Court Cases Court Cases

  Most Popular Cases Tab Overlap Cases with Faces Tab Overlap Cases by Type Tab Overlap Cases by Reporter Tab Overlap Cases by Year Right End

All Reporters → f-supp → Volume 702

Opinions in f-supp Volume 702

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff James Katradis filed this suit alleging that defendants1 had demoted him and discharged him based on his handicap, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C.Code § 1-2502, et seq. (Count I), and in breach of an implied employment contract (Count I), and in breach of an implied employment contract (Count III). Plaintiff also seeks recovery in tort for the...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have moved for an order requiring immediate payment of the irreducible amount of attorney’s fees and costs to which defendants do not raise specific, substantiated objection. Defendants primarily object to this request on the ground that this would be an interim fee award, the propriety of which is “vigorously disputed by the federal government.” The Court sees n...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff in this action is defendant in a suit by his former spouse, Danielle J. Clark, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Superior Court action concerns Danielle Clark’s contract claim for one-half of the gross proceeds of Raymond Clark’s Keogh account, under the terms of their separation agreement.1 That account was completely paid out in November 1986, a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF CHARLES R. RICHEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Overcrowding at the prisons of the District of Columbia, primarily at Lorton Reformatory, the District of Columbia’s single maximum security prison, is a disaster rapidly becoming a disgrace. The problem has occupied this Court and others on dozens of occasions over several decades, and no end is presently in sight. For ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM The plaintiff, Raymond Williams, has filed suit in this Court appealing his removal from the Postal Service. In response to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the defendant has filed cross motions for partial summary judgment and partial dismissal. The pertinent facts are as follows. Mr. Williams received a career appointment with the Postal Service in April 1970. During ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Following treatment for an ear infection with the drug amoxicillin, plaintiff suffered a seizure. She was taken to the Quincy City Hospital where she was given phenobarbital. Both the amoxicillin and the phenobarbital prescriptions were continued after her release. Several days later, plaintiff developed a severe skin rash that was subsequently diagnosed as toxic epidermal necr...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant, Digital Equipment Corporation (“Digital”), moves this Court to grant it summary judgment against the plaintiff, Samuel Thomas. Thomas has brought a claim alleging racial discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e et seq. I. Background The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are as follows. Thomas is a native of India and i...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Dionisio Sainz is suing Banco de Santan-der-Puerto Rico (“Santander”) for wrongfully stopping payment on a cashier’s check it had issued payable to him. Sainz also claims Santander invaded his privacy rights by making allegedly untrue statements about him with regard to the cashier’s check transaction. Santander filed a third-party complaint against Juan León Saboya, whose perso...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Alaida Chinea formerly worked as a teacher and assistant professor at the University of Puerto Rico, Cayey University College (“C.U.C.”). She filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 after not receiving tenure, alleging primarily that she was denied due process under the color of state law. Plaintiffs complaint also alleges that her denial of tenur...
Views: 0
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff brings this action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to determine whether plaintiff, a completing payment bond surety, or defendant, an assignee lender, has the right to judgment proceeds resulting from a state court disposition of a suit on a contract between the State of Connecticut Department of Transport...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS I. Background Plaintiff claims a credit of $17,361.01 on his 1981 tax return, which he requested be applied to his 1982 estimated tax. This credit was denied by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on the ground that the credit claim (in the form of his 1981 tax return) was filed more than three years after the tax was paid and thus after the time allowed ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter has come to this court’s attention upon review of Magistrate DiBianco’s Report-Recommendation which was signed August 8, 1988. Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Defendant points out that Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), permits this court to review on...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Edwin Gimenez (“Petitioner” or “Gimenez”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from state custody. Although the pro se petition and memorandum of law cite various constitutional provisions, a fair reading of the papers reveals that Petitioner’s claim is that the state court’s delay in handling Petitioner’s appeal has resulted in a denial of Petitioner’s ...
Views: 1
This case is about plaintiff Leon E. Burnette, an offset printing press operator for twenty-four years who, in the opinion of his treating doctor, became totally disabled primarily due to diabetic neuropathy. Disregarding both the opinion of the government consulting doetor examining Mr. Burnette that he had a loss of feeling in his hands and feet and the opinion of the treating physician that if...
Views: 0
■ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner asks pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that the court set aside his conviction on one count of a multi-count indictment for narcotics violations. Petitioner pleaded guilty on January 10, 1983. The court sentenced him to ten years on April 14, 1983 and on September 12, 1983 denied a motion to reduce sentence. Melvin Lebetkin, an attorney, represented petitioner at the t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this diversity action to recover damages for the wrongful death of *53Robert Schuman in a two car accident in Westbury, New York. Plaintiffs, each a citizen of Pennsylvania, as was the decedent, are the executrix and beneficiaries under his will. Defendant Mezzetti drove the car that hit that driven by decedent. Defendant DBS Advisory Services, Inc., a New ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER The plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the defendant’s alleged failure to accord him fair consideration for employment in view of his high placement on a Civil Service List. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has been accorded all rights he may have had with respect to such consideration inasmuch as he had previously worked in a similar position wit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Herbert Levy, an attorney appearing pro se, brings this action against his employer, the Department of Housing *59 and Urban Development (“HUD”). Plaintiff claims that his annual work evaluation report for 1986-87, prepared by his supervisor under 5 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., should be modified from “fully satisfactory,” the ra...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Republic of Palau (“Palau”) has moved under Rules 59(e) and 62(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., for this court to reconsider the opinion filed on August 8, 1988 in favor of the plaintiffs Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Morgan Grenfell & Co., Limited, The Bank of Tokyo Limited, The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland, and Orion Royal Bank, Limited (the “Banks”) (“Op...
Views: 5
OPINION Plaintiffs, limited partners in the 25 defendant limited partnerships, have moved pursuant to Rule 3(j) of the Civil Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts: (1) to reargue the portion of the opinion of this court dated July 15, 1988 (the “July Opinion”), Bruce v. Martin, 691 F.Supp. 716 (S.D.N.Y.1988), which dismissed the RICO claim in their Second Amended Complain...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Nelson Vargas was arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents on May 12, 1988, together with codefendants Anthony Ibanez, Felix Mejia-Castillo (“Mejia”), Jose Matista and Angela Matista. The government alleges that Vargas and the remaining defendants participated in a “reverse-buy” heroin transaction wherein DEA agents, posing as narcotic traffic...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, Jane Ring, has filed the instant action against the defendant, Estee Lauder, Inc. (“Lauder”), alleging four claims: (1) unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty; (2) common law fraud; (3) misappropriation of a trade secret; and (4) copyright infringement. After substantially all discovery had been completed, Lauder moved this court for an order, pursuan...
Views: 2
*80 OPINION Defendant Dresser Industries, Inc. (“Dresser”) has moved for this court to reconsider its January 15, 1988 order (“the January Opinion”) denying Dresser’s motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Texas and to order a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 677 F.Supp. 195. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to reconsider is granted, and this case ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Cavalier Label Company, Inc., a New York corporation, and Bernard and Harold Shur, New York citizens, move for summary judgment dismissing a portion of the diversity action of James Paret-ti, a New Jersey citizen. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). In addition, Paretti moves to strike one of defendants’ affirmative defenses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). For the reasons set forth belo...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various constitutional violations, including violations of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, and the ex post facto clause. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction by way of order to show cause, signed by this Court on Decembe...
Views: 2
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the court are motions in limine to determine whether emotional distress damages are recoverable in an action for legal malpractice and to what extent, if any, should certain legal fees be *92 deducted from an award of damages. Although there is a paucity of case law on these issues, counsel have submitted extensive...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Paula M. Lessard, instituted the instant action on March 31, 1987. The basis of the action arises out of the formation and subsequent attempted dissolution of a corporation. On May 14, 1987 a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by defendants, Rieders, Travis, Mussina, Humphrey & Harris, and Malcolm S. Mus-sina. On that date, a motion to dismiss, to st...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM Defendant has moved for transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs claim is for damages for an injury he allegedly sustained while employed as a seaman by the defendant on a ship. He brings this action pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. App. § 688. In an Order entered on April ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court1 on third party defendant Mahoning National Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, filed June 28, 1988. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we deny the Motion. Plaintiff, Associates Commercial Corporation (Associates), filed a complaint against defendant/third party plaintiff Lincoln General Insurance Company (Lincoln), alleging that Lincoln failed to pay...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter was reassigned to this judge on November 14, 1988. Presently before the Court are defendants Westmoreland Construction Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company’s joint Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 14,1988, and plaintiff Pittsburgh Builders Supply Company’s Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 28, 1988. Plaintiff seeks to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Highlands Insurance Company instituted this declaratory judgment action against Gerber Products Company. AIU Insurance Company, American Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company have been joined as third party defendants. Facts From April 1, 1984 to April 1, 1985, Gerber carried a $1 million primary liability insurance policy with Liberty Mutual Insurance C...
Views: 0
*116ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions and for Immediate Relief, filed November 23, 1988. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion will be denied. On September 1,1988, this Court entered an order which provided, in pertinent part, the following: 1. The Defendant Caswell-Massey Co. Ltd. will send current order forms to the [Pjlaintiff JacRi, Inc. and wi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION THIS MATTER came on to be heard and was heard before the undersigned upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in Statesville, North Carolina, on December 6, 1988. The Court now enters its opinion in this matter. This is an action for money owed by Statesville Roofing and Heating Company against proprietorship The Duncan Company, owned by John R. Duncan. The ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants Grimsley, Dick, and Richards — (The Citadel defendants) — for summary judgment and on motion of the defendants’ Webb, Plumley, Koss, Bigger-staff, and Bostic — (the cadet defendants) to dismiss the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. The record includes the report of a United States Magistrate in which the magistrate recom...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant United States of America to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The plaintiff was injured while jogging on the shoulder of Yorktown Boulevard, Marine Corps Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina. The driver of the vehicle was Micha...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court upon the Complaint of William Freitag (“Freitag”) alleging that the defendant, Pan American World Airways, Inc. (“Pan Am”) violated certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). In Count I of the Complaint Freitag alleges that Pan Am laid him off because of h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The United States, at the request of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) brought this action against Defendant General Motors Corporations (“GM”) under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. The day after the EPA filed its enforcement action, GM filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief....
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER This matter came on for an evidentiary hearing before the court on April 18, 1988, on the motions of the plaintiffs in the two cases referenced in the caption for a preliminary injunction. Civil Action No. 88-16 is an action by a number of private individuals who are black persons who claim to have been discriminated against by the admission polic...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff brought this action, her second related to these facts, against the defendant United States Postal Service (U.S. P.S.) alleging violations of the handicapped discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Act), 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. The defendant has moved the Court for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for fail...
Views: 0
ORDER Third-party defendants, Susan and Duane Young (“Youngs”), invited plaintiff, Lialan M. Thomas, and her friend, Brian Philips, to their home in Perry, Ohio for the 1983 Fourth of July weekend. They arrived at approximately two a.m. on July third after driving for four hours from their homes near Buffalo, New York. Shortly after Ms. Thomas and Mr. Phillips arrived they were invited to cool of...
Views: 0
*153 ORDER Before this Court are several matters. Plaintiffs have moved for both assessment of costs and prejudgment interest, and also have filed their notice of intention to take depositions in support of a bad faith negotiation claim. Conversely, Defendant has moved for a new trial and also has served notice of deposition duces tecum on Plaintiffs’ counsel. These matters will ...
Views: 1
ORDER Before this Court is Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims of Defendant Lynch and Intervenor Healthcare Technology. Both sides have fully and ably briefed this matter and oral arguments were held to allow even further opportunity to highlight the appropriateness of granting or denying the instant motion. The facts specific to this case also have been well developed...
Views: 0
ORDER This action comes before the court on the defendants’ objections to the Magistrate’s report and recommendation that the court enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as to Count II of their complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the Magistrate’s recommendation with modification. DISCUSSION The defendants presently have a variety of objections to the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Nicholas Jannotta seeks recovery of money allegedly due and owing under a May 8, 1987 brokerage agreement with defendants Roderick Kirkwood and John Graham. By the terms of the agreement, Jannotta agreed to assist in the sale of defendants’ land in Schaumburg, Illinois, to the Metropolitan Sanitary District (“MSD”) in return for 2lh% of the amount paid by th...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 168 (1988) AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, as Trustee under Trust No. 204274-09, and LP Ram, Inc., an Illinois corporation, doing business as Southwest Book & Video, Plaintiffs, v. Lawrence W. PARKMAN, Zoning Administrator of the City of Chicago, and City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Defendants. No. 88 C 6145. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. October 24...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs American National Bank of Chicago (“Bank”) and LP Ram, Inc. bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of defendants Lawrence Parkman and the City of Chicago’s (“City”) enforcement of an adult bookstore zoning ordinance. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which, for...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendant William H. Heuer’s (“Heuer”) motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS In January, 1980, Heuer was employed by Osawa Precision Industries, a subsidiary of J. Osawa & Co. (“J. Osawa”), a Japanese trading company which specialized in camera equipment. In the spring of 1982, Heuer was assigned to Osawa &...
Views: 0
*179 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Three defendants have moved for summary judgment on Count II of the Second Amended Complaint. The facts set out below resolve all factual disputes and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs Andrew Harasim and Anna Cudzich resided at 3749 W. 70th Place, Chicago, Illinois at the times relevant to this suit. Harasim and...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on Defendants’ National Securities Network, Inc. (“NSN”) and Phillip J. Cordina Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. DISCUSSION NSN is an Introducing Firm with whom the plaintiff opened a securities brokerage account. Securities Settlement Corporation (“SSC”) is a company that receives stock and option purchase and sale orders from Introduci...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601, et seq. (the “Fair Housing Act”), and the Civil Rights Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Plaintiffs Louciene and Cora Watson (“Watsons”) are black citizens of the United States. The Watsons charge that defendant First Western Mortgage Corporation (“First Wes...
Views: 0
*190 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring their two count Second Amended Complaint under Sections 1964(c) and 1962(a) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et. seq. Defendant is the Chairman of the Board of Metropolitan Petroleum Company, Inc. (“Metro”) Metro is a retailer of gasoline. The complaint arises out of Defen...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Elyse M. Roberts (“Roberts”) contends that the inside of her house was treated 1 with DURSBAN L.O. 2 on August 29, 1984, to eradicate fleas. According to Roberts, she was not present at the time of the treatment, 3 although she was exposed to DURSBAN L.O. when she returned home. Roberts claims, th...
Views: 3
*200 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Eliot A. Landau (“Landau”) filed this action to obtain a refund of $100.00 plus interest that he paid to the Internal Revenue Service (“the IRS”) as partial payment on a claim for unpaid taxes. Defendant United States of America (“the government”) filed a counterclaim seeking judgment against Landau for the $56,774.70 balance in unpaid taxes plus st...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Kazimierz Stanislaw Bal (“Bal”) has instituted this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(9), 1 seeking review of the denial by INS District Director A.D. Moyer (“Moyer”) of Bal’s application for a stay of deportation. Moyer now moves to dismiss Bal’s Petition. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, the motio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. In such circumstances any inference drawn must be favorable to the plaintiff, United Milk Products Co. v. Michigan Avenue National Bank of Chicago, 401 F.2d 14, 17 (7th Cir.1968), and the allegations contained in the complaint are to be ac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on defendant Kenneth Bell’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the plaintiff’s complaint. For the following reasons, the defendant’s motion is denied. DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that the defendant shot Edward Hutson in the head after arresting Hutson and taking him into custody. The gunshot wound allegedly caused severe and permanent inju...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This decision begins at the end: Plaintiff Martin’s Food and Liquor, Inc. (“Martin’s Food”) cannot obtain judicial review of its three-year suspension from participating in the federal food stamp program because its complaint names the United States Department of Agriculture (“the USDA”) as the defendant instead of the United States. This result will unquestionably appear har...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER Plaintiff, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC), alleges that defendants, Ecodyne Corporation (Ecodyne), Custodis-Ecodyne and Research-Cottrell are liable for the damages incurred as a result of several fill failures in its water cooling tower. Ecodyne has filed a motion in li-mine seeking to prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence of other accidents, remedi...
Views: 1
ORDER DONALD E. O’BRIEN, Chief Judge. The matters before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to affirm the Secretary’s decision. After careful consideration, it is the decision of this court to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Secretary is hereby ordered to award the benefits to the plaintiff to which he is entitled under...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Robert Jader and Saber Systems, Inc., seek payment of benefits from defendant Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company (Principal) under a group comprehensive medical insurance policy. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Now before this court are several appeals and Principal’s motion for summary judgment and judgment on the ple...
Views: 2
ORDER The defendant has moved for dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, for credit for time served in state incarcera*229tion. Based upon the submitted memoran-da, oral argument of counsel and all records, files and proceedings herein, the motion is denied. Defendant is. a member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. He was arrested on September 22, 1988, after forcibly entering ...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 230 (1988) James R. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. OF INDIANA, Defendant. No. 88-985 C (5). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 22, 1988. Nathan S. Cohen, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff. Ronald K. Fisher, Chesterfield, Mo., Ronald Sandhaus, Overland Park, Kan., for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LIMBAUGH, District Judge. This matter is befo...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 231 (1988) Mamie LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 88-385C(1). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 29, 1988. *232 W. Bevis Schock, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff. Henry Fredericks, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendant. MEMORANDUM NANGLE, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Mamie Lewis brought this negligence action against the United St...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE On September 2, 1988, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss For Improper Venue. *236Plaintiff filed his response on October 17, 1988. All defendants, consisting of the Phelps County Regional Medical Center, Hospital Management Professionals, Inc., Ellsworth Adams, Smith Gaddy, Fred Hoertel (deceased), Jean Hentzel and William A. Stolz,...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiffs Grand Metropolitan PLC and Wendell Investments Limited (“Grand Metropolitan”) have filed a Complaint requesting that this court (1) declare that the Arizona Acquisition of Control Act, A.R.S. §§ 4-261 through 268 (the “Act”), violates the commerce clause and the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Chester Trowbridge (“Trow-bridge”) applied for and received disability insurance benefits for the period beginning November 28, 1986. Mr. Trowbridge claims the onset date of his disability should have been designated as April 14, 1985. Mr. Trowbridge brought this action pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (the Social Security Act) to obtain judicial review...
Views: 0
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS On August 11, 1988, plaintiff Joseph D. Lumpkin filed an amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to conditions at his *243place of incarceration, the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. Specifically, he challenges the prison’s use of “see-through” shower curtains, the absence of “sanit...
Views: 0
ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE The matter before the Court is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Pella, an inmate at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). Pella alleges that the three-member disciplinary committee at NNCC violated his constitutional due process rights when they found him guilty of ingesting marijuana. He argues that the defendants, the member...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs filed suit alleging infringement of copyrights in musical compositions, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502(a), 504(c), and 505. Defendant failed to answer plaintiffs’ complaint, and an order of default was entered on July 15, 1988. Plaintiffs now seek an entry of default judgment. BACKGROUND The defendant, Mr. Santillanes, is the proprietor of the Mt. Park Restaurant and Lounge, an e...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiffs Miles D. Lee and Lee Clinic, P.C. (“Lee Clinic”) commenced this action by filing a complaint in the state district court for Weld County, Colorado, alleging state law claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference with business relations. Defendants are Grandcor Medical Systems, Inc. (“Grandcor”) and Versacor, Inc. (“Versa-cor”). Defendant...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Nancy Sahs (Sahs), commenced this action alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Jurisdiction is based on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Civil Rights Act, as amended), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity) and 1342 (civil rights). Upon the...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before this court is the United States of America’s (the United States) motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim based on 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against Harry Scott (Scott) and J.H. Hambric (Hambric). Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the United States against Scott for the entir...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this diversity action, plaintiff, William E. Garrett, Jr., seeks money damages for injuries he sustained while skiing at Breckenridge, Colorado. In claim two of his third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Marker U.S.A. (Marker) is strictly liable for all damages incurred when the ski bindings manufactured and distributed by Marker failed t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, an inmate at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, claims that: (1) he was denied due process of law because he was convicted of a crime carrying a mandatory life sentence by a two-thirds vote of a seven-member court-martial; (2) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services awarding plaintiff disability benefits and supplemental security income as of July 25, 1985. Plaintiff filed previous applications on September 13, 1982, and February 14, 1985, alleging an onset date of disability of August 16, 1981. Both applications were denied and no requests for recon...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on the Secretary’s motion to affirm a denial of widow’s benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After carefully reviewing the record, the briefs and the applicable law, the court is prepared to rule. The proper resolution of this case turns on the question of who is the ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Background On February 24, 1971, members of the Stoddard family incorporated their ranching business as a Wyoming corporation. The officers and directors of Stoddard Ranches, Inc., are W.A. (Webb) Stoddard and his three sons and their wives. Robert Stoddard is 45 years old, is married to Gail Stoddard, and lives on a ranch north ...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the court on defendant’s motion for a protective order. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7429 to review the jeopardy assessment of federal income tax against plaintiff. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7429(b)(2) the court has set the case for a hearing on August 8, 1988. Plaintiff served notices of deposition and deposit...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the court on a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration by Defendants Blythe Industries, Inc. (“Blythe”) and United Pacific Insurance Company (“United”). This claim arose after Defendant Blythe contracted with the Georgia Department of Transportation (“DOT”) on December 7, 1982, to construct the Windy Hill Interchange Project in Cobb County, Georgia....
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Presently pending before the Court is a motion by defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff Carl W. Hawthorne has opposed the motion. For the reasons articulated below, this action will be dismissed. I. Defendant WMATA is a governmental entity established by means of a Com...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 288 (1988) NEW BRITAIN GENERAL HOSPITAL HOME HEALTH AGENCY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 88-2804. United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 7, 1988. *289 Barbara Elaine Straub, James C. Pyles, Powers, Pyles & Sutter, Washington, D.C., for plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This action involves a challenge to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) at 42 C.F.R. § 421.117, 53 Fed.Reg. 17,936 (May 19, 1988). These regulations require that the processing of reimbursements under the Medicare Act for hospital-based home health agencies (“HHAs”) be transferred from the “intermediary” of each HHA to one of te...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Defendant Stephen Semple, a/k/a Sunrise S. Harmony, is before the Court on an Information charging violation of 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(i)(l). He is one of a small group of individuals maintaining over the last several years a self-styled “vigil” in Lafayette Park, a site authoratively identified and protected as appropriate for peaceful demonstrations on public and religious issues. ...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION This suit arises out of events surrounding the arrest of plaintiff, a former Sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Department, by officers of the United States Park Police and the Metropolitan Police Department near the Sousa Bridge in Washington, D.C. on June 22,1984. As a result of these events, plaintiff filed suit against these officers in their individual and official ca...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is another chapter in a long saga of litigation. See AFL-CIO v. Brock, 835 F.2d 912 (D.C.Cir.1987), remanding 668 F.Supp. 31 (D.D.C.). The entire factual and procedural background of this action need not be fully recited here. However, a short review is in order. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this case challenge regulations adopted by ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On this date, in a separate opinion, I enjoined the Department of Labor (“DOL” *315 or “Department”) from implementing the new Adverse Effect Wage Rate regulations it adopted in 1987 (“AEWR Opinion”). Now before me is a related regulation which is intended to provide protection for farmworkers paid on a piece rate basis. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 655.102(b)(9)(ii) (Ap...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to recover damages for death, personal injury, and the destruction of property occurring in the course of air strikes by U.S. military forces on targets in the nation of Libya in April, 1986. 1 Plaintiffs allege themselves to be 55 civilians, all residents of Libya, whose decedents were killed, who suffered personal injuries, or whose property was dama...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER ACTING UPON THE MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. This matter is before the Court on objections filed to the Magistrate’s Recommended Decision on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A hearing on the motion was held before the Honorable D. Brock Hornby, United States Magistrate. The United States Magi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT A SETTLEMENT TERMINATED THE OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY UNDER THE POLICY Gates Formed Fibre Products, Inc. (“Gates”) is a Colorado corporation with a plant located in Maine. In 1985, Gates purchased from Plasti-Vac, Inc. (“PVI”) a thermoforming machine to be used in Gates’s manufacturing facility in...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SUPPRESS I. Defendants are charged in a two-count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of United States Code, sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, and with aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Title 21 United States Code, sections 841(a)(1) and 84...
Views: 1
702 F.Supp. 355 (1988) COLES EXPRESS, Plaintiff, v. NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS AND TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 86-0313-B. United States District Court, D. Maine. December 19, 1988. *356 Lewis V. Vafiades, Bangor, Me., Jeffrey H. Lerer, Les Schneider, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. William R. Laney, Skowhegan, Me., Gabriel O. Dumont, Jr., Grady, Dumont & Dwyer, Boston...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION Coles Express requests a judicial declaration as to the date as of which it will be deemed to have withdrawn from the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund [the Fund] established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA], as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendme...
Views: 1
This matter is before the Court on the Motions to Abstain and Either Dismiss or Stay This Action and the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted, of defendants Defense Technologies, Inc. (“Technologies”), MicroLogic, Inc., and Jack Frost. Because affidavits and other supporting materials have been filed in this case, the Court treats the Mot...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This civil action came on to be heard on motion of third party defendant Hughes Helicopters, Inc. for reconsideration of its motion for summary judgment which had been denied on July 21, 1988. At that time we wrote that: “Should it appear as discovery unfolds that Wiggins’ claims are grounded solely in negligence, Hughes will be free to renew the present motion”. Hughes argues...
Views: 0
ORDER In 1986 plaintiff Tower Cranes of America brought a diversity action in this court against Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) (C. 86-84-D) alleging that PSNH had breached a contract for lease of a crane used in the construction of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. In 1987 Tower Cranes filed another action (C. 87-487-D) alleging the same breach of contract, the defendants...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Amador D’Alzina has sued the Puerto Rico Telephone Company (alternatively “the Company” or “PRTC”) and five of its officers complaining that they violated his civil rights by discharging him from his high-ranking managerial position solely because of his affiliation to the New Progressive Party. In his complaint, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff claims that defend*378ants, u...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs are Paul Breault and Vincent Duffy, former employees of the City of Pawtucket. Robert Litchfield, also a former employee, has withdrawn as Plaintiff from this action because, with the assistance of the Defendant Brian Sarault, nomayor of the City of Pawtucket, he has obtained employment with the State of Rhode Island. *389 Mr. Breault is a long time politi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs allege, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the individual defendants violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when, during the summer of 1978, defendants sought to enforce the safety ordinances of the Huntington Town Code against the Eastern Military Academy (the “Academy”). According to the Complaint, defendants’ conduct resulted in the closing of the school’s main bui...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner seeks habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1982). He was charged in Suffolk County, New York in two indictments for two bank robberies, one at the European American Bank, in Huntington Station, New York, on March 27, 1978, and the other at Central Federal Savings and Loan Bank in West Islip, New York on July 19, 1978. He was also charged in both indictments with cr...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action September 30, 1987, alleging that the defendant unlawfully terminated him from his employment on the basis of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA”). The parties have conducted discovery, and defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defend...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Luz Garcia (“Garcia”) brought this action challenging the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying her application for disability benefits. The Secretary responded to Garcia’s motion for judgment on the pleadings by agreeing to remand the case for a calculation of benefits due. Garcia then requested an award for attorneys...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendants RJR Nabisco, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (jointly referred to as “RJR”), and Yves Saint Laurent, S.A. (“YSL”) jointly move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff Koret, Inc. (“Koret”) opposes the motion. For the following reasons the motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is dismissed. FACTS Koret is a New Y...
Views: 3
OPINION I. BACKGROUND The dispute concerns a contract involving Community Science Technology, Inc. (CST), National Modular Systems Corp. (NMS), and NMS’ surety, The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). The facts concerning this action are more fully set forth in this court’s prior Amended Opinion of March 23, 1987, and will only be summarized here. In March of 1973, CST was ...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendants James E. Sullivan (“Sullivan”), Gregory Kerns (“Kerns”), and Mil-lord Holmes (“Holmes”) have moved for summary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, to dismiss the complaint of Marvin Anderson (“Anderson”), which alleges an unconstitutional use of force and deprivation of due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon the following facts and conclusions, the motion is granted ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In mediating discovery between quarrelsome litigants, Magistrate Buchwald imposed Rule 11 sanctions on defendant for improperly having sought sanctions against plaintiff. Magistrate Buchwald’s order was completely justified under the circumstances and hereby is made the order of this Court, based on the thorough consideration in her March 31, 1988 Memorandum, which is here se...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant L.P. Young (“Young”), a correction officer at the Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, New York (“Otis-ville”) has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for an order dismissing the complaint of plaintiff James Friedman (“Friedman”), pro se, an inmate at Otisville or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. the motion was submitted on ...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER In this action, the government seeks to recover $35,070.40 in Medicare payments made to defendant Paul Ruegsegger, a physician, for allegedly unnecessary medical services rendered in 1978 and 1979. The government now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the existence and amount of the overpayments has already been conclusively determined in an administrative proceedi...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, East River Savings Bank (“the Bank”), has brought this action against the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and against Vanguard Holding Corporation (“Vanguard”), a New York corporation, seeking to recover losses it sustained when HUD refused to honor its application for insurance benefits on a residential mortgage it had purchased from Vanguard. HUD ha...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendant Wior Corporation (“Wior”) has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action from the Southern District of New York to the Central District of California. For the reasons set forth below, Wior’s change of venue motion is denied. The Parties Plaintiff Christina Canada, Inc. (“Christina Canada”) is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business ...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff L.F. Rothschild & Co. Incorporated (“Rothschild”) has moved for an order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, compelling defendants Marshall J. Katz (“Katz”) and Fred H. Scher (“Scher”) to proceed with the arbitration Rothschild commenced with the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and staying the arbitration Katz and Scher initiated with the Chicago Boar...
Views: 1
OPINION The plaintiffs in this first entitled action and the defendants in the remaining six entitled actions, assigned as related cases (“the Limited Partners”), have moved pursuant to Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P. virtually on Christmas Eve to preclude the defendant First City National Bank & Trust Company (“First City”) from selling at auction on December 30, 1988 their interests in various li...
Views: 1
OPINION The defendants in these actions assigned as related cases (“the Limited Partners”), moved pursuant to Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P., virtually on Christmas Eve, to preclude the plaintiff First City National Bank & Trust Company (“First City”) from selling at auction on December 30,1988 their interests in various limited partnerships held by First City under certain security agreements. On the fin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”), filed the instant complaint against Allied Services Division Welfare Fund (“the Plan” or “Allied”), an employee benefit plan within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), its trustees, Thomas Fitzgibbons and John McIntyre (“the Trustees”), Group Legal Administrators (...
Views: 1
OPINION The United States Government has moved to dismiss defendant’s, Phillippe Andre Sinclair (“Sinclair”), petition for an order vacating his judgment of conviction brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and has moved to deny defendant’s motion for an order reducing his sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). For the reasons stated below, the government’s motions will be granted. ...
Views: 1
OPINION Presently before the court are the pretrial motions of defendants Mordechai Kra-selnick and Allan M. Bart (1) for dismissal of the indictment on multiple grounds; (2) for disclosure of grand jury materials; and (3) for logs showing that the United States is in compliance with the Financial Right to Privacy Act. Oral argument was held on most of these motions on May 6, 1988, and th...
Views: 1
OPINION Presently before the court are the motions of defendants Mordechai Kraselnick and Allan M. Bart to dismiss their indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, *490 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. For the reasons discussed below, defendants’ motions are denied. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE On January 22, 1988, a federal grand jury returned a five-count indictment against defendants Krasel...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has sent a Christmas gift to this court delivered via the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. It is called “How to Make an Attorney Fee Multiplier.” However, the instructions are so confusing and inconsistent that this court has been unable to put the “gift” together. Before dealing with the specific instructions received, it is necessary to conside...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION The complaint in this action was filed on or about May 28, 1987 in the Superior Court of New Jersey by Luis Fajardo, plaintiff, against Mayfair Supermarkets, Inc. (“Mayfair”) and Local 1262, United Food & Commercial Workers Union (“Union”). The plaintiff alleges that defendant Mayfair improperly discharged him for six weeks and transferred him to another store lo...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and under similar New Jersey statutes. 1 Plaintiff Bernard Abrams alleges that defendants Lightolier, Inc. and other related companies discriminated against him on the basis of age and perceived handicap in firing him on July 3, 1986. Defendants originally moved to dis...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM This action was filed on October 31,1986. On December 22, 1986 the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint. 1 Currently pending before this court are motions filed by the defendants for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs. Also pending is the plaintiffs joint motion to dismiss the minors as plaintiffs. At the outset it should be not...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This is a civil rights action commenced by plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which they seek both declaratory and injunctive relief; the former challenging the constitu *518 tionality of Pennsylvania’s Compulsory Attendance Law, 24 P.S. § 13-1327, specifically the private tutorial provision, and the latter to prevent defendants from instituting criminal ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before us on the application of the National Labor Relations Board *523[NLRB] for an order requiring obedience to subpoenas issued under the powers provided for in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 161. It is not necessary to relate the history of this proceeding other than to allude to pertinent events leading to the matter which brings ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Charles E. Murray, Jr., brought this action to prevent Defendant Alan K. Silberstein, President Judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, and the Municipal Court Board of Judges (“the Board”) from removing him as Bail Commissioner. On August 15, 1986, I issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Board from terminating Mr. Murray’s em...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”) moves for partial summary judgment in this action which arises out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff Michael J. Kolbeck (“Kolbeck”) was a passenger in a 1980 Pontiac Grand Prix that collided on October 29, 1985 with an automobile operated by defendant Charles N. Tait (“Tait”) which was owned by defendant Tait Design and...
Views: 3
*544 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This declaratory judgment action concerns a dispute between two insurers as to their respective liabilities with regard to the destruction by fire of a construction site. Presently before me are the motion for summary judgment of defendant, Hartford Insurance Company, the company that insured the building contractor, and the cross-motion for partial summ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant, Joseph P. Braig, was charged with ten (10) counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (one count of aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2) and one count of extortion, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The indictment involves two events: 1) an insurance claim made by the defendant in August, 1983 for wind and water damages a...
Views: 0
*550OPINION * In United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992 (3d Cir.1988), the Third Circuit addressed and resolved a large number of constitutional challenges to the guidelines and the structure of which it is a product, namely, the Sentencing Commission established by Congress. The decision of the Court of Appeals is, of course, binding on me and I follow it. I think it is permissible for me to add t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an action brought by William E. Stephenson for injuries which he sustained while working for McLean Contracting Company, Inc. on a bridge construction project on the Choptank River. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Jones Act and under the maritime doctrine of unseaworthiness.1 The case has had a somewhat unusual procedural history. Defendant filed a timely motion for summary ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Edward T. Vilas, as an employee of Vitro Corporation, accumulated benefits in the Vitro Corporation Retirement Plan of over $600,000. In March of 1986, he elected to take an early retirement opportunity offered by Vitro Corporation and to withdraw his accumulated benefits in a lump sum. Since this required his wife’s consent, Mr. Vilas reached an agreement with his wife, Elizab...
Views: 1
This civil action was instituted when defendants discontinued sales of orange juice products to a distributor located in Baltimore County. Plaintiff, Purity Products, Inc. (hereinafter “Purity”), is here seeking injunctive relief and damages from various defendants for alleged violations of federal and state laws arising out of defendants’ refusal to deal with plaintiff as a distributor of Trop...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss claim of Fernando Lopez. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion will be granted. This case arises on a Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem filed on January 22, 1988 praying the Court for forfeiture of the Defendant property under the provisions of Title 21, Sec. 881 of the U.S. Code and under the supplementa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on all claims and for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and on the Plaintiff’s oral motion for leave to dis *579 miss voluntarily his state law wrongful death claim. FACTS ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This diversity dispute among participants in a Virginia partnership raises the novel question of whether an oral promise to transfer a limited partnership interest is within the statute of frauds where the sole partnership asset is real property. Defendants assert that the statute of frauds bars enforceability of the oral promise. They seek partial summary judgment solely on th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ complaint challenging the current method of electing the Board of supervisors in Henrico County, Virginia. Plaintiffs allege that the county districting plan, put into effect in 1981, impermissibly denies or abridges plaintiffs’ rights to vote on account of race in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on opposing motions for summary judgment. The dispute centers on the parties’ conflicting interpretations of a policy provision determining “actual cash value” of the policyholder’s finished stock. The plaintiffs, Rocco Enterprises, Inc. and Rocco Turkeys, Inc. (“Rocco”), who are poultry producers, originally sued both Continental Casualty Co. (“...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The time for responding having passed, the Court deems the motion mature for consideration. As a basis for the motion, the Defendant has asserted that the Plaintiff’s state law claims relate to an employee benefit plan and, as such, are pre-empted b...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS On September 15, 1988 the defendant, Oladell Samuel Ikuobolati filed a motion to correct a sentence on the ground that it was imposed in an illegal manner pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(a) and 32(c)(3)(D). In this motion, the defendant argues under Rules 32(c)(3)(D) and 35(a) that misleading and incorrect information contained in his pre-sentence in*606vestiga...
Views: 0
RULING This matter is now before us on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant, Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing North America, Inc. (MEPNA). This action arises out of a flash fire accident which occurred on June 23,1986 at an oil well site owned by MEPNA located in Pointe Coupee Parish near Krotz Springs, Louisiana. On that date, Clifford Wiltz, Raymond Broussard, Sr., Ray...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant Coco Bros., Inc. (Coco) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff General Equipment Manufacturers, Inc. timely responded to the motion and the court has considered the memoranda of authorities together with attachments submi...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On October 3, 1988, Defendant Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF) filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On October 7,1988, Defendants Yamashita-Shinnihon Kisen K.K. (Ya-mashita) and Y.S. Line USA Corp. (Y.S. Line) filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has failed to file a response to either mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT This court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Ideco Division of Dresser Industries, holding that its posses-sory security interest prevailed over the security interest of Crocker National Bank in drilling rigs and in several Caterpillar diesel engines. On appeal, this court’s judgment was affirmed on the drilling rigs, and it was remanded on the...
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION I. This case is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Orga *618 nizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. Plaintiff Four Star Corporation (“Four Star”) manufactures and sells luggage racks for the auto industry. From 1976 to 1983, defendant Henry J. Clink was president of Four Star. Four Star claims defendants Jack Bott Sales Corporation and Jo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Secretary of Labor’s petition for an order compelling compliance with the supervisory instructions of the Secretary of Labor. The International Union, United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) has filed a memorandum in opposition to the Secretary’s position. Jerry Tucker, the inter-venor in the underlying cases filed by the Secre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate recommends dismissal of both counts of the plaintiffs’ complaints, on the basis of federal preemption. Objections to this recommendation having been timely filed, the Court will now consider the Magistrate’s recommendations in light of these objectio...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an interpleader action that is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff, Mt. Carmel Mercy Hospital, was a tenant of certain property located at 15901 Greenfield, in the City of Detroit, for which it paid a monthly rental of $2,800. The rental was payable to David W. McKinney, and the Plaintiff owed a total of $28,-000 for rent for the property over the time...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THE COURT Now before the Court are two distinct but parallel actions for recovery of railroad interline freight revenues allegedly owed to the respective plaintiffs by the common defendant, Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad Company. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgments, asserting there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgments as a ma...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is the second pro se application made to this Court for the federal writ of habeas corpus by the petitioner Mr. Hubert Sheffield. His first petition was dismissed for his failure to have exhausted available state-remedies. See, Hubert Sheffield, petitioner, v. Larry Lack, et al., respondents, civil action no. 3:87-0496, order of July 15, 1987. Mr. Sheff...
Views: 0
ORDER After a bench trial on August 29, 1988, the court ordered both parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Having considered these submissions, and the evidence presented at trial, the court finds as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.Plaintiff Roy Facchina brought this action against the trustees of NECA-IBEW Local 176 Health and Welfare Fund. The trustees were dismi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner William Hicks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on March 27,1984, alleging disability since November 1982 due to hypertension, asthma, influenza and a heart impairment. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) initially denied the application on the ground that Hicks was not disabled under Title II §§ 216(i) and 223 of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this opinion, we consider matters taken under advisement in our opinion of October 24, 1988. In our prior opinion, we noted that this suit was before the District Court for a second time. District Judge George N. Leighton, now retired, previously granted the motion of defendant Devon Bank (“Devon”) for summary judgment against the plaintiff Merrill Lynch, P...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this diversity products liability action, plaintiffs brought suit against defendants Hy-Temp Manufacturing, Inc. (“Hy-Temp”), the manufacturer of a furnace vent damper, and Therm-O-Disc, Inc. (“Therm-O-Disc”), a manufacturer of a component part for the damper. The plaintiffs’ second amended complaint alleges that they suffered carbon monoxide exposure when ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on defendant Oudensha America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Shahid Naqui worked as a bookkeeper and accountant for defendant in its Cook County Illinois office. Plaintiff had no contract of employment and thus was an employee at ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER David Rosa (“Rosa”) initially filed a pro se in forma pauperis petition against Dan-ville Correctional Center Warden Michael Neal (“Neal”), seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). After this Court appointed counsel to represent Rosa,1 respondent Neal answered the petition and moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 56, ma...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. FACTS The facts, construed in favor of the plaintiff/non-movant, are as follows. Defendant, TransLogic Corporation (“TransLogic”), is a manufacturer...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Roadway Express, Inc. (“Roadway”) has filed a Notice of Removal (“Notice”) from the Circuit Court of Cook County of this action brought by Harrison Rosell (“Ro-sell”). Based on this Court’s threshold review of Roadway’s Notice, 1 this Court sua sponte remands the action to the Circuit Court from which it came. As an initial matter, in at least ...
Views: 0
*685 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Refco, Inc. (“Refco”) initially sued Troika Investment Limited (“Troika”), alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and a claim for payment of a large debit balance in Troika’s commodities futures trading account with Refco. Troika answered the Complaint (in part by asserting affirmative defenses) and also alleged in an eight-count Amended Countercl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“NRDC”) has sued Outboard Marine Corporation (“OMC”) for violations of the statute commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (the “Act”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376. 1 NRDC filed under the Act’s “citizen suit” provision (Section 1365) for claimed violations by OMC of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination...
Views: 0
*696 MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Tomislav Savic has sued the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act (“the FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. for violations of the Illinois Structural Work Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48, § 69, resulting in his fall from the roof of a building at the Great Lakes Naval Base while working for Kovilic Construction Co., Inc. The case ca...
Views: 1
ORDER In February 1986, a grand jury indicted plaintiff for murder. He remained incarcerated for 21 months until the State of Illinois elected to drop the murder charges against him. Following his release, plaintiff filed this § 1983 action against two detectives with the Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff claims that the grand jury would not have indicted him if defendants had not coerced a thi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Park National Bank of Chicago (the “bank”) filed a multi-count complaint against Chicago Fleet Sales and Leasing, Inc. (“Chicago Fleet”) and others, alleging that the defendants had entered into a scheme to defraud the bank. Chicago Fleet moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Ann McLaughlin, the Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”), filed this action pursuant to § 17(l) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSHA”), 29 U.S.C. § 666(i), to recover unpaid fines levied by the Secretary against defendant Keefe Earth Boring Company, Inc. (“Keefe”). This order concerns the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. The complaint alleges that on fou...
Views: 0
ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, plaintiff Robert Maddox filed this habeas corpus action against the United States Parole Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission granted Maddox parole from the Metropolitan Correctional Center on September 16, 1984. Originally, no special conditions were attached to Maddox’s parole. However, on July 30, 1987, the Commission decided to condition Maddox’s co...
Views: 0
ORDER On August 10, 1986, Ronald Story was killed when his car collided with another automobile. Plaintiffs, Story’s surviving wife and children, claim that the impact of the collision severed the seat belt worn by Story. Based on the alleged failure of the seat belt to restrain Story, plaintiffs are suing General Motors Corp. (“General Motors”), which manufactured the car, and Avis Rent A Car ...
Views: 1
ORDER On November 27, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Francis J. O’Byrne (“AU”) ruled that plaintiff Robert Wright is “disabled” as defined by the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. The AU concluded that Wright’s disability resulted from a combination of ailments, including a severe hernia and degenerative arthritis of the lumbosacral spine. The AU further determined that the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 21, 1988, this Court conducted oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim. At that time, the Court orally granted said Motion, and indicated that a written order would follow. This is that order. A. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.This is a lawsuit filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) by a group of former employ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION At the continuation of the bench trial in this case on October 28, 1988, the Court orally indicated its finding that the Michigan No Fault statute, M.C.L.A. § 500.3135, is inapplicable in this case unless the automobile insurance policy held by Avis car rental agency, from whom Plaintiffs rented their car, would provide them with personal protection benefits. On January 5, 1989,...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Mark B. Rainsford was killed in an accident that occurred as he was performing maintenance work on a ferry owned by defendant Washington Island Ferry Line, Inc. His widow and two minor children filed suit, alleging claims for negligence and breach of warranty of seaworthiness. Jurisdiction was alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688. Presently ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER The Waukesha Engine Division of Dresser Industries, Inc. (“Waukesha”) brought suit against The Gradall Company (“Gra-dall”) over a dispute arising from Gradall’s purchase of engines from Waukesha. Gra-dall answered and counterclaimed. Presently pending before the Court is Wauke-sha’s motion for summary judgment on Gradall’s counterclaims. Based on the decision below, th...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case was brought under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343. On June 22, 1983, plaintiffs’ decedent, Kent Thomas, their son, was incarcerated in the Benton County, Arkansas, jail. Late on the evening of that day he tore strips from his bedding and fashioned a “rope”. He hung himself from a li...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment *742 and defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for improper venue. The Court finds that defendant waived its personal jurisdiction defense, determines that venue is proper and will grant plaintiffs motion for partial summary...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. Based upon the submitted memoranda and all records, files and proceedings herein, the motion is granted. Background In this case, the FDIC is acting as receiver for three separate banks: the First State Bank of Sisseton in Sisseton, South Dakota; the Farmers State Bank in Maddock, North Dakota; and the Lewistown Bank in Lewistown, Illinois. Ma...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the following motions: plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery, for reconsideration of portions of the Court’s October 13, 1988 memorandum and order, for order compelling the United States Department of Justice to withdraw as attorneys for defendants, for enforcement of judgment entered by default and entry of judgment by default against the United Sta...
Views: 0
JUDGMENT In accordance with the Order filed on October 12, 1988, and the Report and Recommendations sustained and adopted therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that respondent Jim Jones shall have judgment against petitioner Keith Byron Glasby and that the petition of Keith Bryon Glasby for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED with prejudice. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES M...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 757 (1988) Harold ZIMMER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 87-1746C(1). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 28, 1988. *758 James Koester, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff. Henry Fredericks, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendant. MEMORANDUM NANGLE, Chief Judge. This is a Federal Tort Claims Action against the United States alleging m...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 761 (1988) Forrest D. CRIGER, Plaintiff, v. General Julius W. BECTON, Jr., etc., Defendant. No. 88-569C(1). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 29, 1988. *762 Allen Surinsky, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiff. Eric Tolen, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., Brenda Goranflo, Office of Gen. Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., for defendant. ME...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is currently before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to comply with Missouri’s lien statute notice requirements. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant defendants’ motion. Plaintiff Code Consultants, Inc., a Missouri corporation, brings this action based on defendant G.M. Hock Construction, Inc.’s failu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a proceeding under Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., for review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and *770 Human Services (“Secretary”) denying plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits. Section 205(g) of the Act provides for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary. The matt...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RO-SENBERGER’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II THROUGH VI On May 20, 1988, plaintiffs Bob Campbell, Lolis Campbell and Mark Campbell filed a six count complaint asserting the following claims: Count I (Bob Campbell) violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Count II (Mark Campbell) state law fraud or misrepresentation; Count III (Mark Campbell) state...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff, a former employee of the Internal Revenue Service, has filed this pro se action alleging that he was illegally dismissed and that he suffered numerous violations of his constitutional rights at the hands of the IRS and several individual defendants. 1 Presently, defendants have moved the court to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS I Plaintiff has filed a formal request that this Court transfer this case on its own motion to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See paragraph 2 of plaintiffs portion of the Joint Report filed in response to this Court’s December 9, 1988 order. 1 Defendants, on the other hand, contend that “it ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION On March 28, 1988, after hearing argument in this habeas corpus action, the Court remanded the case to respondent District Director for reconsideration of the decision to deny parole to petitioner Gutierrez. When the District Director again denied parole, Gutierrez renewed his petition in this Court. On May 6, 1988, the Court granted Gutierrez’s request for a writ of h...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B), the Court has reviewed the pleadings, and other papers herein and the attached Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate. The Court has also made a de novo determination of the objections filed by defendant. IT IS ORDERED that a Judgment...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The government’s motion for reconsideration and for order setting aside dismissal of the indictment came on for hearing November 18,1988, before the Honorable Earl B. Gilliam. The government was represented by Lantz Lewis; defendants were represented by Christopher J. Schatz, Mario G. Conte, Frank T. Vecchione, George C. Boisseau, Andrew M. Stein, Frank V. Gre-gorc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. FACTS & PROCEDURE Currently before the court is Defendant North American Silver Company’s (North American) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 which requires complete diversity of jurisdiction between parties. If Nerco Delamar Company's (Delamar) principal place of business is ...
Views: 0
ORDER I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The issue before the Court is whether loans received from private, nongovern *814 mental sources can be considered “income” for the purpose of calculating eligibility and benefits under Nevada’s Aid to Dependent Children (“ADC”) 1 program. Plaintiffs and defendants have filed cross motions for summary judgment and both parties ag...
Views: 0
ORDER I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The matter before the Court involves a dispute over the manner in which the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) reduced grazing privileges in the Susanville District of California. Plaintiff and defendant each have moved for summary judgment in this matter. Both parties agree that the material facts are not in dispute. A summary of these material facts is...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a securities action brought by an investor against Black & Company, Inc. and one of its stockbrokers. Plaintiff contends that defendants gave improper investment advice amounting to federal securities fraud. Plaintiff also sets forth several state pendent claims. Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, who are members of the Libertarian Party of Kansas, challenge various provisions of the Kansas ballot access laws as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contend that K.S.A. 25-303, 25-205, 25-216 and 25-3602 place unconstitutional burdens upon their voting and association rights as well as their equal protection rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This mortgage foreclosure action is presently before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks en *837 forcement of a due-on-sale clause which allowed plaintiff to accelerate payment on a note when the mortgaged property was sold without its prior written consent. Defendants allege that plaintiff unreasonably withheld its consent to th...
Views: 0
ORDER The defendant, Ed McBirney, moves the Court to dismiss the captioned case for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. For the reasons noted below, the Court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss. I. The financial relationship between CB Financial Corporation (CBFC) and the defendant, which is at the heart of this lawsuit, a...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff has filed a Complaint against defendant Litton Systems, Inc. (“Litton”) *848 for race discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He claims that his employment with Litton was unlawfully terminated because of his race. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The above entitled civil action is before the Court upon submitted motion by defendant Cullman Medical Center for summary judgment in its favor with respect to the Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., claim for relief of national origin discrimination 1 asserted by plaintiff in his complaint. This Court has previously granted summary judgment ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On September 22, 1988 Plaintiff SOUTHWEST AEROSPACE CORPORATION (Southwest), a California corporation having its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California, filed the above entitled civil action against Defendant TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation and its division, TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING 1 (collectively Tele...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause came on before the Court, sitting without a jury, for trial on November 16, and 17, 1988. After consideration of the testimony, exhibits, and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent that any of the findings of fact might constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such. Conversely, to t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS CAUSE was tried to the Court, sitting without a jury, on October 25 and 26, 1988. After considering the testimony of witnesses, the documentary and physical evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 1. Plaintiff, News and Sun-Sentinel Company, (he...
Views: 1
ORDER This social security case is before the Court on Claimant Edward E. York’s appeal of the Secretary’s denial of Social Security disability benefits. The Court has reviewed the administrative record and has considered the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate. The Magistrate determined that substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s determination that York was not entitled to di...
Views: 0
OPINION This action challenges Customs Service denial of a duty deduction under item 807.- *909 00 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) for the value of strips of steel worked in Arizona and delivered to neighboring Nogales in Sonora, Mexico for use in luggage imported into the United States. As exhibited at trial, when they left Tuscon, the strips were ...
Views: 0
Memorandum Opinion and Order This matter is before the court on motion for injunction pending , appeal. Defendants oppose the injunction on the ground that there is no substantial question for appeal, as evidenced by the court’s "summary” dismissal of the action. The court dismissed this action after reading the briefs of the parties, hearing oral arguments and considering the matter. The court m...
Views: 0
Memorandum & Order In this action challenging a determination of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“ITA”) sub nom. Clear Plate and Float Glass from Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review and Revocation of Anti-dumping Finding, 46 Fed.Reg. 82,-926 (June 25, 1981), plaintiff’s motion for judgment upon the agency record pursuant to CIT...
Views: 0
Memorandum and Order In this action challenging a determination of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("ITA”) sub nom. Clear Sheet Glass from Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Finding, 47 Fed. Reg. 14,506 (April 5, 1982), plaintiffs motion for judgment upon the agency record pursuant to CIT Rule 56.1 has been reassigned to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs in this action have filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and putative class members alleging that defendant has violated the first amendment, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) § 8(a)(3) and the duty of fair representation owed by the defendant to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are employees of private telephone companies who work in collective bargaining u...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Before the court are the plaintiff's motion to amend his June 10, 1988 Amended Complaint against The National Enquirer (NE) and News America Publishing (NA) and the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider this court’s June 28, 1988 Order dismissing the Amended Complaint against NE. 1 687 F.Supp. 692. For the reasons set forth below...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The remaining defendant in this case, News America Publishing, Inc. (News America) which publishes the Star magazine, has moved to dismiss 1 the Amended Complaint, which alleges that the Star’s publication of an article about the plaintiff invaded his right to privacy by placing him in a false light and by appropriating his likeness and ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The government moves to disqualify attorneys Jeffrey Weiner and Alan Ross, both of the same law firm, from representing Acquilino Melo and Manuel Melo respectively. In the alternative, if the court does not grant its motion for disqualification on the basis of the government’s proffer, the government requests an evidentia-ry hearing at which time the government would ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), Jon Steele, Bernie Opitz and Mark DeShais. For reasons explained below, the motion will be granted. I. FACTS Plaintiff Rys is a postal employee who initiated this action alleging the defendants discriminated against him by failing to promote him due to his physica...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants’ revocation of his license to practice medicine, depriving him of his property right to employment as a physician and his license to practice medicine in New York, was a violation of due process of law. Plaintiff has also applied for a temporary restraining order, pursuant t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER In this action, commenced April 29, 1988, plaintiff Robert Damino (“Damino”) seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the revocation of Damino’s license to practice medicine on June 19, 1987. Defendants move to dismiss1 on several grounds, including an assertion that the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and reque...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Isaac Felipe Diaz brings this motion to dismiss the indictment against him because the Government failed to comply with the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-62, 3164 (1982). For reasons that follow, the motion is denied. On June 28, 1988, defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant. The complaint charged him with receiving 8 check...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, purchasers of the common stock of defendant Crazy-Eddie, Inc. (Crazy Eddie), brought this action against Crazy Eddie and various of its former officers, directors, accountants, and underwriters. The consolidated and amended complaint (the complaint) asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. (19...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In these consolidated cases the Court must decide whether to confirm or vacate an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate and award back pay to an employee. The employee at issue is Clifford Ackley (“Ack-ley”) a member of Local 1199 of the Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union (the “Union”). The employer is Paul C. Maggio (“Maggio” or the “Employer”) who operates ...
Views: 0
The plaintiff has brought this action against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) on behalf of her husband pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1395ff(b). She is seeking review of the Secretary’s determination that her husband is not entitled to Medicare benefits for acute inpatient hospital care that he received after suffering a heart attack and resulting brain damage. The Se...
Views: 0
This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages brought under § 207 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 407, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Cl. 2. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s affidavit and cross-motion for summary judgment, all pursuant to Fed....
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER In this action, defendant Rosseel, N.V. (hereinafter “Rosseel”) seeks to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1 (hereinafter “the Convention”), under a contract for the sale of high sulfur fuel oil. On August 14, 1984, Rosseel served a notice of its intent...
Views: 6
OPINION Defendant Beth Israel Medical Center (“BIMC”) has moved pursuant to Rule 56 of F.R.Civ.P. for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Dr. Myron P. Nobler (“Nobler”). Nobler alleges that BIMC failed to promote him for Directorship of BIMC’s new Radiation Therapy Department because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U...
Views: 1
OPINION & ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Mead Data Central, Inc. (“Mead”), has filed the instant action seeking injunctive relief against defendants, Toyota Motor Corp. (“TMC”) and Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (“TMS”) (TMC and TMS collectively, “Toyota”). The complaint alleges one claim for false designation of origin pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This suit was brought by four former employees of defendant Time, Inc. (“Time”), each of whom was discharged as part of a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) undertaken at the company in early 1986. Plaintiffs contend that they were terminated on account of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The action ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Maria and Ramon Gutierrez have sued under §§ 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) (1982 & Supp. Ill (1985)), to undo defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services’ determination that plaintiffs are not eligible for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits because they have excess resources. Bo...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER The defendant Israel Ruiz, Jr. is charged with two counts of bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1014 and 2, and one count of perjury, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623. Defendant filed pre-trial motions seeking: (1) further discovery, including a bill of particulars, a witness list, and information concerning ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Robert and Mary Renn originally filed suit against defendant Airline of Finland (“Finnair”) seeking $2.25 million in damages, plus costs and interest, for injuries allegedly sustained by Robert Renn as a result of falling from a ladder during the course of his employment. Plaintiffs contend that Renn’s injuries were caused by defendant. Defendant then filed a cross...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The United States (“Plaintiff”) filed this action to recover civil penalties from Fleet- *1084 wood Enterprises, Inc. (“Fleetwood”), for alleged violations of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (the “Act”), 42 U.S. C. § 5401 et seq. {See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1.) There are four motions presently before ...
Views: 0
*1099 OPINION The United States of America, representing the interests of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), filed this suit against defendants Golden Acres, Inc., J.L. Capano, Inc., Joseph L. Capano, and Mario B. Capano, on March 21, 1985. On April 15, 1988, we granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against J.L. Capano, Inc., Joseph L. Capa-no, and Ma...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION In its most elemental form, this condemnation case simply requires the Court to determine the fair market value of certain land taken by the United States of America (hereafter “United States” or “plaintiff” or “Government”) pursuant to its power of eminent domain. 1 Dissection of this overall task reveals three subissues. First, the...
Views: 1
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court are the motions of Home Insurance Company (“Home”), Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Company (“Mutual”), and Chicago Insurance Company (“Chicago”) for summary judgment. Opposition to these motions has been filed by the Township of Gloucester (the “Township”), Maryland Casualty Company (“Maryland”), and American Reliance Insurance Comp...
Views: 0
OPINION In this action brought under Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78p(b), for alleged “short-swing” profits realized by defendants, defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiff cross-moves for partial summary judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiff National Westminster Bancorp NJ (“Natwest NJ”), formerly known as First Jersey Na...
Views: 2
702 F.Supp. 1140 (1988) B.G., by his Guardian Ad Litem, F.G., Plaintiff, v. CRANFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. CRANFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. B.G., by his Guardian Ad Litem, F.G., Defendant. Civ. A. Nos. 87-1360, 87-4745. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. November 18, 1988. As Amended December 29, 1988. *1141 Weinberg & Kaplow, P.A. by Richard J. Kaplow, Springfiel...
Views: 0
OPINION Currently pending before this Court are two related actions arising under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (“EAHCA”), P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., consolidated for trial and requiring review of an Order issued by an Administrative Law Judge (“AD”) determining that the subject child (“B.G.”) be placed in a year-round residential program approved by the State of New ...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 1158 (1988) B.G., by his Guardian Ad Litem, F.G., Plaintiff, v. CRANFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. CRANFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. B.G., by his Guardian Ad Litem, F.G., Defendant. Civ. A. Nos. 87-1360, 87-4745. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 29, 1988. *1159 Weinberg & Kaplow, P.A. by Richard J. Kaplow, Springfield, N.J., for plaintiff. Theodo...
Views: 0
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION This opinion supplements a prior opinion issued by the Court and filed on November 18, 1988. That opinion affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“AU”) providing for B.G.’s residential placement and directed that the Cranford Board of Education (“Board”) pay for all of its associated costs. Left unresolved and reserved was the issue of reimbursement to B.G.’s f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Procedural Background On July 30, 1986, plaintiff Dennis Surov-cik filed the instant complaint, claiming breach of an employment contract and fraudulent misrepresentation by defendants D & K Optical and Larry Joel. On September 8, 1986, defendant Larry Joel filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Procedural Background On July 30, 1986 plaintiff, Dennis A. Surovcik, filed a complaint claiming breach of an employment contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. On May 5, 1987 the court entered an order denying defendant Larry Joel’s motion to dismiss, 702 F.Supp. 1166. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. This motion has been fully briefed and is ri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The question in this case is whether a decision by a state administrative agency is binding on a federal administrative agency. *1181I conclude that because the issues before the two agencies were not the same, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply- Plaintiff seeks a ruling that a finding by an appeals referee of the Pennsylvania Office of Employment Security (OE...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs, Jack and Carol Fanning, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 alleging that the defendants, Kevin Mason and Montgomery County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”), maliciously, negligently, and recklessly removed the Fanning’s child, Nancy Fanning, from the Fanning home. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ decision to remove Nancy from her par...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Presently pending before the Court are two cases relating to an automobile accident in which plaintiff Jessica Gehman, then three years of age, suffered severe head injuries. As a result thereof, plaintiffs allege that Jessica is in need of specialized educational services. In this action, plaintiffs aver that it is the responsibility of defendant Prudential Insurance Co., pursuant t...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Background In 1986, plaintiff Monarch Life Insurance Company (“Monarch”) issued to Ricky Donahue a life insurance policy in the face amount of $179,518. The policy was issued on the basis of an application submitted by Donahue in October, 1986. Donahue, who suffered from numerous medical problems, died in December, 1987. Alleging that Donahue knowingly falsel...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Hartford Insurance Company, seeks a declaration that its insured, Zachary Blackburn, was not involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist and that it has no duty to arbitrate Blackburn’s claim for uninsured motorist’s benefits. On June 14, 1988, I issued an order denying Blackburn’s motion to dismiss. Hartford subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Peter J. Castelli, M.D. brought this action asserting seven counts for violations of federal antitrust laws and three counts for related state law infractions. His claims arise out of an exclusive contract between Meadville Medical Center and Robert A. Driscoll, M.D. The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is presently pending before this court. 1....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION A motion for summary judgment by defendant Harborside Hospital is presently before the Court. Harborside contends that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. The motion will be granted for reasons set forth below. I. Plaintiff Mary Jones sought medical attention in early 1983, when she began experiencing acute nervousness, insomnia, difficulty in concentrating,...
Views: 1
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc. (“PHH, Inc.”) and PHH Group, Inc. 1 to remedy alleged discriminatory employment practices at the defendants’ Baltimore County facilities in Maryland. In its complaint, the EEO...
Views: 0
ORDER In this action, Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc. (“Channel Master”) seeks indemnity and contribution from JFD Electronics Corp. (“JFD”) and the Unimax Corporation (“Unimax”). JFD is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unimax. The claims are for recovery of costs for actions taken by Channel Master to respond to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at a site it ow...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed October 27, 1988, and November 7, 1988, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both parties are seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability, with the issue of damages to be determined at a later time. Neither party has requested ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Charles S. Ragins to dismiss the indictment against him on the ground it subjects him to double jeopardy. By Order filed June 1, 1987, the Court denied defendant Ragins’s motion, finding that he had not been subjected to double jeopardy by virtue of any of the indictment’s three counts. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This Section 1404(a) transfer motion arises in the context of an ERISA 1 suit. More specifically, defendant, a small southwestern Indiana contractor, is being sued for failing to make contributions to employee benefit plans as required by an alleged collective bargaining agreement. Defendant seeks to transfer this matter from this District to the Southern Dis...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and *1263 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Older Americans Act In 1965, Congress enacted the Older Americans Act (“OAA”). 42...
Views: 0
ORDER & REASONS This is an action brought by Hubbard Daughdrill, a toolpusher employed by Ocean Drilling & Exploration Company (ODECO), to recover damages he sustained while being transferred from ODECO’s drilling rig, the OCEAN EXPLORER, to the deck of the M/Y AMERICAN RIVER, a crewboat owned and operated by Trico Marine, Inc. (Trico). Daughdrill claimed that ODECO was negligent under the Jones ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter came on for hearing December 7, 1988 on motion of defendant St. Martin Land & Development Corporation for summary judgment and/or dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff lacked seaman status under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. Having considered the memoranda submitted by the parties as well as other applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for summary j...
Views: 0
This matter was tried before the court at an earlier date. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, third party defendant Continental Underwriters, Inc. [“Continental”] moved for involuntary dismissal. The court granted the motion with oral reasons and now issues these supplementary written reasons for its decision. This is a claim for insurance proceeds under a policy of marine insurance...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant Jack Brown Shaw to dismiss. Plaintiff United States of America filed timely response to the motion. The court, having considered the memoran-da with attachments submitted in connection with the motion, is of the opinion that the motion should be denied. In this action, the United States seeks recovery from ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court are the cross motions for summary judgment of the parties in the above-styled case. The Court held a hearing in this case on August 6, 1987. After a thorough review of the motions, the briefs, the oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court makes the following determinations. FACTS This action challenges the constitutionali...
Views: 2
702 F.Supp. 1298 (1988) The UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of SUPERIOR INSULATION COMPANY, INC. v. ROBERT E. McKEE, INC. and Associated Indemnity Corporation and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY. Civ. A. No. 4-86-959-E. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division. September 13, 1988. *1299 Dan S. Boyd, Robert R. Gibbons, Joh...
Views: 0
*1300ORDER On June 22, 1988, at the close of Plaintiffs case, Defendants and Third Party Defendants orally presented a motion for a directed verdict which the Court carried along. After the trial, Defendants and Third Party Defendants filed motions for a judgment not withstanding the verdict. Plaintiff has responded to both motions. After a thorough review of the issues, the Court makes the follo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant owner Jose Navarro’s motion to dismiss. The government has responded. Pursuant to Local Rule 17(i)(2), the Court will decide these matters without oral argument. The instant case involves a civil in rem forfeiture action brought by the government against defendant vehicle for its use in transporting ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the United States’ motion for summary judgment. Defendant vehicle owner, Jose Navarro, has responded. Pursuant to Local Rule 17(()(2), this matter will be decided without oral argument. The government brings the instant civil in rem forfeiture action against defendant vehicle for its alleged use in the transpo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986). Previously, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the affirmative action plan at issue constitutional under the Sixth Circuit’s equal protection a...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff insurers, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies and American Insurance Company, brought this action for declaratory judgment against their insureds Ex-Cell-0 Corporation, McCord Gasket Corporation, and Davidson Rubber Company (collectively “Policyholders”), and two other insurers of Policyholders, Travelers Insurance Company and Employers Insurance of *132...
Views: 3
OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on defendant’s assertion that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff filed her complaint on September 8, 1988, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment with defendant in October, 1982. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action for alleged injuries suffered in the course of his employment on Defendant Rouge Steel Company’s vessel, the William Clay Ford. Plaintiff asserts a right to recovery under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, for negligence, and general admiralty and maritime law for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Currently before the Cou...
Views: 0
OPINION ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On September 19, 1988, U.S. Magistrate Joseph G. Scoville issued a report and recommendation (R & R) in these consolidated cases. The R & R was issued pursuant to this court’s order of reference dated May 31, 1988. 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B). Both parties have objected to certain portions of the R & R. The court has reviewed de n...
Views: 2
OPINION These actions, begun on November 26, 1985, and concluded nearly two years ago, *1358 were in rem civil forfeiture proceedings brought by the United States against various articles of real and personal property used in or traceable to transactions involving illegal drugs. Cases G85-1155 CA1 and G85-1156 Cal were closed by default judgments of forfeiture entered July 21...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action was brought by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Gettys Bloom, in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant General Electric Supply Company, alleges a cause of action under the Tennessee Fair Employment Practices Law, T.C.A. §§ 4-21-401, et seq., and also asserts a claim for wrongful discharge in violation...
Views: 0
*1371 MEMORANDUM This case was transferred to this Court from the Northern Division on September 21, 1987, along with a related case, Montcastle v. Bailey & Associates, CIV-3-86-779. A number of dispositive motions are before the Court in both cases. The motions in Bailey & Associates will be the subject of a separate memorandum. This case involves the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I The plaintiffs invested $2,744,000 in oil and gas drilling programs at the solicita*1379tion of Wilder, a defendant. Wilder told them of his special tie to Sanguine, Ltd., another defendant, which was a company-expert in the oil and gas business. Wilder said to plaintiffs that he and his corporations (defendants Wilder, Inc. and Ansam & Associates, Inc.) would act i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Rockwell International Corporation (“Rockwell”) brings this two-count action under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), to recover various costs incurred at Rockwell’s manufacturing facility in Carpentersville, Illinois (“Facility”) and for declaratory judgment a...
Views: 2
702 F.Supp. 1391 (1988) Kelly MERK, Joseph Staszewski, Vickie Menach, Donna McCormick, David Therkfield, John Malone, Marlene Wagner, Michael Demare, Wayne Volker, Eleanore Collins, Andrew Kachik, Patricia Todd, Linda Singleton, and Kevin Quaid, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JEWEL FOOD STORES DIVISION, JEWEL COMPANIES, INC., American Stores Company, Inc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On February 26, 1984, Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (“Jewel”) unilaterally reduced the wages and benefits of various employees in apparent contravention of a written collective bargaining agreement with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 881 (“Local”). The Local immediately filed suit which was assigned by lot to District Judge Susan Getzendanner. Unite...
Views: 0
*1402 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is properly before the court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. The court assumes, as did the parties, that Illinois law applies to plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. 1 Summary judgment is appropriate if the court concludes “that based on the evidence upon which the...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the court are two motions. Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment. *1407See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Defendants label their motion “cross-motion for summary judgment,” but the court construes it as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); 56(b). For the following reasons, defendants’ motion to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 17, 1987, plaintiff Harold M. Seidel, filed his second amended complaint against Allegis Corporation (“Alleg-is”) and 17 individual directors and former directors of Allegis. The complaint purports to assert individual, derivative, and class action claims, alleging that Allegis’s directors breached fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholder...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Avondale Properties Partnership (“Avon-dale”) in order to finance a proposed construction and rehabilitation of an office center in Chicago, Illinois sought assistance from the Illinois Development Finance Authority (“IDFA”), a statutorily created public body to make funds available for the construction of facilities in areas of high unemployment through the s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 30, 1985, an Illinois court placed Sandra Rush and her sister Michelle in the custody of their father, Brian Rush. On April 3, 1988, Sandra was beaten to death by John Hemmer, who was living in Brian Rush’s house at the time. This § 1983 suit is brought by Elizabeth Rush, suing on behalf of her daughter. She alleges that the defendants, employees of the I...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION There are presently pending before this court a number of motions and responses thereto. The court has reviewed the pleadings and the pending motions and is now prepared to rule. Each motion will be addressed separately. I. Motion for Remand On August 4, 1988, plaintiff filed this cause of action in the chancery court of Benton County, Arkansas. The co...
Views: 2
*1429 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment by defendant Deltak Corporation (Deltak). Deltak’s motion initially raises a question of choice of law. Using Minnesota’s conflicts rule, the Court has determined that Minnesota law should govern this case. That decided, the Court then finds that summary judgment is inappropriate at this s...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff North American Financial Corp. (NAFCO) brought this action in Hennepin County District Court for breach of an option contract to purchase leased equipment. Defendants are Amgrar Gesellschaft für Farmlagen, mbH (Amgrar), the lessee and holder of an option to purchase, and Donald Hershey and Hershey Equipment Company, Inc., the guarantors of the lease ...
Views: 0
ORDER Petitioner, an inmate confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP), petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus in which he challenges the decision of the United States Parole Commission requiring him to remain in confinement for 80 months when his guidelines call for release after service of 24-36 months. The petition, by order of this Court entere...
Views: 0
ORDER STATE OF THE RECORD. This case comes before the Court on respondents’ Report to the Court and Partial Exceptions to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and petitioner’s Answer to Government’s Exceptions. The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation was entered following a petition in habeas corpus arising out of the denial of the Bureau of Prison authorities of petitioner’s reques...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Richard Norman St. Cloud was indicted on counts of rape under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 1 and 2031 2 and oral sodomy under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and SDCL 22-22-1(1) and 22-22-2. 3 St. Cloud plead guilty in this Court to involuntary sodomy and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. 4 St. Cloud has filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a ...
Views: 11
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The recent passage of the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (hereafter the “Act”) has raised a number of questions regarding the removal of pending state cases, on diversity grounds, in which fictitious defendants are named. This case is one of the first snowballs in what...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”)’s motion for partial summary judgment on counts 1, 2 and 3 of plaintiff’s complaint. Following oral argument, the court took the matter under submission, and upon further review of the briefs and authorities cited therein, the court now grants defendant’s motion for the reas...
Views: 1
ORDER VACATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This matter comes before the court on Petitioner National Labor Relations Board’s Motion to Modify Injunction and Respondent Pacific Isle Packaging, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate and Dismiss Action and for Sanctions and Costs. The court, having considered these motions, the memoranda filed by the parties, and the arguments of counsel, finds as follows: I. The Nation...
Views: 0
OPINION In the matter before the court, defendant, United States of America, moves the court for an order dismissing plaintiff, Sandra Jean Smith’s, complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. BACKGROUND The agreed facts are set forth in Exhibit A of the Pretri...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT THIS MATTER comes before the court on a motion by plaintiff Air Line Pilots Association, International, for preliminary injunction. Having reviewed the motion, together with all documents filed in support and in opposition, and being fully advised, the court finds and rules as follows: I. ...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Daniel J. Rosales filed this action in the state district court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, together with various state law claims for relief. On July 19, 1988, the defendant AT & T Information Systems, Inc. (“AT & T”) filed a verified petition for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Jurisdiction is alle...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth Roberts, a fifth grade teacher, is joined by parents of several children in his school in seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against officials of School District No. 50. Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ removal of a Bible from the Berkeley Gardens Elementary School library and their removal of two religiously oriented books in Roberts’...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on cross motions for summary judgment by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Estate of G.R. Rains (Estate) concerning FDIC’s claim to payment under two notes executed by G.R. Rains. The court does not believe oral argument would be helpful and denies plaintiffs request for argument. D.Kan.Rule 206(d). After careful ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on several motions of the defendants. Plaintiff asserts claims of civil rights violations and pendent state tort actions from her termination on June 18, 1985, as a police officer and part-time employee- of the ambulance service with the City of Hoisington. Plaintiff was the first woman police officer employed by the City of Hoisington, and h...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services [42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ] denying disability benefits to plaintiff B. Jane Mostel- *1535 ler. The case comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to affirm. In January of 1986, plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits, alle...
Views: 0
ORDER SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE BACKGROUND On 18 April 1988, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Wyoming highway patrolman Robert Todd Gregory was traveling in the eastbound lane of Interstate 80. At about milepost 297, approximately 13 miles west of Laramie, Wyoming, he observed a dark blue vehicle approaching from the east. Patrolman Gregory claims that his radar indicated this oncoming vehicle...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is the motion of plaintiff, United States of America, for summary judgment in the rather sizeable sum of $777,720.00 against defendant, Joel D. Helms, Jr., who is pro se. Also before the court is Helms’ cross-motion for summary judgment. It is unusual for any court to write an opinion granting summary judgment in favor of a pro se ...
Views: 0
ORDER This ease is before the Court on various motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff and the defendants. The motions shall be considered seriatim. This action was brought by Plaintiff Brothers Builders Supply Company (Builders Supply) to recover on a construction payment bond issued by Central National Insurance Company of Omaha (Central National), pursuant to t...
Views: 1
ORDER This action is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Both motions are opposed. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action to appeal the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] denying a permanent immigration visa to plaintiff-beneficiary J.J. Naran [beneficiary]. The court finds it unneces...
Views: 0
702 F.Supp. 1577 (1989) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Charlie Ridley, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, et al. (Grady, Hart, Irwin, Jasper, Macon, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, and Peach Counties), Defendants. Civ A. No. 2771-MAC (WDO). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. January 12, 1989. Norman Chachkin, NAACP-Legal Defense and Education Fund, New Yo...
Views: 0
ORDER In August of 1969 and in reliance upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States as plaintiff initiated this action against the State of Georgia, et al., to desegregate numerous Georgia school districts. Shortly thereafter, Charlie Ridley, et al., were permitted to intervene in this matter as plaintiff-interven...
Views: 0

Non-Government Works Copyright © 2001-2026 Think Computer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

About   Apps, Extensions & AI   System Status   Privacy   Security   Contact Us

ⓘ Information Facts

Sign In Sign Up
Issues Laws Cases News Firms Entities Pro
Sign In Sign Up