Real Trial Lawyers for Real Problems


Warning: Use of undefined constant post_types - assumed 'post_types' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/hop-law.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hoplaw/sidebar-right.php on line 45

Arbitration

Memorandum in Reponse to Motion to Compel Arbitration

Carmean v. Storey, et al.

This case involves a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Chris Carmean over the death of his wife, Sharon Jo Carmean. The lawsuit was filed against L. Kevin Vance, M.D. and Laura Stanley, CFNP, a doctor and nurse practitioner at the Comprehensive Pain Center of Mississippi, where the deceased was a patient. Vance and Stanley filed a motion to compel Carmean to arbitrate his claims against them based on an arbitration clause in a document his wife had signed while a patient. Heygood, Orr & Pearson, who represented Mr. Carmean, opposed the motion arguing that the Defendants had waived the right to force arbitration, and this brief was filed in support of their opposition.

Brief of Appellant

Infuturia Global, Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Infuturia Global, Ltd. in California state court against Sequus, the Hebrew University and Yechezkel Barenholz. The lawsuit charged Sequus with interfering with a license agreement between Infuturia and the Yissum Research and Development Company. Sequus filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Yissum was a “necessary” and “indispensable” party. Sequus also requested that the case be dismissed for its failure to identify specific products at issue for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss on June 1, 2009. Infuturia filed an appeal in the case, charging that that the District Court erred in refusing to remand this case to state court, in granting Sequus’ motion to dismiss order for failure to join an indispensable party, and in granting Sequus’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff’s Final Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

Sheffer v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

This is a civil action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other people in the State of California who purchased a 16 gigabyte Samsung Galaxy S4 mobile telephone during the period beginning one year before the filing of his complaint until the time of class certification. Defendants advertised, promoted and marketed their Galaxy S4 mobile telephone as having 16 gigabytes (“16 GB”) of storage capacity. However, because the pre-installed internal operating software consumes nearly half of the full storage capacity, approximately 50% of the represented 16 GB storage capacity is inaccessible and unusable by consumers.