NATURE OF ACTION Sample Clauses

NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA or the Act), 15 U.S.C.§ 2615(a), and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d), and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(2)(A), (CWA or the Act) and Sections 22.13(b) and
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. Plaintiffs Xxxxxxx Xxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx are former female employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who suffered sex and disability-based discrimination when they were enrolled in the FBI Academy’s Basic Field Training Course (“Basic Training”) to become Intelligence Analysts, and when Xx. Xxxxxx was employed by the FBI as an Intelligence Analyst, where she also was subjected to retaliation.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. On or about May 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Santa Xxxxx County Superior Court bearing Case No. 106CV064688 (“Action”) for alleged defects in construction and design of a golf course named Rancho Del Pueblo Golf Course, located on King Road and San Antonio Streets in San Jose, California. (“The Project”).
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This is an administrative penalty assessment proceeding brought under Section 325 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11045 (EPCRA), and Section 109 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9609 (CERCLA), and Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (Consolidated Rules), as codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 22.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. This shareholder derivative action is brought on behalf of nominal defendant Fang Holdings Limited (“Fang”) to seek redress against two of its directors, Defendants Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xx (“Mo”) and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxx (“Dai”), for breaching the fiduciary duties they owed to Fang, and against their affiliated entities that they utilized in connection with those breaches. Defendants Mo and Xxx serially breached their fiduciary duties by exploiting New York's capital markets to enrich themselves through self-dealing and by acting in bad faith against Xxxx's bests interests.
NATURE OF ACTION. 1. Vinyl siding is a widely-used exterior wall material on homes in the United States. Vinyl is a plastic, and like many plastics, it can be dissolved by chemical solvents. Prior to the invention described in the Stuart Patent, it was widely recognized that attempting to clean vinyl siding with chemical solvents could damage the siding.
NATURE OF ACTION. 5 1. On June 26, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or 6 “Commission”) issued a citation to Defendant Discover Financial Services for violations of the 7 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the 8 “TCPA”). The FCC found that Discover Financial Services made prerecorded telephone calls to 9 consumers who “had not expressly invited or authorized the call(s).”
Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!