Lawsuit filed against Milwaukee Wave, team CEO Sue Black

MILWAUKEE (WITI) — FOX6 News has learned the Milwaukee Wave, and Milwaukee Wave CEO/Owner Sue Black are being sued. The lawsuit alleges Black and the Wave have failed to repay two loans, and have failed to pay invoices for promotional merchandise.

The plaintiffs in this case, bringing the suit are Thomas Phillips of Caledonia and A&J Promotions of Franklin.

A copy of the lawsuit says shortly after Black became the Wave’s owner, she borrowed $200,000 from Phillips to help her fund the business.

The two entered into a promissory note on March 9th, 2013, memorializing the terms of this loan.

Under the promissory note, Black agreed to repay Phillips the entire principal balance of $200,000, plus all accrued interest (at an interest rate of 6% per year), by March 13th of 2014.

The promissory note said Black could prepay without penalty, but said partial prepayments should be applied to the principal in the inverse order of maturity and should not delay due dates or change the amount of remaining payments until the note is paid in full.

Finally, the promissory note provided that Black agree to pay all costs and expenses of collection should she default on obligations to repay.

The lawsuit says Black made one payment to Phillips under the promissory note by wire transfer on August 2nd of 2013 — in the amount of $100,000.

The lawsuit says Black has failed to make any additional payments.

Black currently owes a total of $8,236.44 in interest to Phillips, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says interest is continuing to accumulate at the daily rate of $16.44 on the outstanding principal balance of $100,000. Black owes this remaining $100,000 in principal and any accrued interest by March 13th, 2014.

The lawsuit indicates Black is required to make quarterly interest payments to Phillips, but has failed to do so. Additionally, the lawsuit says Black has failed to give reasonable assurances as to how and when she will pay the remaining principal and interest amounts owed.

In addition to amounts owed by Black, the lawsuit claims the Milwaukee Wave also owes money to Phillips and his company, A&J Promotions.

The lawsuit says Phillips made a short-term loan to the Wave on December 2nd, 2013 in order to assist them in making payroll for the month. The lawsuit says Black, on behalf of the Wave, agreed to repay this loan.

According to the lawsuit, Black has refused to cause the Wave to repay the $10,000 loan and has failed to give reasonable assurances as to how and when the loan will be repaid.

The lawsuit says additional money is owed to Phillips and A&J Promotions from the Wave for purchases or merchandise from A&J made between December 4th of 2013 and January 17th of 2014.

Per the terms of the invoices sent from A&J Promotions to the Wave, payment was due 30 days from the invoice date, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says promotional merchandise sold to the Wave by A&J Promotions was sold at Wave games between December 4th, 2013 and January 17th, 2014 — paid for by customers at Wave games by credit card (via a “Square” account using a credit card reader and an iPad), and also via cash and check.

The lawsuit says that despite taking in “significant amounts” in the form of cash and checks, the Wave has failed to pay A&J for the promotional merchandise.

The lawsuit says from January 17th, 2014 to present, promotional merchandise from A&J continues to be sold and/or given away by the Wave.

The total outstanding balance for unpaid invoices due to A&J is $42,701.63.

The lawsuit brings six counts, including:

• Breach of contract against Sue Black – due to failure to make quarterly interest payments to Phillips on the $200,000 loan
• unjust enrichment against Sue Black - due to failure to make quarterly interest payments to Phillips on the $200,000 loan
• breach of contract against the Milwaukee Wave – due to failure to pay unpaid invoices for promotional merchandise
• unjust enrichment against the Milwaukee Wave - due to failure to pay unpaid invoices for promotional merchandise
• breach of contract against the Milwaukee Wave – due to failure to repay $10,000 loan
• unjust enrichment against the Milwaukee Wave - due to failure to repay $10,000 loan

Originally posted on fox6now.com

Palm Beach County files lawsuit challenging state gun law

Palm Beach County Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the Legislature's ability to penalize local officials for regulating guns.
The Legislature this year passed a measure, backed by the National Rifle Association, that imposes $5,000 fines on city or county officials that try to enforce local firearms regulations. Local officials can even be removed from office.
The Legislature since the 1980s has maintained that only the state can enact gun laws, but local cities and counties did it anyway.

read full article at http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-guns-lawsuit-palm-20111206,0,761214.story

Lawsuit claims banks cheated veterans with fees

ATLANTA (AP) — A whistleblower lawsuit launched in 2006 and unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Atlanta claims several large banks and mortgage companies defrauded military veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars in a "brazen scheme" to hide illegal fees.

The lawsuit, brought under the Federal Claims Act by two mortgage brokers, claims the 13 banks and mortgage firms over-charged veterans who were applying for special home loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Federal rules allow the lenders to charge "reasonable and customary" fees and taxes, the lawsuit said, but they are barred from charging them attorneys' fees and settlement closing costs for the loans. The firms skirted the rules by charging attorneys' fees by hiding them as "title examination" or "title search" fees, it said.

read full article at http://www.google.com

Related Posts :

• FDA Defends Graphic Labels against Cigarette Companies’ Lawsuit
• More HathiTrust Lawsuit News
• What is Apeal in Lawsuit?
• Samsung lawsuit: Now T-Mobile lines up against Apple
  

Go public on lawsuit backflip, Coke told

The Northern Territory government is calling on drinks giant Coca-Cola Amatil to publicly abandon its threatened lawsuit against a proposed cash for bottles and cans law.

The company recently revealed it wanted to challenge the territory's container deposit legislation, which would be similar to a scheme that has been underway in South Australia for decades.

'That's an act that says basically if a product's legal to sell in one state, it's legal to sell in another state,' a Coke spokesman said last month.

But ABC Radio reports that the company is now saying it is 'working very hard to meet the requirements' of the Northern Territory scheme.

NT Environment Minister Karl Hampton said the drinks giant should alleviate all doubt by publicly announcing it would not go ahead with the legal action.

'We need Coca-Cola to be open with the Territory public and say they are no longer going to pursue court action,' Mr Hampton said.

'They need to be open and transparent,' he said.

The NT scheme is designed to promote recycling and reduce rubbish, and is due to kick off in January next year.

Read full article at : www.skynews.com.au

Samsung lawsuit: Now T-Mobile lines up against Apple

SAN FRANSISCO: T-Mobile USA has become the latest mobile provider opposing Apple's bid to stop Samsung Electronics Co from selling some Galaxy products in the United States, according to a court filing.

The move by T-Mobile on Wednesday follows a similar position taken last week by Verizon Wireless. T-Mobile is the fourth largest US mobile service, while Verizon is the biggest.

Apple representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The legal battle between Apple and Samsung has been building since April, when Apple sued Samsung in a California federal court for infringing its intellectual property rights. 

Apple claims the South Korean firm's Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablets "slavishly" copies the iPhone and iPad. 


Read full News article at timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Related post:

• Second Colorado Listeria Lawsuit Filed Against Cantaloupe Producer
• Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits
• The progress of a lawsuit
• What is Trial and judgment in Lawsuit?

What is Appeal in Lawsuit?

After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. Even the prevailing party may appeal, if, for example, they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court will then affirm the judgment, decline to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverse, or vacate and remand, which involves sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before finally being resolved.

Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues (the "invited error" problem) in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts. The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, if a party does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level, he or she generally cannot raise it upon appeal. Furthermore, appellate courts in such jurisdictions will not question the facts as found by a judge or jury in the trial court as long as there was some evidence in the record to support such findings, even if the appellate judge himself or herself would not have personally believed the underlying evidence if he or she had been present in the trial court when such evidence was entered into the record.

When the lawsuit has finally been resolved, or the allotted time to file an appeal has expired, the matter is res judicata. The plaintiff is precluded from bringing an action resulting from the same claim again. In addition, other parties who later attempt to re-litigate a matter already ruled upon from a previous lawsuit will be estopped from doing so.


Article Source: Wikipedia.org

You might like this:

1. The progress of a lawsuit
2. What is Trial and judgment in Lawsuit?
3. Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits

FDA Defends Graphic Labels against Cigarette Companies’ Lawsuit

Responding to a lawsuit filed by five of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration filed Friday to block any delay to new regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packages.

The tobacco companies are suing the agency in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the new labels cross the line from factual warnings to unconstitutionally compelled speech. The companies want a preliminary injunction postponing the date the new rules go into effect.

In its opposition brief (PDF), the FDA is pushing back against the companies’ claim that they would suffer “economic harm” by spending several million dollars to produce the new labels in the meantime. The new regulations are set to go into effect in September 2012.

“Even taking plaintiffs’ untested allegations at face value, their alleged cost of preparing the revised warnings represents approximately one-tenth of one percent of their annual net sales, which is not sufficient to establish an entitlement to preliminary relief,” the agency argues in its brief.

Read full article at Original Article Source: Legaltimes.typepad.com

Lawsuit: Employment Denied To Returning Army Reservist

BALTIMORE -- A local Army reservist is suing both the city of Baltimore and its state's attorney's office, claiming he was not allowed his job back after returning from active duty.

Capt. Andrew Gross of Columbia claimed the city let him down, and now he wants back wages, according to 11 News reporter Lowell Melser.

Gross was not available to speak with 11 News on Tuesday because he is back on active duty at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. His attorney, Steven Silverman, said Gross has been in a see-saw battle with the city the last couple years concerning his former job as a city prosecutor.

The lawsuit claims Gross was denied his job back after returning from a six-month deployment, Melser reported.

Silverman told 11 News that Gross’ dream was to serve as a prosecutor for the state and serve his country as an Army officer, and that the city has ruined that dream.

“If Capt. Gross is willing to put his life on the line for his country, you would hope when he returns to civilian life, his country would be appreciative, or at least the city of Baltimore,” Silverman said.

Silverman said that in 2008, Gross graduated from law school, passed the Maryland bar on the first try and began working as a law clerk in the Baltimore state's attorney's office under then State’s Attorney Pat Jessamy.
"We hope that service men and women around the country become more aware of their rights, and employers become aware of the rights. If anybody should know the law, it's the states attorney's office and the City of Baltimore."
- Steven Silverman

In March 2009, Gross was hired as a prosecutor. At the same time, he enlisted in the Army Reserve, and in July 2009 he was called to active duty for a six-month deployment.

Gross was told his job would be waiting for him when he got back -- but it wasn't, according to Silverman.

“He went on active duty for six months, came back and was told there was no position available for him,” Silverman told Melser.

Silverman said Gross, after months of not getting any answers from the city, had no choice but to file a lawsuit against the city and state's attorney's office under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which states reserve military members have a right to reclaim employment after being absent due to service to the country.

The lawsuit asks for $30,000 in back wages, Melser reported. Silverman said the state's attorney's office has hired a large Philadelphia-based law firm for defense.

“And instead of doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, the city went and hired an out-of-state law firm to fight him,” Silverman said.

Silverman said he and Gross hope their lawsuit sends a message.

“We hope that service men and women around the country become more aware of their rights, and employers become aware of the rights,” he said. “If anybody should know the law, it's the states attorney's office and the city of Baltimore."

Melser said calls to the mayor’s office on Tuesday were not returned and that the state's attorney's office had no comment because of the pending legislation.

Article Source: wbaltv.com