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 808

Opinions in f-supp Volume 808

MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 1, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made a jeopardy assessment against the plaintiff pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6861. On September 18, 1992, the plaintiff filed this action under 26 U.S.C. § 7429(b), which provides for expedited judicial review of jeopardy assessments. The Court’s task in reviewing a jeopardy assessment is to determine whether “the making of the ...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an action challenging a jeopardy assessment made against a nonresident alien by the Internal Revenue Service. Background On June 1, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made a jeopardy assessment against the plaintiff, a citizen of Sweden and a resident of the United Kingdom, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6861. On September 18, 1992, the plaintiff filed this action under 26 U....
Views: 0
ORDER On June 1, 1992, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) made a jeopardy assessment against the plaintiff. From the date plaintiff received notice on June 3, 1992 until the date this action was filed, plaintiff alleges to have made several attempts to acquire information from the IRS concerning the jeopardy assessment, including the filing of a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with t...
Views: 0
ORDER Three motions are before the Court in these matters: defendants’ motion for reconsideration, defendants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal, and plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated herein, all three motions are denied. First, defendants wish the Court to reconsider its Order of October 8, 1992 (the “October 8 Order”), in which the Court abated in full the jeo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits before the Federal Trade Commission. The record in this case, necessarily developed hurriedly and informally, 1 yields some provable facts and considerable speculation about the future course of world events, business judgments, and a variety of other unprovable contingencies. The relev...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are the cross-motions for summary judgment of plaintiff Kuo-Yun Tao and defendants William Sessions, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or “Bureau”), and Steven L. Pomerantz, the Deputy Assistant Director-Personnel Officer for the Bureau’s Administrative Services Division. Ms. Tao claims that defendants individually and in their official...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT — ON RECONSIDERATION 1 This case arose out of Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) 2 seeking foreclosure of realty owned by Patricia and Angelo Ruseoni (“Defendants”), which was provided as collateral ...
Views: 2
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in this action are four labor unions, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE), Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers (IBB & B). These unions have been certified...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Thirteen individuals, related either by blood, marriage, or close friendship, invested in a number of condominium units hoping to cash in on the real estate boom of the mid-1980s. Unfortunately, the real estate tides turned in the late 1980s, and the investments went sour. Alleging numerous violations of state and federal law, 1 the plaintiffs have brough...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a declaratory judgment action concerning obligations of plaintiff insurer (American Home) under a commercial liability policy issued to defendants Sport Maska, Inc. (Sport), Maska U.S., Inc. (Maska), and CCM Holdings (1983), Inc. (CCM). Now before the court are (1) Sport and CCM’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Docket No. 7, filed March ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On September 11, 1992, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ponsor (“Magistrate Judge”) denied, without a hearing, all seven of defendants’ motions for dismissal of the indictment. Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motions for Dismissal of Indictment for Outrageous Governmental Conduct, slip op. (September 11, 1992) (Ponsor, U.S.M.J.) (“Report and Rec...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael J. Geiselman failed to file income tax returns for the years 1978 through 1982. His wife, Plaintiff Valerie Washburn Geiselman, failed to file income tax returns for the years 1979 and 1980. To satisfy their tax deficiencies, the Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on plaintiffs’ Cambridge home. Michael J. Geiselman filed a complaint against the United Sta...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a civil rights action in which plaintiff John Hansen alleges defendant Donald Lamontagne violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1981 & Supp.1992). In addition, plaintiff alleges state law claims of defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distre...
Views: 0
*97 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is presently before the Court on the motion of defendant Eastern Wire Products Co. (“Eastern”) for summary judgment. Plaintiff Steven Katzoff brought this suit seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and state law in connection with plaintiff’s alleged employment as a sales representati...
Views: 2
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS On January 23, 1976, the Plaintiff, Eugene Emerson Clift, brought this action under the Invention Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. § 183, alleging that the Government has used, in exact or similar form, a cryptographic encoding device that the Plaintiff has patented under U.S. Patent No. 3,495,-038, entitled “Cryptographic System.” The facts of this case...
Views: 0
RECOMMENDED RULING ON PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS On October 10, 1990, plaintiff Grease Monkey International, Inc. [“GMI”], commenced this diversity action against defendant Brent L. Watkins [“Watkins”], alleging that Watkins violated a franchise agreement [“Franchise Agreement”] under which GMI was the franchisor and Watkins the franchisee. In Count One of its complaint, GMI seeks paymen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 3601 et seq. 1 They seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief to redress alleged arbitrary and unlawful discrimination by defendants on the basis of handicap as defendants have refused to allow plaintiff Support Ministries for Persons With AIDS, Inc. (hereinafter “Support Mini...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff in this action, Archibald Hill, alleges employment discrimination and other violations of his federal civil rights. The defendants are the New York City Board of Education and a private bus company. Both defendants have moved for summary judgment on all causes of action, and plaintiff has cross-moved for partial summary judgment. For the reasons set forth be...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The nine remaining defendants in this case have made motions which were the subject of hearings on November 16, 17, and 18, 1992. The indictment charges two conspiracies, one to import into the United States more than five kilograms of cocaine, and the other to distribute and possess with intent to distribute that cocaine. In a memorandum and order dated April 16...
Views: 0
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION These 20 defendants are the second group of approximately 55 who are being prosecuted in this court for fraudulently obtaining assistance from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamp and Medicaid programs for the poor. The group now before the court consists primarily of Dominican women who bought, sold and used false id...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se Joanna Hubicki brings this action against National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (“Amtrak”) and The Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”). Plaintiff alleges that Amtrak, her former employer, and Travelers, the health care insurance company under which she was covered while employed, denied her claims for medical benefits w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action, which seeks reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction, arises out of plaintiff’s employment with defendant MGM Grand Air (“MGM”). Before describing and evaluating the three motions currently at issue, this court will set forth the case’s procedural posture and the various factual allegations that lie at the action’s source. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . On December 1, 1989, defendant Andres Rios-Paz pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine. Based on the calculations in the pre-sentence report, 1 on February 7, 1990, this Court sentenced Rios-Paz to 63 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $50.00 special assessment. By habeas petition, filed Dec...
Views: 1
DECISION and ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a disabled individual. Represented by able counsel, she brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that her civil rights were violated when a county social services department reimbursed itself out of her award of back benefits in Supplemental Security Income for interim benefits paid to her by the county during an extended period of time...
Views: 0
This action was commenced in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and pendant state law claims for fraud and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C....
Views: 4
OPINION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Introduction This action was commenced on November 28, 1989 when plaintiff Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. (“Flexi-Van”) filed suit against defendant Pharos Lines, S.A. (“Pharos Lines”). Flexi-Van claimed breach of contract and conversion regarding marine equipment it had leased to Pharos Lines. On August 10, 1990, Flexi-Van filed a separate ac...
Views: 1
*256FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON DAMAGES I. Introduction A bench trial was held in this consolidated action on January 13-15, 27-29, 1992. On June 17, 1992, the court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1992 WL 357416, familiarity with which is presumed. At that time Flexi-Van was directed to provide the court with evidence in the form of charts and/or calculations...
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION This is a civil rights action arising out of a warrantless entry and search of American Legion Post # 1212 (the “Post”), which was conducted in connection with an investigation into the January 1986 shootings of two detectives of the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”). All of plaintiffs’ claims against the City of New York (the “City”); Benjamin Ward, Police Co...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement in the action commenced by the plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) against the defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the «IBT”) an(j the IBT’s General Executive Board (the “GEB”) embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (the “Consent Decree”). The goals of the Consent D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement in the action commenced by the plaintiffs United States of America (the “Government”) against the defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “IBT”) and the IBT’s General Executive Board (the “GEB”) embodied in the volun*277tary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (the “Consent Decree”). The remedial provisions i...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by plaintiff United States of America (the “Government") against defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “IBT” or the “Union”) and the IBT’s General Executive Board (the “GEB”) embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (the “Consent Decree”). The Consent Decree provides f...
Views: 2
OPINION This court previously issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This opinion states the reasons for that order. BACKGROUND The named plaintiff represents a class consisting of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“AFDC”), on whose behalf the state collects child support payments. Defendant Louis ...
Views: 0
OPINION The plaintiff Joint Venture Asset Acquisition (“JVAA") seeks to enforce promissory notes in favor of First City National Bank and Trust Company (“First City”) (the “Notes”) against the defendants and counterclaimants Michael J. Zellner (“Zellner”), Joseph Krader (“Krader”), Zellner Plastering Co., Inc. (“ZPCI”), and James R. Wilcox (“Wilcox”). After a bench trial and upon the foll...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 30, 1991, Flavio Taveras was convicted on seven counts following a jury trial held before this Court. Taveras was convicted of four narcotics crimes, including: (1) conspiracy to distribute more than one kilogram of cocaine and more than fifty grams of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) possession with intent to distribute and distribution of two kilograms of co...
Views: 0
OPINION Third-party defendants Rex S. Kuwasaki (“Kuwasaki”), John Renna (“Renna”), Edward M. Thomas (“Thomas”) and Edward R. McHenry, Jr. (“McHenry”), (collectively, “moving defendants”), have moved to dismiss to dismiss the third-party complaints filed against them by certain named defendants in the underlying action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of person...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 7, 1991, the defendant, Carmelo Bravo (“Bravo”), was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams and more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school; using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a federal drug trafficking crime; and, as a convicted felon, unlawfully possessing and receiving a firearm that had passed in foreign ...
Views: 2
OPINION In this patent case, plaintiff, Fairfax Dental (Ireland) Ltd. (“Fairfax”), alleges infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, *328 against two groups of defendants: (1) Sterling Optical Corp. f/k/a Ipco Corporation and Coltene Whaledent, Inc. (collectively “Whaledent”) 1 and (2) S.J. Filhol, Ltd., Filhol Dental Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Stuart Julian Filhol,...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff Blue Tee Corp. ("Blue Tee”) has moved to set aside an arbitration award in favor of defendant Koehring Company and United Dominion Industries Inc. (formerly AMCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) (hereinafter “AMCA”) which has cross-moved to enforce the award. The cross motion is granted, and judgment will be entered enforcing the award. Prior Proceedings The unde...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By this Order, the Court decides a motion by defendant The May Department Stores Company (“Defendant” or “May”) to dismiss plaintiff Federal Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff” or “Federal”) declaratory judgment action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion. For the reasons that appear below, Defendant’s mo...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant, the City of New York (“The City”) has moved under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment to dismiss the § 1983 complaint of plaintiffs Yury and Tatyana Miloslavsky (the “Miloslavskys”). Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. Prior Proceedings The complaint was filed September 9, 1991 by t...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Marisa Christina is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Bernard Chaus’ continued sale of sweaters that allegedly infringe upon plaintiff’s copyrights. On December 3, 1992, this Court conducted a hearing to determine whether or not to grant the injunction. 1 *358 After reviewing the pleadings and the evidence presented durin...
Views: 2
OPINION Currently before the court is the motion of Avery Barber (“Barber”) for a new trial on the ground that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. 1 For the reasons that follow, the motion for a new trial is denied. Facts On 20 July 1990, Barber was indicted for conspiring to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § ...
Views: 2
OPINION In this forfeiture action the United States of America has moved to strike the ownership claim of Michael and Connie Kapral to one 1987 27 foot Boston Whaler and one 1987 Chevrolet Blazer alleged to have been used in or purchased with the proceeds of illegal narcotics transactions. The dispute before the court does not involve the merits of the legal or factual position of either ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs motion for recusal. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion. I. BACKGROUND On October 2, 1992, counsel for the plaintiff, Steven M. Kramer, wrote a letter to the court stating that I should recuse myself on two grounds: 1) that Brendan Byrne, counsel for the defendants, appointed me to the New Jersey St...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Defendant James A. Fisher, III was convicted on three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), 1 which makes it unlawful to threaten to kidnap or injure any person by a communication transmitted in interstate commerce. Fisher was found guilty of mailing threatening letters to the Honorable John C. Shabazz and the Honorable Barbara Crabb, both of the United States Distri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before us is defendant’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss certain parts of the complaint, which seeks redress for alleged failure to pay benefits under a first-party automobile insurance contract. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. I. Facts Sometime before February, 1989, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Edward J. Tenthoff brings this action against defendant McGraw-Hill, Inc. claiming that defendant terminated him because of his age and/or sex in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 1 Before me is the motion of defendant McGraw-Hill for s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This action arises from the breach of a settlement agreement. In 1983, plaintiff Carpenter Technology Corp. entered into a settlement with defendant Armco, Inc. which resolved a patent validity suit filed by Carpenter against Armco in 1982. In 1990, Carpenter filed the present action alleging that Armco breached the settlement agreement (“the 1983 Agreement”) by accordi...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER I.Findings of Fact 1. A grand jury of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted Defendant Barry R. Heimbach, Sr., Barry R. Heimbach, Jr., and Phillip R. Stephen on charges of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One) and structuring financial transactions to avoid the currency tra...
Views: 1
OPINION Nine in-state public television stations currently serve the citizens of Pennsylvania. 1 Plaintiff Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. operates the infant of these nine, WYBE in Philadelphia, which began broadcasting in 1990. 2 In addition to being a newcomer, plaintiff considers WYBE to be unique among Pennsylvania public television stations in t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the Court are defendants Powermatic Division of DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc. (correctly styled) (“Powermatic”), Houdaille Industries, Inc. (“Houdaille”), John Crane, Inc. (“John Crane”) and T.I. United States Limited’s (“T.I.”) Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated September 19, 1992, or for Immediate Certification for Appeal under 28 U.S.C. *440...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is currently before the Court on multiple defense motions: defendant Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc.’s (“PBI”) Motion to Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim or, in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment, and its Motion *448 for Judgment on the Pleadings; defendants American Home Products Corpo...
Views: 3
808 F.Supp. 461 (1992) Ruth O. SHAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William BARR, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division. August 7, 1992. *462 Robinson O. Everett, Durham, NC, for plaintiffs. Margaret Person Currin, U.S. Atty., R.A. Renfer, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.C., Raleigh, NC, John R. Dunne, Asst. Atty. Gen., Steven H. Rose...
Views: 2
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On November 6, 1991, this Court recognized that it might not have jurisdiction to consider some or all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court, therefore, entered an Order that day requiring the parties to brief the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to hear this matter. The Plaintiff, Rebecca L. Shell, originally brought this a...
Views: 0
ORDER Procedural History During the October 25, 1982 session of Superior Court for Mecklenburg County, the petitioner was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury upon Mary N. Milton; of first degree murder of Troy C. Milton; of first degree murder of Cynthia Jean Milton; of first degree burglary of the home of Troy and Mary Milton; and of first ...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1875. The parties appeared for a hearing on November 23, 1992, represented by their respective counsel. After a review of the briefs submitted, as well as the record and evidence herein, this court denies the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 21, 1992, this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. This case presents novel questions concerning the scope of employer liability for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Plaintiff has alleged violations of Title VII and several pendent state law claims against four defendants: Volkswagen of America (“Volkswagen”), Peak Technical Services, Inc. (“Peak”), Fairfax Motor ...
Views: 0
*518 MEMORANDUM In the case at bar, plaintiff CSX Corporation, Inc. and its predecessor the Carolina, Clinchfield and Ohio Railway, challenge the tax assessments of their operating railroad property in Virginia for tax years 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992. 1 Defendant William H. Forst is the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Taxation, the agency having issued the c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Harvey Vernon Lewis (“Vernon”) and his mother, Gwendolyn Lewis (“Ms. Lewis”) bring this action against the Loudoun County Board of Education (“Loudoun County”) and the Loudoun County Superintendent of Schools, alleging that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., Loudoun County owes the plaintiffs reimbursement fo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is currently before the Court on both Plaintiff's and Defendant’s motions for summary judgment. Defendant, Patrick Petroleum Corporation of Michigan (“Patrick Petroleum”), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal place of business in Michigan. Plaintiff, Well-more Coal Corporation (“Wellmore Coal”), is...
Views: 0
JUDGMENT For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein and after an independent review of the record including the objections filed therein, and a de novo determination of the issues, and having determined that the findings are correct under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that Conoco, Inc.’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) Mo...
Views: 0
ORDER CAME ON TO BE HEARD THIS DAY IN OPEN COURT Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. This Court, after reviewing the motion and hearing the arguments of counsel for all parties, finds that it is well taken. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Glenda Johnson Callaghan (“Plaintiff”) hired the Defendants to move her from Macon, Georgia, to San Antonio, Texas. During the move, t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Plaintiff, TERRY PATTERSON, brought this cause of action pursuant to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Defendants filed 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff alleges that the two defendant peace officers deprived h...
Views: 0
MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT Currently, before this Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Transfer, Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer and Counterclaims as well as the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims for Failure to State Sufficient Claims and Motion for More Definite Statement. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS During 198...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Court’s Order dated October 10, 1992, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due to the Court’s adoption of the Magistrate’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation without considering Defendants’ objections *560 thereto. The Court has now considered those objec...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Marvin Mayberry, is a state prisoner currently confined to the State Prison of Southern Michigan, in Jackson, Michigan. On June 22, 1989, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants violated his due process rights when they conspired to file false charges against him. 1 In addition, Plaintif...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment October 5, 1992. On October 28, *570 1992, plaintiffs filed their response. Defendants filed a reply November 9, 1992. I. Facts The facts surrounding this case are not in dispute. 1 In or about November 1988, plaintiff Dr. Shamsul M. Haque (“Haque”), a practicing doctor of...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5), the Plaintiffs Response (doc. 10), the Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (doc. 11), and the Defendants’ Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response and Supplemental Authority (doc. 13). BACKGROUND The Plaintiff, Rebecca Pater, w...
Views: 1
*581 ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of an award to be made to Chester Walsh in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3730. Testimony and evidence were presented to the Court on November 2, 1992, November 3, 1992, and November 30, 1992. In addition to the foregoing, the Court also has considered the deposition of Steven P. Kosky, II, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of ...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d): Any such person [qui tam plaintiff] shall also receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Evidence and testimony was presented to the Court on November 30, 1992 and December 1, 1992. The phrase “reasonable ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. The Defendant, Timothy Wayne White, has been indicted in a two count indictment *587for the offense of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). In Count One, the indictment charges that on or about December 13, 1991, being a person previously convicted of a felony in Sumner County, Tennessee, the Defendant did unlawfull...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Michael Collins (“Collins”), has brought this action against defendant, Outboard Marine Corporation (“OMC”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., alleging that he was terminated as vice president of OMC’s European Operations because of his age. The parties are now before the court on defe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this case, nineteen defendants are charged in a nineteen-count indictment with various offenses including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, money “laundering” and criminal racketeering. 1 Three defendants have filed motions to suppress evidence and requested a hearing. 2 Defendant Donald Moore moves to suppress all evidence, ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this case, nineteen defendants are charged in a nineteen count indictment with various offenses including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, money “laundering”, criminal racketeering and murder. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 17, 1992, the court addressed the motions to suppress evidence. 808 F.Supp. 596. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the government’s pretrial written proffer of evidence, submitted pursuant to United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir.1978), summarizing the evidence that the government expects to adduce at trial to establish that a conspiracy existed; that each of the defendants participated in the conspiracy; and that the co-conspirator statements s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant Richard Goldstein’s Motion for Severance pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 14 authorizes a trial court to sever defendants for separate trials “[i]f it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are defendant Ruby Ann Chambers’ Motion in Limine Opposing the Admittance of Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the Government’s Motion to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) against defendant Chambers. Rule 404(b) allows evidence of uncharged acts to be offered to establish a defendant’s knowledge, intent o...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the court are plaintiff William F. Grun’s (“Grun”) motion for summary judgment with respect to Count I of his complaint and defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts I, II, and III of the complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the motions for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Joan H. Lefkow. The Magistrate Judge, after review ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND For an extensive discussion of the factual background in this case, see Chicago Pro. Sports v. National Basketball Ass’n, 754 F.Supp. 1336, 1338-49 (N.D.Ill.1991), aff'd, 961 F.2d 667 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 409, 121 L.Ed.2d 334 (1992). II. NBA MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are the motions of defendants CJR Processing, Inc. (“CJR") and Curtis H. Appel (“Appel”) to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For reasons that follow, the court grants the motions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) as to Count I, without prejudice, and grants plaintiff Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. (“Powell Duffryn”) l...
Views: 4
AMENDED ORDER OF DECISION INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on Kelly-Springfield Tire Company’s motion to quash an administrative warrant and the Secretary of Labor’s motion to show cause why Kelly-Springfield and two of its employees should not be held in civil contempt for their failure to obey the warrant.1 FACTS On October 21, 1992, the United States Department of Labor, Occupati...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court for a decision following a trial to the bench which was held on November 9, 1992. At the conclusion of the evidence on November 9, the court took this matter under advisement, directing the government and defendants to file post-trial briefs by November 19, 1992, and any reply briefs by November 24, 1992. Defendant David W. Evans filed his Me...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed.R.Civ.P.). Oral arguments were heard March 29, 1992. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. I. Background Plaintiff Mark Stodghill (“the reporter”) is a reporte...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Farmers Union Agency (Farmers) and its parent companies commenced this declaratory judgement action seeking the court to declare that Minnesota Statute § 60A.177 is not to be applied retroactively and that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to pre-existing contracts between insurance agents, insurers, and their general agents. Now before the court is p...
Views: 3
*685 ORDER The above-entitled matter came before the Court on Friday, October 30, 1992, on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation and consequential damages claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Nelson Distributing, Inc. d/b/a Loftness Manufacturing (“Loftness”) is ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court after a trial before the Court sitting without a jury. This Court having considered the pleadings, the testimony and exhibits introduced at trial and the applicable law, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff Triad Capital Partn...
Views: 0
ORDER Before this Court is the United States’ Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Defendants have failed to file a response to the United States’ Motion. Defendant Amerson seeks indemnification or, alternatively, contribution from co-defendants Wilson, Mason, Nash and Farley. Amerson’s cross-claim does not allege any jurisdictional basis. Defendant Wilson’s c...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I THROUGH VIII Defendant Wackenhut Services, Inc. moves to dismiss Counts I through VIII of the Second Amended Petition for Damages pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The petition for writ of habeas corpus is before me, the magistrate judge having recommended its denial and the petitioner having objected to that recommendation both through counsel and personally. My conclusion, after studying each, is that the petition must be denied. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation of May 23, 1991, is meticulous and exhaust...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendant Javier Hernandez-Ruiz filed a motion to suppress statements made following his apprehension for illegal entry into the United States. An evidentiary hearing was conducted. Thereafter, counsel were invited to submit memoranda of law. The Court having considered the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence and the memoranda submitted by counsel, for the r...
Views: 0
ORDER Twenty-two plaintiffs, each of whom had a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) made of Proplast implanted into his or her jaw between 1978 and 1986, sued DuPont, manufacturer of polytetrafluoroethylene *721 (PTFE) 1 , on negligence and strict liability claims. PTFE was used by Vitek, Inc. (Vitek) to manufacture Proplast, which was then fabricated into ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiffs, members of defendant Monterey County’s Hispanic community, commenced this litigation to challenge the County’s apportionment of its supervisorial districts under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973c (West 1981), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, thereby giving the court federal question jurisdict...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART BROMAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL; DENYING PAULSON’S COUN-TERMOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING BORDEN’S COUNTERMOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This case arose because on May 31, 1989, defendant Borden, Inc. (“Borden”) terminated a distributorship agreement (the “Borden-Paulson agreement”) purs...
Views: 1
BACKGROUND On June 20, 1989, an agricultural spray plane piloted by Thomas H. Mellott crashed after striking a guy wire anchoring a power pole on a power transmission line maintained by the Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”), an agency of the United States of America. Plaintiff, Sharon Mellott, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas H. Mellott, and on behalf of the decea...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendants’ (Terrace Land Company and M.E. Metrailer) Request for Refund of Restoration Fine (document #97) arises from an action initiated by Plaintiff Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to enforce its ordinances by filing a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties against said defendants. This Court determined on October 5, 1990 that Terrace acted in bad faith in constructing...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Robert Barr’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 17) and defendant American Cyanamid Company’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or in the alternative, for summary judgment (docket no. 22). The Court, having considered the parties’ motions, and all papers filed in support of and in opposition to such motions, and having ...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER The matter which comes before this court is regarding the application for payment of fees submitted by Defense counsel. I. Facts Defendant was arrested on November 15, 1991 for possession with intent to distribute 265 grams of cocaine. Three days later, a private attorney was appointed. The Court stated “This appointment shall remain in effect until terminated by the Court or ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This employment discrimination case was originally assigned to the Honorable Alfred A. Arraj. Following his death, the case was transferred to me on November 17, 1992. The matter is pending before me on the motion of the The State of Colorado, Division of Youth Services, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 13...
Views: 1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER The issue before the Court is defendant’s Motion To Suppress Tangible Evidence and Statements. A hearing on defendant’s motion was held on June 24, 1992, continuing on June 25, July 1, and July 6, 1992. The Court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the testimony taken at the suppression hearing and the briefs submitted by the parties. After ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion filed by A.S.U. Inc., defendant and counterclaimant, seeking a transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Hill’s Pet Products, a division of Colgate-Palmolive Company, initiated this action by filing a two-page complaint on April 28, 1992. The complaint alleged that Aquarium Supplies Unlimited, Inc. (“A.S.U.”)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff, Town and Country Equipment, Inc. (“Town and Country”), was in the business of selling farm implements, machinery, attachments and repair parts. Plaintiff held two stores, one in Wichita, Kansas, and one in Hutchinson, Kansas. Defendant, Massey-Ferguson, Inc., manu...
Views: 0
ORDER Now before the court is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, entered on July 20, 1992. Respondents filed objections to the Magistrate’s Recommendation on July 29, 1992. Upon an independent evaluation of this matter, the court adopts the facts as set out in the Magistrate’s recommendation and adopts the Magistrate’s reasoning and conclusions as to the plaintiff’s fraudulent induceme...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Upon consideration of the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen T. Brown, dated June 22, 1992, a review of the transcript of the motion to suppress hearing, it is • ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Magistrate’s report is AFFIRMED. The Court agrees with the Magistrate that Deputy Ricardo Guzman properly conducted a security sweep of the De...
Views: 0
*793 RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court again with another unique question, this time incident to sentencing. Ordinarily, the Court can do no more than recommend the place and/or institutional level of confinement for convicted defendants. At sentencing, the question of General Noriega’s prisoner of war status as that status relates to confinement was raised, and th...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is that portion of the September 8, 1992, Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation which recommended suppression of electronic wire interceptions obtained pursuant to this Court’s Orders of December 21, 1990, and January 18, 1991, and suppression of evidence obtained from searches executed pursuant to warrants on January 28, 1991. Objections have been filed to that po...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM This action was brought to collect the balance owed on a promissory note given to a delinquent taxpayer, Spence, by the defendant, his wife, for the sale of certain realty. The issue presented at trial was whether the defendant satisfied her debt to Spence by providing his mother with a rent-free apartment and by paying approximately $6,024.26 on Spence’s behalf prior to a ...
Views: 0
*613Opinion Plaintiffs, RHP Bearings, RHP Bearings, Inc. and United Precision Industries, Ltd. (collectively “RHP”), move pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Rules of this Court for judgment on the agency record and remand of this proceeding to the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“ITA”), for correction of two alleged clerical errors in regard to the dumping margins calculated...
Views: 0
*840 OPINION Defendant-intervener, Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. (“P & WC”), moves this Court to modify the preliminary injunction issued by this Court in this case on August 9, 1991 to allow liquidation of P & WC’s entries of antifriction bearings from the United Kingdom exported to the United States from November 9, 1988 through April 30, 1990. Defendant and plaintiff, Feder...
Views: 0
OPINION Pursuant to a court ordered remand, the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“ITA” or “Commerce”) recalculated the final dumping margins for sales of gray portland cement by Cemex, S.A. (“Cemex”) and the “all others” category of Mexican importers of such cement. Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 16 CIT -, -, 787 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Farmers Bank and Trust in Blytheville, Arkansas, is a small community bank with approximately $111 million in total'assets. Plaintiffs James Magee and Gaylon Lawrence Sr., have both worked for Farmers Bank since 1984, James Magee as Farmers Bank’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board; and Gaylon Lawrence, Sr. as1 a management consultant. James Magee controls 100% of Farm...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff Sierra Club seeks to enjoin the Department of Energy (“the Department”) from, shipping spent nuclear fuel rods from Taiwan through the port of Hampton Roads, Virginia until the Department files an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) or cures an allegedly inadequate envi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court are plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s motion shall be denied and defendants’ motion shall be granted. 7. Background 1 This case arises out of recent efforts by the National Park Service to enforce an In...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM On June 29, 1989, defendant Kelvin Harrington was convicted on three counts for illegal distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Although the guideline range applicable to defendant was 97 to 121 months, at sentencing the Court departed downward to require defendant to serve the statutory minimum term of 5 years, based on defendant’s significant pretr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE In this two-count tort action, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for economic, physical, and emotional injuries suffered when lumber from a boxcar he was unloading toppled upon him. In addition, his wife, Gladys Kyllonen,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION A. The Underlying Actions The motions before the Court stem from two actions which were consolidated by this Court’s order on August 27, 1991. The lead case, Civil Action No. 87-2617-Y, is a suit for patent infringement by Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) against Genetics Institute, Inc. (“Genetics”) and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Chugai”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 (Docket No. 22) I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, Eileen Finucane (“plaintiff” or “Finucane”) has filed this five-count complaint against the defendants, the Town of Belchertown and several of its police officers (“defendants”), alleging violations of state and federal laws arising out of her arrest on August 2, 1989, for operating ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Commonwealth”) cleaned up a blue sludge containing ferric ferrocyanide (“FFC”) from a site located at Mendon Road in Attleboro, Massachusetts and now seeks to recover part of the cleanup costs from defendants Blackstone Valley Electric Company (“Blackstone”) and Courtois Sand and Gravel Company (“Courtois”), pursuant to the Comprehensive Envi...
Views: 1
ORDER In this action, Susan Curtis (“claimant”) seeks review of a final determination of the defendant Louis Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying her application for Social Security disability benefits. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 1991). Currently before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Reversing the Deci...
Views: 1
MAGISTRATE’S OPINION The plaintiff T.S., parent and guardian of S.S., brought this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., against the defendant, the Board of Education of the Town of Ridgefield (“Board”), appealing the state hearing officer’s ruling and claiming that defendant denied T.S. due process and S.S. a Fre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Shamrock Technologies, Inc. (“Shamrock”), brought this action against Medical Sterilization, Inc. (“MSI”), and Robert S. Luniewski (“Luniewski”) claiming: (1) patent infringement of patent No. 4,748,005 (‘005’ patent) issued May 31, 1988; (2) patent infringement of patent No. 4,777,192 (192’ patent) issued October 11, 1988; (3) misappropriation of trade se...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND This lawsuit concerns a sale of allegedly counterfeit goods. Both plaintiff Model Imperial Supply Co., Inc. (“Model”) and defendant Westwind Cosmetics, Inc. (“Westwind”) are in the business of selling, promoting and distributing fragrances and cosmetics. The complaint alleges that Westwind, through defendant Barry Tim-berg, Westwind’s sole ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In two pending actions, plaintiff Daniel Sugrue alleges that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and its employees violated his constitutional and statutory rights in determining his veterans’ benefits award. Plaintiff moves to serve a second amended complaint in the first action, CV-90-1972 (“Sugrue I”), which is identical to a complaint already filed in the second a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff sells nail polish to the salon trade in a bottle and cap distinctive for their simplicity. Defendant is about to enter this market using a practically identical container. A motion for a preliminary injunction must be granted. I. FACTS Fingernails are big business. Even a casual stroller on the streets of New York City will notice the recent prolif...
Views: 0
*962 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se James Long filed his complaint in this age discrimination action in November of 1990. He alleges that the United States Postal Service (the “Postal Service” or the “Agency”) terminated his employment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623. As a result of this wrongful termination, Lo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Frank Buccellato was injured while working at a sanitation unloading facility in Staten Island. He commenced this personal injury action under the Jones Act. Defendant City of New York moves for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff is not a seaman under the Jones Act. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied. FACTS This case...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Thomas Ehrenburg (“Ehrenburg”), an employee of Defendant Outokumpu American Brass Company (“OAB”) and a member of Defendant United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 593 (“Union”), filed this hybrid action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiff now moves for summary ...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds of res judicata, the statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is now before the Court. 1 For the purposes of this motion, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all allegations in the...
Views: 1
*995 OPINION Several pending motions now await the court’s decision. Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,-and, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56. Plaintiff opposes these motions and cross-moves for partial summary judgment on her second cause of action to reeovér the leaseh...
Views: 2
OPINION ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff commenced this action on March 21, 1989, claiming that defendant’s unauthorized use of the terms SPORT and STICK in the packaging and marketing of its Right Guard deodorant and anti-perspirant products has injured plaintiff’s federally registered trademark SPORTSTICK for lip balm. Plain...
Views: 2
The Purchase Environmental Protective Association, Inc. (“PEPA”) moves for an award of attorneys fees and expenses in the amounts of $207,244.00 and $21,905.15 respectively under th# Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The motion arises in the aftermath of litigation which began in March 1988 in connection with an attempt by the United States Postal Service (the “Pos...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action brought by former investors in limited partnerships against the general partner, the subsequent company created through an exchange agreement which consolidated the Plaintiffs’ limited partnerships with other limited partnerships, various individual officers and directors of the general partner and the new company, and the investment banking firm which prepared a...
Views: 3
OPINION The plaintiffs, James Violette (“Violette”) and Loretta Violette (“Mrs. Violette”) (collectively, the “Violettes”) have moved for summary judgment against defendants Armonk Associates, L.P. (“Armonk”), CMC Realty and Development, Inc. (“CMC”), Carol Management Corp. (“Carol”) and Elmar Contracting Corp. (“Elmar”) to establish liability of the defendants under New York Labor Law § ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. BACKGROUND On March 9, 1989, Wilfredo Mejia Alvarez was indicted along with four other defendants — Luis Susana, Juan Carlos Galan, Juan Morales, and Jaime Suarez — for violating the narco...
Views: 3
OPINION Defendant Ernst & Young (“E & Y”) has moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to file the securities laws claims within the statute of limitations for...
Views: 3
OPINION I. BACKGROUND The pleadings in this case allege a widespread conspiracy and pattern of civil rights violations against the plaintiff, an African-American ex-employee of the Elmira Correctional and Reception Facility. The complaint alleges, in essence, various forms of employment and other kinds of discrimination, as well as a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Girl Scouts of the United States of America and Boy Scouts of America (“Plaintiffs”, “Girl Scouts” or “Boy Scouts”) instituted this action on February 17, 1989 against defendants Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. and Judy Delton (“Defendants”), the publisher and author of a series of children’s books (currently sixteen in number), bearing the tit...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendant, American Telephone and Telegraph Company (“AT & T”), has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the com *1133 plaint filed by plaintiff, National Communications Association, Inc. (“NCA”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted as to Count IV but denied as to Counts II and III. I. BACKGROUND NCA...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Rabbi Mendel Piasecki (“plaintiff”) has brought this discriminatory discharge action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and under Section 296 of the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant Daughters of Jacob Nursing Home, Inc. (“defendant” or “DOJ”) has moved for summary *1138 judgment dismissing the compla...
Views: 2
OPINION Defendants Asland, S.A. (“Asland”), Joaquin Bertrán, Miguel del Campo, Alberto Vínolas and Joaquin Targhetta have moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and/ or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGRO...
Views: 3
OPINION Currently before the court is the motion of defendant Burns International Security Services (“Burns”) for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b) to dismiss the first, third and fourth counts of the complaint (the “Complaint”), filed 21 April 1992, by plaintiffs Albert Leonardis (“Leonardis”) and Mario Zecca (“Zecca”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). 1 ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction This case arises out of the environmental contamination of a parcel of land in Edge-water, New Jersey. The litigation over liability for this contamination has been waged now for more than six years. Presently under consideration is the latest round of cross-motions between Amland Properties Corp. (“Amland”) and Aluminum Company of America (“Alcoa”), originall...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER I. BACKGROUND This diversity action arises out of a fire that occurred on May 24, 1988 in three buildings located at 102, 104, and 106 South 13th Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The buildings were originally constructed as separate structures, but a passageway was added connecting the second floor levels of 102 and 104 South 13th Street. Plaintiff Commonwealt...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action arises from the sale of a parcel of land used as a mobile home park, *1211 Millcreek Estates. Plaintiff, the purchaser of the property, has sued defendants for (1) fraudulent misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of contract, (4) violation of the federal Clean Water Act, and (5) violation of RICO. Defendant has moved t...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER I.Findings of Fact 1. A grand jury of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania delivered an eleven count indictment against Defendant Robert Schilling, Jr. charging him with aiding and abetting the receipt of money by a bank officer for procuring loans and aiding and abetting a misapplication...
Views: 0
OPINION THIS MATTER COMING ON TO BE HEARD AND BEING HEARD before the undersigned, the Honorable Graham C. Mullen, judge presiding over the October 1992 term of Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, upon the plaintiff’s Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Judgment. It appearing to the Court that the plaintiff filed his Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Judgment...
Views: 0
*1230 ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 19.00 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with ...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an action by David Miller, Sr., a former employee of the defendant, CP Chemicals, Inc. (“CP”) arising out of a dispute over the ownership to certain rights in computer programs. In his complaint, Miller alleges that he owns the copyrights to computer programs he developed while he was employed by CP. He further alleges that the defendant has continued to use these programs w...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Barry L. Taylor, a Virginia resident, brought this product liability action against Atlas Safety Equipment Company, Inc. (“Atlas”), a New York corporation, and its alleged successor corporation, Gemtor, Inc. (“Gemtor”), a New Jersey corporation, by filing a motion for judgment in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. Taylor seeks damages for injuries he suffer...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION At issue is whether under Virginia law the collateral source rule 1 allows a plaintiff *1254 to recover compensatory damages for medical bills previously satisfied by her health maintenance organization (“HMO”), whom she has successfully sued for medical malpractice. For reasons discussed herein, this Court finds that the collateral source rule a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA”), a surface mine “operator” is required to pay a reclamation fee on mined coal. 30 U.S.C. § 1232. 30 C.F.R. § 870.12(b) provides that the fee is to be determined by the weight of the coal “at the time of initial bona fide sale, transfer of ownership, or use ... immediately after it is severed” from the ground...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are several motions. Defendant moves for summary judgment: (1) dismissing some of the FDIC’s malpractice claims because the alleged negligence acts were not done in the course of a duty owed to the failed institution, (2) dismissing the FDIC’s conflict of interest claims, (3) dismissing all the FDIC’s claims because the FDIC is estopped from advancing th...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant insurer Globe Life & Accident Insurance Company (“Globe Life”) moves this court for summary judgment or in the alternative for partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Original diversity jurisdiction rests with this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; plaintiff Ruby Foster is a citizen of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER NOW before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And *1290 Preliminary Injunction, filed on November 18, 1992. Having denied Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order at a hearing held on November 25, 1992, the Court now turns its attention to Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction and determines that it a...
Views: 0
ORDER On December 30, 1991, the Plaintiffs 1 filed a lawsuit with this court on the basis *1298 of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, contending, in essence, that their eviction from an apartment development had been executed by the Defendants 2 in violation of their rights under, inter alia, the First, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, Ali Bazzi (Bazzi) is suing defendant, The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company (WSLIC), for breach of contract and for constructive discharge because of national origin discrimination in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA § 37.2101, et seq. Now before the Court i...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On July 13, 1992, defendants filed a motion for summary “disposition” with this court. Plaintiffs filed a response July 30, 1992. Defendants filed a reply August 13, 1992. On August 14, 1992, this court entered an order dismissing defendants’ motion without prejudice for failure of both parties to brief the issue of choice of law. ...
Views: 0
OPINION This case involves claims of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, interference with contract, conspiracy, and tortious interference with economic relations. The claims arise out of a marriage between the plaintiff and his former wife and an alleged contract between plaintiff and his former wife under w...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DATE TO REPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF, AND AWARDING NOMINAL SANCTIONS This matter is before the Court on numerous related motions. For the purpose of clarity, we have divided the relevant documents before the Court into three groups. First, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. 192), the Defendant’s Motion in ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Barbara Hayes, Special Administrator for the Estate of Cyndee Hayes (Hayes), and Carol Sampson (Sampson) bring this action for damages based on theories of product liability, negligence, and wrongful death as a result of illnesses allegedly sustained by plaintiffs as a result of exposure to “radiant energy” emitted from Raytheon video display terminals (VDTs). De...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 29, 1987, a Cook County jury found petitioner Donald Everette guilty of murder for the shooting death of Johnny Island. At trial, Everette admitted shooting Island, but maintained that he had drawn his gun in self-defense and, further, that the gun had discharged accidentally. The trial court instructed the jury that the accidental firing of a gun could not constitute ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Allen J. Choe (“Choe”), administrator of the estate of his deceased daughter Janette (“Janette”), has brought this diversity-of-citizenship action against Paul Frank Ash-down (“Ashdown”) and American Transport, Inc. (“American”), 1 seeking damages for Janette’s wrongful death as well as for personal injuries that she had sustained in the same occurr...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the court on review of the decision of defendant Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”), denying plaintiff Jose Olivares’s (“Olivares”) application for Social Security benefits. For the following reasons, the court reverses the decision of the Secretary and remands the case for further consideration. FACTS Olivares brings this ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Briefly stated, this case involves the EPA’s challenge to AM General’s modifications of its Mishawaka, Indiana plant in February 1986. AM General made those modifications pursuant to a permit issued by the St. Joseph County Health Department to which the EPA and the State of Indiana have delegated the authority to issue such permits. The EPA contends that the permit s...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ENTRY ON ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION On November 5, 1987, George A. Darnell filed suit against Defendants,1 alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Darnell’s complaint is based on constructive discharge, and essentially alleges that Target made his working conditions intolerable because of his age, and thereby for...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 brought by an adult video store, Supreme Video, Inc., (Supreme Video), against an Oshkosh police detective, Steven Schauz (Schauz), the Oshkosh Chief of Police, James Thome (Thome), and the City of Oshkosh (Oshkosh). Supreme Video alleges in an Amended and Supplemental Complaint that Thome, Schau...
Views: 0
This case was well-tried before the court for four and one-half days. Following trial the parties submitted written arguments and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court now submits in memorandum form its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), based on its observation of the witnesses and their credibility, and upon review of the exhibits and...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment or for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial on damages, plaintiff’s motion for witness and attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest. Based on a review of the file, record a...
Views: 1
808 F.Supp. 1420 (1992) Winifred SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. CURATORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, Defendant. No. 91-1190C(7). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. November 23, 1992. *1421 Samuel H. Liberman, Clayton, Mo, for plaintiff. Ellen Cruickshank and W. Dudley McCarter, Clayton, MO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HAMILTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court p...
Views: 1
808 F.Supp. 1425 (1992) PEABODY HOLDING CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTAIN GROUP PLC, et al., Defendants. No. 4:92CV 002292 SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 11, 1992. *1426 *1427 *1428 Michael J. Morris, Michael D. O'Keefe and W. Stanley Walch, Partners, Thompson and Mitchell, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs. Glenn E. Davis, Frank N. Gundlach, Mary C. Kickham, ...
Views: 0
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON REMAND This action was remanded for the making of findings on proximate cause, intervening cause, and negligence of the pilot, Craig Budden. 963 F.2d 188. Following careful and extensive briefing by the parties, I conclude that the negligence of Robert Geranis in failing to advise Budden of the area forecast of below-1,000-foot ceilings was not a proximate cause of the ac...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE AND TWO OF SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT By grand jury indictment dated June 12, 1991, Defendant Vincent J. Di Girolamo *1447 (“Mr. Di Girolamo”) was charged with two counts of false statement on a tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The January 9, 1992 superseding indictment charged Mr. Di Girolamo with four counts, and Ellen A. Di Girolamo (...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court, having reviewed all materials submitted in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff Volker K. Meinhold’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: *1454 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In April of 1980, at age seventeen, Meinhold enlisted in the Navy and began an exemplary naval career. Du...
Views: 0
AMENDED OPINION BACKGROUND In 1980, at the age of 17, Volker Keith Meinhold enlisted in the United States Navy. Over the last twelve years, Meinhold has established a reputation for being a dedicated and disciplined sailor. As such, he earned his position as a Naval airborne sonar analyst and instructor. He has consistently received outstanding evaluations and has never been the subj...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Power-screen International Limited (“PSI”) and Powerscreen of Arizona, Incorporated’s (“POA”) Motion for Summary Judgement (# 77) which was filed on May 29, 1992. Plaintiffs Edward Rowell and Randie Rowell (“Rowell”) filed their Opposition (# 93) on June 17, 1992. Defendants filed their Reply (# 97) on July 1, 1992. I. Facts On July 26, 1988, POA sold a power-...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court for consideration are cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendant ARCO (# 273) and Plaintiff Rebel (# 360). The motions have been exhaustively briefed and the subject of oral argument conducted on Friday, October 9, 1992. Rebel’s Second Amended Complaint (# 92) includes three causes of action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act: Count...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Robert J. Kossack as Counsel to Plaintiff Lin Kalinauskas (# 15) which was filed on September 18, 1992. Plaintiff filed her Opposition and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (#21) on September 24, 1992. Defendants filed their Reply and Opposition to Rule 11 Sanctions (# 23) on September 30, 1992. On October 22, 1992, Plaintiff filed a S...
Views: 0
ORDER This consolidated case (now before this Court on a Motion to Dismiss) arises from two cases filed on June 25, 1984 by the Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council (“TSPC”) and the several hundred individually-named plaintiffs who contended that Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) 1984 Regional Plan, and its predecessor interim Ordinance 81-5 1 , had denied them all “economic...
Views: 1
ORDER This consolidated case1 (now before this Court on a Motion to Dismiss) arises from two cases filed on June 25, 1984 by the Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council (“TSPC”) and the several hundred individually-named plaintiffs who contended that Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) 1984 Regional Plan, and its predecessor interim Ordinance 81-52, had denied them all “economically viable use” of ...
Views: 1
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a civil action for declaratory relief to determine coverage under two insurance policies. All parties have moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability (Ct.Rec. 9, 16, 21, 35). BACKGROUND The action was commenced by the insured in the Superior Court of the State of Washington and was subsequently removed by the defendant Insurance Manag...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff Smalley & Company is a distributor of adhesives and sealants. Defendant Emerson & Cuming manufactures adhesives and sealants. Defendant distributes its products both directly and through distributors. In November 1987, plaintiff entered into a distributor agreement to sell defendant’s products. In January 1989 and again in September 1989, Thiokol...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial on November 25, 1992. Present were the following: Greg Graf, Assistant United States Attorney; Janine Yunker, attorney for Defendant; and Defendant. The Court heard the testimony of witnesses for the defense and prosecution, received the stipulation of the parties, and took the matter under advisement. Further argume...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for a new trial contending that three jury instructions were given in error and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The issues are adequately briefed and oral argument will not materially aid their resolution. I conclude that the challenged jury instructions are not erroneous or misleading and the verdict was not against the wei...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves the rights of the United States and its lessee to recover oil and gas production proceeds from the operator of a well drilled on a state-ordered spacing and drilling unit in which federal minerals are located. All issues have been presented by motions and decided by the court in prior orders or resolved by stipulation of the parties, except for t...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on August 19, 1992. The Court, having considered the materials on file both in sup *1538 port of and in opposition to the motions, having considered the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows: Background The facts of this case are not in dispute. Plaintiff Paul Spragens ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause came to be heard before the Honorable Charles R. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge, upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment. Judge Wilson had the authority to hear this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After considerin...
Views: 2
ORDER Pro se prisoner Plaintiff is proceeding on an amended civil rights complaint, filed July 8, 1991, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights, his right to access “to the law,” and Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment while he was incarcerated at Charlotte Correctional Institution ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This cause comes to the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed October 5, 1992. The Court held a hearing on October 16, 1992 where both parties came and were heard. After careful consideration, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1 In this diversity action Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached an Accou...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Z.K. Marine’s 1 and Jay Bettis and Miller Yacht Sales’ Motions to Alter, Amend or Correct Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have moved the Court to reconsider its January 8, 1991 Omnibus Order 2 granting partial summary judgment to Defendants, thereby li...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is presently before the court on defendant’s bill of costs [#46-1]. The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s bill of costs [# 47-1] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A. BACKGROUND In September, the court granted summary judgment in this case for defe...
Views: 0
ORDER The Court has before it a Report and Recommendation [# 23-1] by Magistrate Judge Joel M. Feldman; Defendant’s Motion [# 18-1] to Adopt his Brief in Support of his Motion [# 8-1] to declare unconstitutional certain United States sentencing guidelines; and Defendant’s Motion [# 26-1] to supplement the record. The Court will also consider Defendant’s Motion [# 27-1] to Adopt his Objections to t...
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