<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jmalawyers.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com</link>
	<description>Latest Legal News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:15:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Los Angeles Dodgers: Injury Claim Should Be Disallowed In Chapter 11 Case</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/los-angeles-dodgers-injury-claim-should-be-disallowed-in-chapter-11-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/los-angeles-dodgers-injury-claim-should-be-disallowed-in-chapter-11-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angeles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disallowed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dodgers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Should]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/los-angeles-dodgers-injury-claim-should-be-disallowed-in-chapter-11-case</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Los Angeles Dodgers, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, on Feb. 3 moved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for an order disallowing a personal injury claim against the club brought by a man who suffered injuries from an attack after attending a baseball game at Dodger [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Los Angeles Dodgers, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, on Feb. 3 moved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for an order disallowing a personal injury claim against the club brought by a man who suffered injuries from an attack after attending a baseball game at Dodger Stadium (In Re: Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, No. 11-12010, Chapter 11, D. Del. Bkcy.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2022&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/los-angeles-dodgers-injury-claim-should-be-disallowed-in-chapter-11-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Syms Equity Committee Seeks To Propose Competing Chapter 11 Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/syms-equity-committee-seeks-to-propose-competing-chapter-11-plan</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/syms-equity-committee-seeks-to-propose-competing-chapter-11-plan#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seeks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/syms-equity-committee-seeks-to-propose-competing-chapter-11-plan</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Official Committee of Syms Corp. Equity Security Holders on Feb. 3 moved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for an order terminating the period of time within which Syms has the exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan and solicit acceptance of such a plan (In [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; The Official Committee of Syms Corp. Equity Security Holders on Feb. 3 moved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for an order terminating the period of time within which Syms has the exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan and solicit acceptance of such a plan (In Re: Filene&#8217;s Basement LLC, No. 11-13511, Chapter 11, D. Del. Bkcy.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2021&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/syms-equity-committee-seeks-to-propose-competing-chapter-11-plan/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$ 30.5 Million Bid For Beacon Power Assets Announced</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/30-5-million-bid-for-beacon-power-assets-announced</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/30-5-million-bid-for-beacon-power-assets-announced#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 07:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[30.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Announced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/30-5-million-bid-for-beacon-power-assets-announced</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; Bankrupt power company Beacon Power Corp. on Feb. 3 filed a notice in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware indicating that it had a $ 35.5 million stalking horse bid arranged (In Re: Beacon Power Corporation, No. 11-13450, Chapter 11, D. Del. Bkcy.). LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; Bankrupt power company Beacon Power Corp. on Feb. 3 filed a notice in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware indicating that it had a $   35.5 million stalking horse bid arranged (In Re: Beacon Power Corporation, No. 11-13450, Chapter 11, D. Del. Bkcy.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2020&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/30-5-million-bid-for-beacon-power-assets-announced/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States Denied Motion To Dismiss Crop Loss Suit For Herbicide Crop Damage</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/united-states-denied-motion-to-dismiss-crop-loss-suit-for-herbicide-crop-damage</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/united-states-denied-motion-to-dismiss-crop-loss-suit-for-herbicide-crop-damage#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismiss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Herbicide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/united-states-denied-motion-to-dismiss-crop-loss-suit-for-herbicide-crop-damage</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[POCATELLO, Idaho &#8211; A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho by a group of six Idaho farmers who allege reduced sugar beet, wheat and potato yields because of sulfonylureas herbicide drift from Bureau of Land Management land survived a defense motion to dismiss; the presiding judge denied the statute [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>POCATELLO, Idaho &#8211; A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho by a group of six Idaho farmers who allege reduced sugar beet, wheat and potato yields because of sulfonylureas herbicide drift from Bureau of Land Management land survived a defense motion to dismiss; the presiding judge denied the statute of limitations motion Feb. 1 (Grant Neibaur &#038; Sons Farms, et al. v. United States, No. 11-159, D. Idaho; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12982).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2019&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/united-states-denied-motion-to-dismiss-crop-loss-suit-for-herbicide-crop-damage/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Colorado Appeals Panel: General Contractor&#8217;s Third-Party Claims Filed Too Late</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/colorado-appeals-panel-general-contractors-third-party-claims-filed-too-late</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/colorado-appeals-panel-general-contractors-third-party-claims-filed-too-late#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contractor's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Late]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ThirdParty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/colorado-appeals-panel-general-contractors-third-party-claims-filed-too-late</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DENVER &#8211; A Colorado Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 2 upheld summary judgment for a pair of subcontractors named as third-party defendants in a construction defects action, agreeing that the claims were time-barred (Shaw Construction LLC v. United Builder Services Inc., et al., No. 11CA2351, Colo. App.; 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 172). LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DENVER &#8211; A Colorado Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 2 upheld summary judgment for a pair of subcontractors named as third-party defendants in a construction defects action, agreeing that the claims were time-barred (Shaw Construction LLC v. United Builder Services Inc., et al., No. 11CA2351, Colo. App.; 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 172).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2018&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/colorado-appeals-panel-general-contractors-third-party-claims-filed-too-late/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit: Debt Discharged Properly; Fee Award Not Valid Based On Evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-debt-discharged-properly-fee-award-not-valid-based-on-evidence</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-debt-discharged-properly-fee-award-not-valid-based-on-evidence#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discharged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Properly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Valid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-debt-discharged-properly-fee-award-not-valid-based-on-evidence</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CHICAGO &#8211; A panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 2 affirmed the dischargeability of a particular debt but reversed that part of a lower court ruling that awarded fees to the debtor related to the costs of defending a creditor&#8217;s adversary action (Anthony Stelmokas v. Vytautas Kodzius, No. 11-3193, Chapter [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CHICAGO &#8211; A panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 2 affirmed the dischargeability of a particular debt but reversed that part of a lower court ruling that awarded fees to the debtor related to the costs of defending a creditor&#8217;s adversary action (Anthony Stelmokas v. Vytautas Kodzius, No. 11-3193, Chapter 7, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2068).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2017&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-debt-discharged-properly-fee-award-not-valid-based-on-evidence/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge Dismisses Case Against FDIC Arising From Loan Made By Failed Bank</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-case-against-fdic-arising-from-loan-made-by-failed-bank</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-case-against-fdic-arising-from-loan-made-by-failed-bank#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Against]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismisses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Failed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDIC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[From]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-case-against-fdic-arising-from-loan-made-by-failed-bank</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RENO, Nev. &#8211; A federal judge in Nevada on Feb. 2 granted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and individual defendants&#8217; motion to dismiss a suit arising from a loan plaintiffs took out with failed bank First National Bank of Nevada (FNB) (Parker&#8217;s Model T, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., et al., No. 10-00791, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RENO, Nev. &#8211; A federal judge in Nevada on Feb. 2 granted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and individual defendants&#8217; motion to dismiss a suit arising from a loan plaintiffs took out with failed bank First National Bank of Nevada (FNB) (Parker&#8217;s Model T, et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., et al., No. 10-00791, D. Nev.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12487).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2016&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-case-against-fdic-arising-from-loan-made-by-failed-bank/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Reverses Claim Construction In Video Game Patent Case</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-circuit-reverses-claim-construction-in-video-game-patent-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-circuit-reverses-claim-construction-in-video-game-patent-case#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reverses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-circuit-reverses-claim-construction-in-video-game-patent-case</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; A stipulation to a judgment of noninfringement will be revisited, following a Feb. 1 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Craig Thorner and Virtual Realty Feedback Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC et al., No. 11-1114, Fed. Cir.). LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; A stipulation to a judgment of noninfringement will be revisited, following a Feb. 1 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Craig Thorner and Virtual Realty Feedback Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC et al., No. 11-1114, Fed. Cir.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2015&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-circuit-reverses-claim-construction-in-video-game-patent-case/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Decertified Class Of IPhone Users&#8217; Motion To Certify For Appeal Partly Denied</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/decertified-class-of-iphone-users-motion-to-certify-for-appeal-partly-denied</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/decertified-class-of-iphone-users-motion-to-certify-for-appeal-partly-denied#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Certify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decertified]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Users']]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/decertified-class-of-iphone-users-motion-to-certify-for-appeal-partly-denied</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO &#8211; A California federal judge on Feb. 1 denied in part a motion to permit interlocutory appeal by a class of iPhone purchasers in their antitrust claims against Apple Inc. and AT&#038;T Mobility Inc. (ATTM), holding that the controlling contract required resolution of the claims by individual arbitration rather than a class action [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SAN FRANCISCO &#8211; A California federal judge on Feb. 1 denied in part a motion to permit interlocutory appeal by a class of iPhone purchasers in their antitrust claims against Apple Inc. and AT&#038;T Mobility Inc. (ATTM), holding that the controlling contract required resolution of the claims by individual arbitration rather than a class action lawsuit (In re Apple &#038; AT&#038;TM Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:07-cv-05152, N.D. Calif.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2014&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/decertified-class-of-iphone-users-motion-to-certify-for-appeal-partly-denied/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge Dismisses Class Action Alleging Bank Allowed Unauthorized Payments</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-class-action-alleging-bank-allowed-unauthorized-payments</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-class-action-alleging-bank-allowed-unauthorized-payments#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alleging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Allowed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismisses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Payments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unauthorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-class-action-alleging-bank-allowed-unauthorized-payments</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LOS ANGELES &#8211; A federal judge in California on Feb. 1 dismissed a putative class action accusing Bank of America Co. and an affiliate insurer of pulling money from customers&#8217; bank accounts to pay for insurance policies that customers did not request or approve (Jerome White, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOS ANGELES &#8211; A federal judge in California on Feb. 1 dismissed a putative class action accusing Bank of America Co. and an affiliate insurer of pulling money from customers&#8217; bank accounts to pay for insurance policies that customers did not request or approve (Jerome White, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 11-06797, C.D. Calif.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%2013&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/federal-judge-dismisses-class-action-alleging-bank-allowed-unauthorized-payments/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

