<?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>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge F. Bradford Stillman</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-f-bradford-stillman/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 19:12:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff Wins Fees After Default Set-Aside&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/plaintiff-wins-fees-after-default-set-aside/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/plaintiff-wins-fees-after-default-set-aside/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although an award of attorney’s fees was not an explicit condition of a Norfolk U.S. District Court’s decision to set aside a default judgment for plaintiff in this IT contract dispute, the magistrate judge recommends an award of fees and costs, with slight reductions in the amount of hours requested; however, the magistrate judge recommends [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/15/plaintiff-wins-fees-after-default-set-aside/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Corrects Deposition Count&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/court-corrects-deposition-count/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/court-corrects-deposition-count/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge says plaintiff company in this patent infringement case need not presently seek leave of court to take additional depositions; counting correctly under the federal rules, plaintiff has not yet reached the limit for depositions on the five corporate defendants. In this patent infringement case, plaintiff served deposition notices [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/court-corrects-deposition-count/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Show Cause’ Ordered for Sealing Request&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-ordered-for-sealing-request/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-ordered-for-sealing-request/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this litigation over plaintiff company’s complaint that AOL, Google and other defendants have used plaintiff’s search advertising systems to infringe two of plaintiff’s patents, the magistrate judge for the Norfolk U.S. District Court says the parties must appear and show specific reasons why sealing portions of a memorandum in support of defendants’ motion for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-ordered-for-sealing-request/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Show Cause’ for Motion to Seal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-for-motion-to-seal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-for-motion-to-seal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this litigation over plaintiff company’s complaint that AOL, Google and other defendants have used plaintiff’s search advertising systems to infringe two of plaintiff’s patents, the magistrate judge for the Norfolk U.S. District Court says the parties’ briefs and exhibits do not show a clear basis for sealing these materials and the parties are ordered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/show-cause-for-motion-to-seal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff Not ‘Diligent’ in Discovery Effort&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/plaintiff-not-diligent-in-discovery-effort/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/plaintiff-not-diligent-in-discovery-effort/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a shipyard employee’s “hybrid” Section 301 suit against his union local and the terminal that fired him, the magistrate judge for the Norfolk U.S. District Court says plaintiff’s lawyer waited too long to serve discovery and denies his request for an extension of time for written discovery requests; however, the court grants an extension [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/plaintiff-not-diligent-in-discovery-effort/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payroll Count May Show Title VII ‘Employer’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/payroll-count-may-show-title-vii-employer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/payroll-count-may-show-title-vii-employer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A daycare teacher who alleges she was demoted then terminated in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act has raised a genuine issue of material fact that defendant daycare center is a covered employer, says a magistrate judge for the Norfolk U.S. District Court. Plaintiff alleges she was demoted in 2009 and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/26/payroll-count-may-show-title-vii-employer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Collection Agency Owes Fees After FDCPA Default&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/collection-agency-owes-fees-after-fdcpa-default/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/collection-agency-owes-fees-after-fdcpa-default/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rebecca Beach Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A debtor wins $9,385.50 in damages and attorney’s fees in a default judgment against a Georgia debt collection agency in her suit alleging the agency violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it threatened legal action it could not take and called her supervisor to suggest debtor was about to be arrested; a Newport [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/31/collection-agency-owes-fees-after-fdcpa-default/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law firm not disqualified, but referred to the VSB&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/09/law-firm-not-disqualified-but-referred-to-the-vsb/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/09/law-firm-not-disqualified-but-referred-to-the-vsb/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk law firm violated ethics rules when it simultaneously represented two clients who were in adverse legal positions, a U.S. magistrate judge in Norfolk has held. The judge said he found no prejudice in the current case and would not disqualify the firm. He did, however, refer the matter to the Virginia State Bar. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/09/law-firm-not-disqualified-but-referred-to-the-vsb/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Firm Not Disqualified for Conflict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/law-firm-not-disqualified-for-conflict/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/law-firm-not-disqualified-for-conflict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68854</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a law firm has violated ethics rules by simultaneously defending a union local in a “hybrid” Section 301 case while still representing the employee suing the union in a workers’ comp case, the Norfolk U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge finds no prejudice to plaintiff to justify disqualifying the law firm in the case; but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/law-firm-not-disqualified-for-conflict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Subs Win Defaulted Miller Act Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/subs-win-defaulted-miller-act-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/subs-win-defaulted-miller-act-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge F. Bradford Stillman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two subcontractors on a government project for improvements at the Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach have stated valid claims for unpaid bills under the Miller Act, and a magistrate judge for the Norfolk U.S. District Court awards default judgment and damages against the surety, which is in liquidation. These cases concern an underlying [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/08/subs-win-defaulted-miller-act-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
