§Why CasetextPricing

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc. et al

MOTION to Stay, MOTION for Protective Order

10 Cited authorities

  1. Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern

    901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 406 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it would be "incongruous" to prohibit a RICO person to also be the RICO enterprise, but to allow the enterprise to be held vicariously liable

  2. Chavous v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority

    201 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001)   Cited 244 times
    Concluding that stay discovery pending a decision on a dispositive motion that may resolve the case "furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if either [parties'] dispositive motion is granted, there will be no need for discovery"

  3. Tilley v. U.S.

    270 F. Supp. 2d 731 (M.D.N.C. 2003)   Cited 80 times
    Concluding that various documents, including a notice of intent to levy and notice of liens, are sufficient to satisfy the statutory notice and demand requirements, because "the form on which a notice of assessment and demand for payment is made is irrelevant as long as it provides the taxpayer with all the information required"

  4. Max's of Camden Yards v. A.C. Beverage

    172 Md. App. 139 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)   Cited 25 times
    Concluding that, although "[t]he general rule is that, if an implied indemnity action lies, fees and costs are includible, . . . it is very doubtful, under Maryland law, whether and, if so, when attorney's fees and costs are recoverable in an implied indemnity action."

  5. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc.

    CIVIL NO. H-99-846 (D. Md. Dec. 14, 2000)

    CIVIL NO. H-99-846. December 14, 2000. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARVEY, Senior United States District Judge. In its Memorandum and Order of February 17, 2000, this Court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by defendants in this case. In its Memorandum and Order of July 25, 2000, this Court denied motions to dismiss of third-party defendant Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. ("Hillis-Carnes") and third-party defendant MAFI Associates, Inc. ("MAFI"). The background facts pertaining to the parties'

  6. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,437 times   648 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  7. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,688 times   317 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  8. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 33,521 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  9. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,199 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  10. Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 14   Cited 3,623 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy