Global test weighs in favor of no reasonable expectation of privacy therefore the e-mails are not protected under attorney client privilege. Thus, the motion should be denied
Respectfully Submitted,
Hayden & Six, LLC
By:_________________________
Trent Rogers KS Bar #260305
12465 E. St. John Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 960-4425 throgers@haydensix.com Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on ________, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:
Tom D. Baker
Rosenberg Keller LLP
76 Totter Lane, Suite 4
Overland Park, Kansas 66227
(913) 514-2307 tdbaker@rklaw.com ______________________________
Trent Rogers
3452 Words
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
On September 12, 2014, Denise Rockett filed a complaint against Eugene Nigro, Esq. Nigro was reportedly negligent when handling legal matters in her late husband’s estate. Specifically, the complainant alleges that Denise, as Executrix of her late husband’s estate, was intentionally excluded from major decisions, not properly compensated, and deprived of control over their properties. Nigro allegedly breached his fiduciary obligation and violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.4(b), 1.7(b), and 8.4(c).
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
The rule that is being implied on why J. C. Flood Company should receive the compensation for the work done could be that although the contract was never written this is a promissory estoppel which is a noncontractual promise. It was implied and that Richardson agreed to it, by not trying to stop it, or clarifying that she would not have to pay for the work and labor. By not trying to stop the work from
Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be
Facts: The Plaintiff was a mathematician worked in a Space Agency call NASA and accepted an invitation to a one-day meeting at the Carrousel Motor Hotel. At lunch time, the hotel services it as a buffet and the Plaintiff were close to served its food when the Defendant an employee of Carrousel Hotel and manager of the Brass Ring Club dispossess the Plaintiff of his plate and in a loud manner said and offensive words that embarrassed and harm the Plaintiff.
In this law brief, I will discuss two cases that all stem from one series of incidents. First, Greene Jewelry Company sued its former employee, Jennifer Lawson, for breach of confidentiality. Ms. Lawson is countersuing her former company for wrongful termination. In order to discuss all aspects of the cases against Greene Jewelry, I will address the aspects of the case individually.
The Paralegal Professional, A reference to the source of legal information chapter 12, pages 434, 446, and 454.
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
The objective of this essay is to evaluate the effectiveness of the defence of change of position in protecting a defendant from hardship. The defence of change of position is made available to a defendant who has been unjustly enriched, but in good faith of the receipt of the enrichment, later suffers some changes in their personal circumstances. Unjust enrichment is not based on a wrong. Its imposition of strict liability is merited so long as an innocent defendant is not required to ‘put its hands in its pockets’. This makes sense so long as the defendant is overall no worse off by having received the initial enrichment. The defence of change of position is one that is concerned with a loss of benefit, also known as disenrichment and not with the general hardship of the defendant. It can be viewed as the same as estoppel minus the representation. The defendant must have detrimentally relied on the benefit being his to keep. Birks wrote that the defendant succeeds if he can show that he acted to his detriment on the faith of the receipt. It will not apply in circumstances where a defendant is initially enriched and subsequently encounters a loss or detriment so that overall the defendant had not been enriched. For example, a defendant, unjustly enriched, receives a sum of money and later loses the money due to unavoidable circumstances, cannot be made to pay the claimant for the initial unjust enrichment. The defendant would face a hardship or difficulty to pay the claimant, however, this does not constitute a defence to restitution. The defence ensures that the defendant is no worse off by having to make restitution. While disenrichment is to some extent dealt with by the traditional estoppel defence, that defence does not go...
...or and Employment Law, School Law, Lawyers, Attorneys, Franczek Radelet: Chicago. Franczek Radelet P.C, 12 July 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. .