What is a privacy policy?

Useful Resources for Privacy – Privacy Policy

Recent Rulings on Privacy – Privacy Policy

ADIEL GRAVATT VS. GOOGLE

Gravatt attaches to the complaint some sort of document entitled “privacy policy.” Apple allegedly breached this contract by engaging in “privacy (extreme cruelty), 4th, 14th amendment,” and Mr. Gravatt suffered damages “as follows: privacy 4th amendment.” Understandably, Apple has filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to appropriately identify the contract sued upon. The demurrer is unopposed. · Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADIEL GRAVATT VS. SAMSUNG

Gravatt attaches to the complaint some sort of document entitled “privacy policy.” Apple allegedly breached this contract by engaging in “privacy (extreme cruelty), 4th, 14th amendment,” and Mr. Gravatt suffered damages “as follows: privacy 4th amendment.” Understandably, Apple has filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to appropriately identify the contract sued upon. The demurrer is unopposed. · Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADIAL GRAVATT VS. FACEBOOK

Gravatt attaches to the complaint some sort of document entitled “privacy policy.” Apple allegedly breached this contract by engaging in “privacy (extreme cruelty), 4th, 14th amendment,” and Mr. Gravatt suffered damages “as follows: privacy 4th amendment.” Understandably, Apple has filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to appropriately identify the contract sued upon. The demurrer is unopposed. · Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADIEL GRAVATT VS. CBS

Gravatt attaches to the complaint some sort of document entitled “privacy policy.” Apple allegedly breached this contract by engaging in “privacy (extreme cruelty), 4th, 14th amendment,” and Mr. Gravatt suffered damages “as follows: privacy 4th amendment.” Understandably, Apple has filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to appropriately identify the contract sued upon. The demurrer is unopposed. · Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADIEL GRAVATT VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Gravatt attaches to the complaint some sort of document entitled “privacy policy.” Apple allegedly breached this contract by engaging in “privacy (extreme cruelty), 4th, 14th amendment,” and Mr. Gravatt suffered damages “as follows: privacy 4th amendment.” Understandably, Apple has filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to appropriately identify the contract sued upon. The demurrer is unopposed. · Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADIEL GRAVATT VS. APPLE INC.

He attaches to the complaint what appears to be Apple’s privacy policy – or information about that policy – to the complaint, and this appears to be the “agreement” that he claims has been breached. His complaint also refers to privacy, extreme cruelty, and the 4th and 14th amendments, although the meaning is incomprehensible. He seeks $400 million in damages. Gravatt filed his complaint on December 20, 2016. He filed a number of other incoherent complaints in this court against other defendants.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BC5974332

Defendant seeks to compel arbitration of this case in South Carolina, pursuant to the Terms of Use & Privacy Policy (“Agreement”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2017

BLAKELY VS. AMERICAN CONTRACT

The other items in the “Notices” section are a warning that ACBL dues are not tax deductible and can be changed at any time, a statement that dues include subscriptions to various publications, an admonition that a member’s residence determines which ACBL unit/district the member is a part of, and a link to a website for information on ACBL’s privacy policy.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2016

CHRISTOPHER BORY VS SUPER CYCLES & SCOOTERS LLC

Also, any action brought by plaintiff is to be litigated in South Carolina, pursuant to the Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. RULES OF COURT RULE 3.1113(d): Plaintiff Christopher Bory (“plaintiff”)’s opposition is 19 pages long, in violation of Rules of Court Rule 3.113(d), which states that “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

MELISSA MARSTED AND ANDREW BERMANT

Marsted’s firm has refused to give the information based upon their Privacy Policy without mother’s authorization; father requests (1) that mother produce or have her father produce all statements for the children’s Schwab Accounts for which she is/he was/is the custodian for the period of 1/1/2007 to the date of production [the date of separation was July 2007; claims there may be disputes]; (2) that he be named custodian of those accounts; (3) that mother pay $3,000 in attorney fees for sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2012

EDWARD WITHEY ET AL VS FILIPPINI FINANCIAL GROUP INC ET AL

By signing below, I/we hereby acknowledge receipt of this document, that the information contained herein is true and correct, and that I/we have read and understand ePLANNING’s Privacy Policy. [Bold in original.] Both Edward and Barbara signed directly under this advisement. Both Edward and Barbara also signed two Client Investment Advisory Agreements – one on December 20, 2006 (individually) and one on December 22, 2006 (as trustees of the Withey Family Charitable Remainder Trust 12/22/06).

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2011

EDWARD WITHEY ET AL VS FILIPPINI FINANCIAL GROUP INC ET AL

By signing below, I/we hereby acknowledge receipt of this document, that the information contained herein is true and correct, and that I/we have read and understand ePLANNING’s Privacy Policy. [Bold in original.] Both Edward and Barbara signed directly under this advisement. Both Edward and Barbara also signed two Client Investment Advisory Agreements – one on December 20, 2006 (individually) and one on December 22, 2006 (as trustees of the Withey Family Charitable Remainder Trust 12/22/06).

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2010

  « first    1 2

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.