Case law

TOURANGEAU v. NAPPI DISTRIBUTORS

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 18, 2023

Supreme Court has found to qualify as an affirmative defense under the EPA, this Court must grant a new trial.” Id. Ms. … According to Nappi, “the testimony established that all new wine sales representatives hired since 2014— beginning with [Ms.]

LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 1, 2020

To qualify, then, Plaintiff must have pled the MLU exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning the labor- related grievances described in Section 402(i). … To establish a RICO “pattern,” a plaintiff must begin by showing “at least two acts of racketeering occurred within ten years of each other.” Home Orthopedics, 781 F.3d 528 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)).

United States v. McCurdy

828 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 2011

To succeed on a new trial motion, the defendant must establish all four prongs of this test, commonly referred to as the Wright test. … “Information surrounding a defendant’s own conversations rarely qualifies as newly discovered evidence.” United States v. Falu-Gonzalez, 205 F.3d 436, 443 (1st Cir.2000) (citing United States v.

BELL v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 2, 2022

Standard for Weight-of-the-Evidence Challenges “[A] district court ‘may set aside a jury’s verdict and order a new trial only if the verdict is so clearly against the weight of the evidence as to amount … See Bell, 972 F.3d at 24 (“[T]o make out a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff need only show that: ‘(1) he is a handicapped person within the meaning of the Act; (2) he is nonetheless qualified to perform the

ARDITO v. SOLVAY SA

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 14, 2022

Ardito could not establish exhaustion at the time of filing the First Amended Complaint, because the 180-day period had not yet lapsed, the Notice of Right to Sue issued March 1, 2022, nonetheless establishes exhaustion … As in Title VII and Massachusetts Chapter 151B, the word “discriminate” noticeably lacks a qualifier in both the MHRA and MWPA.

SARGENT v. MAINEHEALTH

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 14, 2022

Sargent that “[i]f you or a family member has a serious health condition, you may qualify for FMLA.” Id. ¶ 69. On March 18, 2019, Ms. … MaineHealth reasons that the Sargent II “claims are not suitable for class treatment, which contributes to questions about Plaintiff’s motive” as “[t]he United States Supreme Court has very clearly held that .

United States v. NEWMAN

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2023

Stone’s experience as a real estate agent in the Kennebunk area, the Court finds that she is qualified to serve as the receiver in this case. Mr. … Stone as the receiver because she “clearly does not understand the Receiver process” as set forth in the Government’s proposed order of appointment.7 Def.’s Am Closing Args. at 2. Mr.

BURNETT v. OCEAN PROPERTIES LTD

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 30, 2019

This limitation, as set forth in Rule 50(b) and as established in the body of relevant case law, is unequivocal. … The ADA and Maine Human Rights Act require employers to assist an otherwise qualified employee who has a disability by providing reasonable accommodations that would enable him to perform his

MCKENZIE v. BRANNAN

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 1, 2023

For his part, the Plaintiff presents his own theories of repudiation that he says establish that it was the Estate, not him, who repudiated the Term Sheet. Pl. McKenzie’s Post-Trial Br. 17–29. … And by responding on February 14, 2020, with a draft agreement that included terms already clearly rejected by the Estate, McKenzie was insisting on his terms.

MESNER v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 24, 2023

The affidavits established that Mr. Mesner served Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC and Fidelity Research & Management Company LLC on June 30, 2023. Id. … Mesner moved for a default judgment on September 6, 2023 by which time the Defendants had clearly “indicated to [Mr. Mesner] a clear purpose to defend the suit.” Key Bank v.