Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
262 results for '* industry:"Food and Beverage"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Wage and Hour Litigation
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Pappert
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-cv-3881-GJP
Plaintiffs who owned and operated individual product distribution territories were independent contractors rather than employees of defendant food manufacturer. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs' putative class action claim alleging violations of Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case Number: 22-2806
Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Gallagher
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 5:23-cv-00634-JMG
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's title VII and state law discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment and battery action against company and three of her supervisors and court dismissed the title VII claims against individual supervisors but found plaintiff sufficiently pled her claims against company defendant. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2023-07-10
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Horan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:23-CV-00613-MJH
Plaintiffs moved for abstention and remand of state law claims for sexual harassment, sexual assault and/or battery and a sexually hostile work environment after defendant removed plaintiffs' action to federal court asserting court had jurisdiction because it was "related" to defendant's bankruptcy petition and court found all six mandatory abstention factors were sufficiently met. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2023-06-19
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Food and Beverage | Legal Services
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Pellegrini
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1291 WDA 2022
Trial court erred in enforcing settlement negotiated by parties' counsel where party opposing enforcement unequivocally testified that he never gave his attorney express authority to agree to a settlement and trial court failed to resolve that factual dispute. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-06-12
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
Judge: Judge McHugh
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2019-03333
In a slip and fall case, plaintiffs appealed the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, a restaurant. The court denied the appeal, finding that plaintiffs' testimony and evidence did not establish causation or meet the requirements for admissible expert testimony.
Publication Date: 2023-06-12
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Ceisler
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 971 C.D. 2021
Board erred in finding claimant's petition against fund was barred by retroactive application of amended §1603(b) because claimant's receipt of payments in lieu of compensation constituted compensation "paid or awarded" under §4(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act and fund was secondarily liable for claimant's claim. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Publication Date: 2023-06-05
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Food and Beverage | Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: CV-21-00360
Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to hold defendant liable for a slip and fall incident. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Publication Date: 2023-05-22
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Murphy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-811
Implied warranty of habitability would not apply in the context of an event contract between a hotel and a catering company. Defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings granted.
Publication Date: 2023-05-22
Practice Area: Government | Landlord Tenant Law
Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging | State and Local Government
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Pellegrini
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 974 WDA 2022
Agreement with concessions management company was a commercial lease, not a services agreement, where the agreement expressly defined itself as a lease and granted the company with a leasehold interest it could sublet to operators. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read