Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. Even though plaintiffs did not raise the issue of permanent injunctive relief at the final pretrial conference or during trial, plaintiffs explicitly requested a permanent injunction in the complaint. Injunctions are routinely granted in Hatch-Waxman Act cases, and it is not unusual for the prevailing party to file a motion seeking a permanent injunction after an order is entered upholding the patent.
Deyton v. Estate of Waters Although there is some evidence that plaintiffs timely received documents which showed improper transfers had been made from their investment accounts, the evidence would also allow a jury to believe plaintiffs did not know about their son-in-law’s improper transfers until after his suicide.
Grist v. Smith Since this court has upheld an order under G.S. Chapter 50B that incorporated the allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint, we also uphold the trial court’s incorporation of the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint into its no-contact order in this G.S. Chapter 50C case.
Mayo v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County Defendant school board’s removal to federal court of a complaint by temporary employees alleging the board and union violated a labor contract by hiring temps for permanent jobs, need not be remanded to state court; the 4th Circuit says a defendant does not need signatures by all lawyers for defendants, but may remove the case with a representation that other defendants consent to removal.
Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands LLC A homeowners’ association did not adequately allege standing to sue a wire-based video services provider on a claim that its contract making it the sole provider to the subdivision violates the FCC Exclusivity Order, but the 4th Circuit says the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice to allow the HOA to replead.
North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Leake : On their second try, plaintiffs were successful in having matching-funds legislation struck down. Although plaintiffs are entitled to an award of fees for their attorneys’ work on the current lawsuit, they are not entitled to fees incurred in their earlier unsuccessful lawsuit. Work on the prior lawsuit did not sufficiently contribute to the current lawsuit.
Hausle v. Hausle The analysis of the attorney’s fee issue under G.S. § 50-13.6 entails a review of the merits of the case; in this case, the trial court reserved the issue of attorney’s fees for further proceedings and did not certify its custody order for immediate appeal. Therefore, this appeal is interlocutory. Where the custody order does not place the well-being of the parties’ children at stake, it does not affect a substantial right.
Novak v. Daigle, Inc. Where the trial court denied plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion without a hearing, depriving plaintiffs of the opportunity to present evidence or to argue in support of their motion, and where the trial court’s order contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
Rehberg v. Flowers Foods, Inc. Where plaintiffs have presented evidence that, in their employment as distributors of defendant’s products, they are similarly situated inasmuch as (1) plaintiffs have the same job duties and (2) are subject to the same policies and standards determining their compensation and performance requirements, the court will conditionally certify a class in this action seeking overtime pay.
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. DentalCare Partners, Inc. As an example of the defendant dental service organizations’ (DSOs) invasion of the clinical authority of the dentists who contracted with them, plaintiff notes the systematic over-prescription of the drug Arestin; however, plaintiff gave other examples of the DSOs’ usurpation of clinical authority.