Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Big O or its designee shall be entitled to obtain without bond, declarations, temporary and permanent injunctions, and orders of specific performance:
(a) To enforce the provisions of this Agreement relating to: (i) Franchisee's use of the Licensed Marks; (ii) the obligations of Franchisee upon termination or expiration of this Agreement; or (iii) the Transfer and Assignment requirements of SECTION 18; or
(b) to prohibit any act or omission by Franchisee or its employees that: (i) constitutes a violation of any applicable law or regulation; (ii) is dishonest or misleading to prospective or current customers or clients of businesses operated under the System; (iii) constitutes a danger to other Big O franchisees, their employees, customers, clients or the public; or (iv) may impair the goodwill associated with the Licensed Marks.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. (a) Recognition of Remedial Measures. Defendant has removed the Meta Pixel that was embedded by Defendant in Defendant’s Website from pages accessible in the United States that both include video content and have a URL that substantially identifies the video content requested or obtained from that page. This provision does not prohibit the Defendant from possessing “personally identifiable information” (as that term is defined in the VPPA) that is generated from a source other than the Meta Pixel.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. SunPower has acted or refused to act 10 on grounds that apply to the entirety of each Class such that final injunctive or declaratory 11 relief is appropriate.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In addition to meeting all four requirements of OCGA § 9–11–23(a), the named plaintiffs must meet at least one of the requirements set forth in OCGA § 9–11–23(b). Here, the trial court ruled that certification was proper under OCGA § 9–11–23(b)(2), which provides that certification is authorized only when the ‘‘party opposing the class has acted or re- fused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate fi- nal injunctive relief or corresponding declar- atory relief with respect to the class as a whole.’’ However, the only alleged failure to act identified by the named plaintiffs was the ‘‘policy’’ of ‘‘denying’’ counsel to indigent child support obligors prior to their incarcer- ation. The record contains no evidence of a policy of denial of requests for counsel. Nor does the record contain evidence that any of the plaintiffs asked the trial courts for coun- sel prior to their contempt hearings. Xxx- xxxx, although four of the named plaintiffs sent letters requesting counsel for future proceedings to the courts that had previously held them in contempt, nothing in the record indicates that these requests ever have been denied. Nor does the record indicate wheth- er other putative class members have re- quested and been denied counsel. Thus, giv- en our determinations in Division (1)(a)(i) and (ii) that the class fails to meet the com- monality and typicality requirements of OCGA § 9–11–23(a)(2) and (3), we find that the trial court erred in finding that injunctive and declaratory relief was appropriate in this case.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
