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 892

Opinions in f-supp Volume 892

OPINION Before the Court is movant’s motion for return of property pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(e); movant’s supplemental memorandum of points and authorities; mov-ant’s motion to compel deposition testimony; the government’s January 23, 1995, response to movant’s motion for return of property; the government’s opposition to movant’s motion for return of property and notice of deposition; an...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin and retaliated against him because he filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 et seq., as amended. The Court held a two-day bench tr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on an emergency motion filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6) to remove Magistrate Judge Robinson due to her alleged bias. On April 6, 1993, Plaintiffs filed an attorney malpractice action alleging that Defendant, while acting as Plaintiffs’ counsel, failed to file an answer in a fraudulent conveyance case filed aga...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Braulio Sanchez has been charged in a Criminal Complaint with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in 21 U.S.C. § 812, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The Court now has before it Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the evidence gained as a result of the searc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 89) I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Peter Embriano brought an action against defendant Allen Grosnick for deceit, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of state and federal securities law. Deputy Sheriff Paul Bianconi (“Bianconi”) allegedly failed to serve Grosnick with ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Plaintiff, The Newspaper Guild of Salem, Local 105 of the Newspaper Guild (the “Guild” or the “Union”), seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction. Plaintiff asks this Court: (1) to compel the defendants, who are the Publisher of The Salem Evening News, to submit grievances arising under the collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff to arbitration; and (2) to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I, II, III, IV AND V (Docket No. 26) I. INTRODUCTION In July, 1993, plaintiff Nancy Johnson was terminated from her employment at Plastic Packaging, Inc. (hereinafter “Plastic”) for violating a company directive not to speak with a certain male employee. The directive resulted from managem...
Views: 2
ORDER Lumber Insurance Company, (“Lumber”), has filed a declaratory judgment action in this court to determine whether it has a duty to defend and indemnify Gerald and Kathleen Allen, (“Allens”), in the underlying tort suit brought against them by Kenneth and Jane Moore, (“Moores”). Presently before me are three preliminary motions which will establish the identity of the parties in t...
Views: 0
ORDER At this juncture, the issues to be resolved focus on the recurring, indeed often troubling, question of the preemption of litigation by application of the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The context is a motion filed by the plaintiff, Sturm, Ruger Co., Inc. (Sturm, Ruger), which seeks the relief of remand to the state court. Doc...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are A.M. Capens Co., Inc. (Capens) request for provisional remedy (Docket # 4) 1 and defendant, American Trading and Production Corporation’s (ATAPCO) request for change of venue (Docket # 11). The “Motion for Provisional Remedy” was filed by Capens on April 25,1994. A hearing on the Motion was celebrated before Hon. Magistrate Judge Jesu...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter came before the Court originally on plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against defendants the Association of Employees of the Commonwealth of Puer-to Rico (“the Association”), Isaac Neftalí Rojas Nater, Roberto Aquino García and Miguel Martinez Williams. During the hearing on plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, held July 6-7,...
Views: 0
AMENDED RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action brought by the NAACP and its New Haven branch, “plaintiff’, assert representation of named and unnamed black citizens and allege discrimination against its members by the Town of East Haven in it failure to hire on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. (hereinafter Title VII). Defendant moves for...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTIONS Defendant, Tony Jerome Barr, moves to vacate his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 following a jury trial before this court. He is presently incarcerated. Defendant moves to vacate on the grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that he was denied a fair tria...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. Plaintiff claims that defendant inaccurately reported her credit history, failed to reinvestigate her complaints, and revealed her credit record without permissible purpose. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons stated below, defen...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO REMAND Defendant removed this action and asserted that plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 761 et seq. Plaintiffs move to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs allege that the action is not a claim arising under the Death on the High Seas Act and that, even if it ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND This action was brought against New York State and George E. Pataki as Governor of New York State for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights were violated by the withholding of their salary payments pending passage of the state budget. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and on May 3, 1995, this court issued a ...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court are plaintiffs and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment arising out of an Article 78 petition filed in the New York State Supreme Court, Broome County. The Article 78 petition al *66 leged various state procedural violations and also purported to allege federal and state Constitutional violations. Defendants’ removed the...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Brad Armstead brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging a final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security [alternately, the “Commissioner” or the “Secretary”] which denied his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act [the “Act”]. Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This products liability action was tried before a jury between November 10 and November 22, 1994. The action is now before the court upon plaintiffs motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 on the issue of compensatory damages and upon defendant’s cross motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs punitive damages cla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Taurus International Incorporated (“Taurus”), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages against defendants Titan Wfiieel International Inc. (“Titan WTieel”) and Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan Tire”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges infringement of the TAURUS bull logo trademark and TAURUS word trademark in violation of Se...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Chapman Roberts (“Roberts”) is a musical arranger for the currently running Broadway show “Smokey Joe’s Cafe” (the “Play”) 1 pursuant to an Agreement entered into by Roberts and defendant L & S Broadway Company (“L & S”) on May 1, 1994. The cast album for the Play is to be released by defendant Atlantic Recording Corp. (“Atla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff originally brought this action in New York state court. On May 3, 1994 Defendant removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, based on diversity of citizenship of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On January 26, 1995, I denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), but granted its motion to dismis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, involving a hijacking of a commercial airliner in 1984 with torture and two murders ensuing, defendant Middle East Airlines (MEA) moves for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A jury trial of this remaining defendant was had in December of 1993. At the close of plaintiffs’ case, MEA moved for judgment as a m...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Edward Adler et al. bring this action for damages against Berg Harmon Associates, et al. for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 *100et seq.; and common law fraud. The action is ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant has been indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Court previously ruled in open court on most of defendant’s pretrial motions but reserved decision on his motion to suppress the fruits of a Title III electronic surveillance order. This memorandum disposes of that motio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a securities fraud class action and shareholders derivative suit. Plaintiff is suing defendants Arthur S. Feher, Jr. (“Feher”) and James R. Leone (“Leone”) (collectively, the “defendants”) both as individuals and in their capacities as officers and directors of corporate defendant Members Ser*108vice Corporation (“MSC”), a Colorado holding company with principal off...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL Defendant has moved for an order compelling plaintiff to produce for inspection and copying documents plaintiff contends are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. Counsel have submitted letter memoranda identifying the documents in issue and arguing as to whether or not the documents are protected from disclosu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, an indigent1 inmate presently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (S.C.I. Graterford), has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against two correctional officers, alleging that he was placed in administrative confinement against his wishes based on false information that threats had been made against his life. Plaintiff asserts tha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER I. BACKGROUND B. Braun Medical, Inc. (“Braun” or “Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Nypro, Inc. (“Nypro”) (Abbott and Nypro together, “Defendants”) alleging Defendants’ Luer Acti *113 vated Valve (“NP LAV”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,688,916, assigned to Braun and entitled NORMALLY CLOSED AUTOMATI...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER I. BACKGROUND B. Braun Medical, Inc. (“Braun” or “Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Nypro, Inc. (“Nypro”) (Abbott and Nypro together, “Defendants”) alleging Defendants’ Luer Activated Valve (“NP LAV”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,683,916, assigned to Braun and entitled NORMALLY CLOSED AUTOMATIC REFLUX VALVE (“91...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This civil rights case, involving an allegation of police brutality, has been brought before the Court by motion of the defendants, which seek the partial dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted in part. I. HISTORY OF THE CASE The issue for the Court is wh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Presently before this court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff originally included five counts in his complaint, but in response to Defendant’s motion objects to the dismissal of only three of those counts. These remaining claims are based on alleged violations of Plaintiffs rights under...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a tort case. The plaintiff, David E. Berry, is a guarantor of a construction loan. The defendant, First National Bank of Mercer County (“FNB”), is the bank that provided the loan. This case arises out of FNB’s foreclosure on the loan and its efforts to collect from Berry amounts owed on the loan. Berry claims FNB negligently failed to determine at the time ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the defendant, United States of America’s, alternative motion to dismiss, or for summary *130 judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion. No oral hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6, D.Md. The motion of the United States of America to dismiss will be granted, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as well as Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for the s...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This ease, involving a claim for long-term disability benefits provided under an employee benefit plan, arises under section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) (1985), which grants a participant or beneficiary of an employee benefit plan the right to bring a civil action to recover benefits under the terms of the plan. The court...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a class action citizen suit for damages pursuant to § 520(f), 30 U.S.C. § 1270(f), of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), by class representative Jo. D. Molinary (Molinary) against Powell Mountain Coal Company, Inc., d/b/a Wax Coal (Wax Coal). 1 The class — known as the “Pruitt heirs” — owns more than a 99 percent undivided int...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed June 12,1995. The Plaintiffs have not responded. The time for response has passed and the motion is ripe for adjudication. For reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. I A principal purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of meritless litigation. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 47...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO REMAND This matter is before the court on the motion of plaintiffs to remand this action to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for *147 the Parish of West Baton Rouge. 1 Oral argument is not necessary. Subject matter jurisdiction is allegedly based on federal question and diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The individual...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS The Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (“PCF”) brought this motion for declaratory judgment pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, and for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the PCF remains liable for up to $400,000 for each of the pre-bankruptcy medical malpractice claimants...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE THIS COURT, in the above-captioned cause of action, is the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Crv.P. 56 filed by Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island (“Travelers”). Also before this Court is the Response by Plaintiff Enrique Garcia (“Garcia”). After due consideration of the facts, records, and applicable law, the Court is o...
Views: 0
*160 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendant’s motion to suppress, which was heard on April 3, 1995. The essential background facts are stated in Defendant’s letter-brief of April 4, 1995, except as modified hereafter. The question is whether this Defendant’s oral confession was given voluntarily. The ultimate test is whether the confession was the product of an essentially free and unc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendant Transamerica’s opposed motion for partial summary judgment, addressing that portion of Plaintiffs’ complaint charging usury arising out of a “floor plan” financing agreement existing between the parties. The agreement, dated September 2,1988, is labeled an “Inventory Security Agreement and Power of Attorney” (“the Agreement”). It provides, amo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This personal injury action arises from an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Santiago Guerrero sustained serious injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against Defendants General Motors, Hendrix GMC Trucks, and Allied Signal on December 22, 1994. General Motors...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is a Motion by Plaintiff North-brook Indemnity Insurance Company (“Northbrook”) for Summary Judgment (Document No. 16). After considering the motion, response, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED. I. Background Northbrook filed this action against Defendant Water District M...
Views: 1
*178 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I.INTRODUCTION This five-count handicap discrimination/medical malpractice wrongful death action is presently before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant has filed a Motion to bar Plaintiff from calling witnesses at trial ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Veri Sigler appeals from the Secretary’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Currently before this Court are the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas A. Carlson (“the MJ”) for a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). In the R & R t...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of damages and other relief based upon injuries suffered by plaintiff Rita Garland during a police raid on her home. During the raid, Garland attempted to swallow a baggie filled with cocaine. As a result, Rita Garland is now in a persisten...
Views: 1
OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW I. Introduction Plaintiffs BRB Printing, Inc. (BRB) and Ben C. Maibach III (Maibach), chief exeeu-tive officer and principal owner of BRB, filed this case on December 15, 1993. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Vernon G. Buchanan (Buchanan), former chief executive officer of American Speedy Printing Cente...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (doc. 4), and the Defendants’ Response (doc. 6). The Plaintiff has not replied. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff/Respondent, the Fayetteville Perry Local School District Board of Education (“Fayetteville Perry” or “the school district”) is the political entity responsible fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This civil rights action arose out of the defendant Landmark Community Publications’ termination of the plaintiffs employment. The plaintiff Mr. Harrison alleged that his employment was terminated because of pressure applied by the defendant Gary Humphreys, the Chief of the City of Kingston (Tennessee) Police Department. The plaintiff pleaded causes of action under 42 U.S.C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 27, 1994, Isadore Goldberg (“Goldberg”) sued Prudential Insurance *203Company (“Prudential”) and Sun Microsys-terns, Inc. (“Sun”) for tortious interference with contract. On September 7, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), Prudential and Sun moved to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, we grant Prudential’s and Sun’s motions, and we dismiss this ease, wit...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) for a turnover order. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS TMs is a supplementary proceeding which derives from a suit based on an indemnity agreement executed by Joel Engel (“Engel”). Travelers obtained a judgment against Engel as indemmtor under the agreement in the amount of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Raymond Rosen (“Rosen”) has filed a complaint against defendant Ciba-Geigy Corporation (“Ciba-Geigy”), wherein plaintiff alleges that Ciba-Geigy’s negligent marketing, development, sale, and distribution of the Habitrol patch used by Rosen caused his June 11, 1992, heart attack. Plaintiff alleges Ciba-Geigy was negligent in that it: (a) fail...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER Plaintiff David B. Bowman (“Bowman”) moves this Court to reconsider that part of its previous entry granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Bowman’s FLSA and fraud claims. See Bowman v. City of Indianapolis, 885 F.Supp. 1152 (S.D.Ind.1994). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Bowman’s motion in part and vacates its summary jud...
Views: 0
ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In its previous entry, 1 the Court found that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter on the part of Defendants and dismissed Counts I and II with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Constantine Stamatio (“Stamatio” or “Plaintiff’) now moves this Court to reconsider its judgment of April 1...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Before the Court is Plaintiff Karl G. Granse’s Complaint to Enjoin Collection or Seizure. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has made a jeopardy assessment 1 against Plaintiff pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6861(a) 2 in the amount of $86,621.00, and levied upon certain property owned by the plaintiff. Both parties have submit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The facts are undisputed. The collective bargaining agreement between Beverly Enterprises, doing business as Colonial Manor of Balaton, (hereinafter referred to as the Employer), and Minnesota Health Care Union, SEIU Local 113, AFL-CIO/CLC (hereinafter referred to as the Union), provides that all employees shall, as a condition of employmen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE Defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Plaintiffs evidence. The Court took the motion under advisement. Defendant renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence. As provided by Federal Rule of Civil Pro...
Views: 0
DECISION John Collette moves at Docket No. 1106 for an order staying proceedings in this matter while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considers his appeal from an Order of this Court denying his motion at Docket No. 1015 to dismiss the indictment and the resulting criminal prosecution against him on the ground that a prior civil forfeiture constituted a prior “jeopardy” barr...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case considers whether, under the Ninth Circuit’s recent Harris opinion, an airline passenger’s state law bodily injury claim is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. Donna Costa sued American Airlines under California tort law for injuries she sustained when another unidentified passenger opened an overhead bin, causing a bag...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff R. Kenneth Landow brings this suit alleging that his insurer, Defendant Medical Insurance Exchange of California *240 (MIEC), failed in bad faith to settle a liability claim brought against Landow. MIEC moves for summary judgment (# 21). Lan-dow opposes and moves for summary adjudication (#24). Landow was sued in state court by a former patient and th...
Views: 1
Defendant Kelly Lawrence Jain moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. In January 1993 federal officers executed a search warrant at Jain’s resid...
Views: 0
*244 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doe. # 135), filed May 1, 1995, and Defendant Recoil Management Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 126), filed May 1, 1995. Plaintiff David E. Hoxeng, d/b/a ADX Communications, claims that he had a contract with defendant Topeka Broadcomm, Inc. (“TBI”) to buy KTPK Radio ...
Views: 0
*247 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff Chet A. Hurd alleged that the defendant Pittsburg State University (PSU) discharged him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Plaintiffs claim was tried to a jury from May 2 to May 5, 1995. The jury ultimately found in favor of PSU and a final judgment was e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is now before the court on the defendant Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.’s (hereafter “Bell Helicopter”) motion for summary judgment, filed March 31, 1995. The plaintiff, Max Motley, responded to Bell Helicopter’s motion for summary judgment on May 9, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is due to be granted. Jurisdiction The court has jurisdiction ov...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an interpleader action which now requires resolution of competing claims to a fund deposited in the registry of this court. 1 Four defendants have filed motions for summary judgment in support of their claims (see Docs. 8, 22, 31, 50, 72, 81). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, and the argument of counsel, I conclude that $464,-023.83...
Views: 0
ORDER AFFIRMING REMAND RESULTS This Court having remanded this case to the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Com*1033merce”) on February 14, 1995 (Slip Op. 95-21) to clearly set forth the criteria used in its Final Results and to provide a reasonable explanation for any departure from established criteria if necessary, the facts used, and the conclusions reached in light...
Views: 0
ORDER AFFIRMING REMAND RESULTS This Court having remanded this case to the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Commerce”) on February 14, 1995, 879 F.Supp. 1331, to clearly set forth the criteria used in its Final Results and to provide a reasonable explanation for any departure from established criteria if necessary, the facts used, and the conclusions reached in light ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled case is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”), and the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court shall GRANT the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Plain...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled cause is a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction filed by the Respondent United States. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will GRANT the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGR...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), the parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Presently under consideration are the defendants’ motions to file an amended answer [40] and for summary judgment [45]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion to file an amended answer and grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgm...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court finds that, although plaintiff has shown a significant likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff has not shown that it will suffer any irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motions, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, “the Court accepts as true all material allegations of the complaint.” United Transp. Union v...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This ease concerns a life insurance policy for $100,000 issued to defendant Dennis J. Sullivan (Sullivan) by plaintiff Protective Life Insurance Company (Protective) on or about November 8, 1991. Sullivan was diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in 1993. In December 1993, Protective assigned the policy to Dignity Viatical Settlement Partners, Ltd. and D...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Three Blind Mice Designs Co., Inc. (“TBM”) and defendant Cyrk, Inc. (“Cyrk”), both produce t-shirts and other apparel imprinted with caricatures of sports referees in the form of three blind mice. Plaintiff files claims under the federal unfair competition statute, section 43(a) of the Lan-ham Act, 15...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM This action involves a dispute arising out a merger between Chronologic Simulation, Inc. (“Chronologic”) and Viewlogic Systems, Inc. (“Viewlogic”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). The complaint was originally filed in Massachusetts Superior Court and was removed by the Defendant. Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. I. Background I...
Views: 0
JUDGMENT Plaintiff Chrysler Corporation instituted the instant action sounding in trademark (trade dress) under Section 43(a) of the Lan-ham Act, unfair competition and violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A against the Defendant John Silva for his creation of an unique custom car which is known as the Mongoose. At trial, the plaintiff abandoned its unfair competition claim and so...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are a series of summary judgment motions and a motion for reconsideration, all of which were filed by defendant H.P. Hood, Inc. Plaintiff Lago & Sons Dairy, Inc., has interposed objections to each motion. Background Defendant Hood is a manufacturer of dairy products. Hood sells its dairy products directly to certain retailers and indirectly, throug...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the court at this time is a plethora of motions; this order addresses the following of same: (1) plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint; (2) defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment; (8) defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for entry of an order compelling substitution or joinder of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as plaintiff; and (...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Defendants, Amado Fernández Ventura and Milagros Cedeño, request that we suppress inculpatory statements made in the absence of Miranda warnings while defendants were subject to secondary Customs inspection and interrogation. We conclude that the defendants’ statements were made after their rights to silence and counsel had attached and while subject ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The parties have filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Love-green pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for proposed findings and recommendations for disposition. Magistrate Judge Lovegreen issued his Report and Recommendation on April 26, 1995, recommending that the...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff, Hudson River Cruises, Inc., brought this action alleging that defendant, Bridgeport Drydock Corporation, failed to repair plaintiffs steel-hulled vessel, the RIP VAN WINKLE, in a workmanlike manner and overcharged plaintiff for the inadequate repairs. Plaintiffs complaint sets forth defendant’s alleged violations in six counts: Count I — Breach of Con...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Robert R. Reich, the Secretary of Labor of the United States Department of Labor (“plaintiff’), brings this action against the Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation and the Southern New England Telephone Company (collectively “SNET”) seeking to enjoin SNET from its alleged violation of sections 7, 11, 15(a)(2) and 15(a)(5), the overtime and record-keep...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Defendant Lacy, Katzen, Ryen & Mittle-man (“Lacy”) moves pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs Dean and Catherine Beeman cross-move for summary judgment on liability pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs commenc...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Introduction This is an action for trade dress infringement, false advertising, and “palming off’ pursuant to section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiff also pleads common law actions alleging unfair competition and dilution. 1 L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. (“Stickley”), a furniture manufacturer, claims that several pieces of the Stillw...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Margaret Maeciaehera brought this suit against the above captioned defendant under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), to review a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”), denying in part the plaintiffs claim of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income be...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER The Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motions for summary judgment on May 26, 1995 at Binghamton, New York. In a decision issued from the bench on that date the Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, granted defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims in plaintiffs Complaint and his Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. At that time all defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiffs, Imam Hamzah S. Alameen a/k/a Gilbert Henry and Robert Golden, against defendants, Thomas A. Coughlin III, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and Bert Ross, the Superintendent of the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility. The matter is currently before the Co...
Views: 28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiffs move this Court for permission to reargue the motion for summary judgment which the Court heard and granted in favor of the defendants on May 12, 1995. For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiffs’ motion is hereby denied. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Michael J. Affrunti, L. Donald Jaffin, John L. Molloy, Jr., Edward S. Smith and Kathleen W. Forman...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Panayiotis Tsenes (the “plaintiff’) commenced the above-referenced action, by complaint dated September 30, 1994 (the “Complaint”), against defendant Trans-Continental Credit and Collection Corporation (the “defendant”), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “Act”). Presently before the Court is the defendan...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This case involves a vitriolic dispute over the right to the possession and use of a parcel of land in the Congressional Village of Carrollton, New York. Currently before the court are (1) plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration, and to permanently stay proceedings in the Seneca Nation of Indians Peacemakers’ Court in an action entitled John v. Mid-America Waste Systems, Inc...
Views: 0
Cross-claimant Opal Finance Corporation Ltd. (“Opal”) requests confirmation of an ex parte Order of Attachment on the monies previously held on account at Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York (“Bank Leu-mi”) 1 totalling approximately $261,139.43 in the name of the cross-claim defendant Istim, Inc. (“Istim”). The parties agree that Opal must first show that a cause of actio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION On December 14, 1994, plaintiffs J. Lyons & Company Ltd. and Tetley Inc. (“Lyons”) filed suit against The Republic of Tea, Inc. (“Republic”) for (1) trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, (2) unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (3) common law trademar...
Views: 0
892 F.Supp. 493 (1995) Roslyn C. MARINOFF, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant. No. 93 Civ. 8374 (KMW). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 20, 1995. *494 Roslyn G. Marinoff, New York City, pro se. OPINION & ORDER KIMBA M. WOOD, District Judge. On September 19, 1994, Magistrate Judge Roberts issued the attached Report and Recommendation, r...
Views: 2
OPINION & ORDER On September 19, 1994, Magistrate Judge Roberts issued the attached Report and Recommendation, recommending that I dismiss plaintiffs claim against defendant for failing to state a cause of action under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. On September 29, 1994, plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation that I dismiss plaintiffs claim. On October 28, 1994, the court gav...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER On May 13,1994, Plaintiff Rebecca Skydell filed the present class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants Ares-Serono S.A., and Tucker Anthony, Inc., had violated § 14(e) of the Williams Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(e), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Th...
Views: 4
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Herman Strauch sues Defendant Joseph Demskie, the Deputy Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for partial summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Defendant has cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s mo...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In August 1994, plaintiff brought this action in New York Supreme Court seeking coverage under the disability policy provided by his former employers, Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter “Citibank”). The complaint alleged that Citicorp and Citibank had breached that policy by denying plaintiff past, present and future long term disability benefits and stated four contra...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Linda Weissman brings the instant action against Dow Corning Corp., Corning Inc. and Dr. Benito Rish for injuries she sustained subsequent to receiving silicone injection breast augmentation from Dr. Rish in or about 1971. 1 Although the complaint origi *512 nally charged Dr. Rish with failure to warn, strict products liability, negligence, fr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FACTS This action for conspiracy and tax evasion is before this Court on Defendant Gold-schmidt’s motions (1) to dismiss Counts Two and Three of the indictment on the grounds of improper venue, pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, (2) for an Order directing the Government to provide a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rules 7(f)...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Petitioner Persio Torres Nunez, pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 BACKGROUND On March 17, 1986, petitioner was indicted on five counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Ted Kozera, Richard Mekeel and Arthur Filardi (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring this action against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”), Local 501 of the IBEW (“Local 501”), Westchester Fairfield Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (“Chapter”) and *540Dynatram, Division of Dyna Electric (“Dyna-tram”). As mem...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION FACTS This action for malpractice and fraud is before the court on the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Industrial Recycling Systems, Inc. (“Indrec”), filed suit seeking damages for alleged fraud and malpractice in relation to the engineering services rendered by the Def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 3, 1994 (the “1994 Opinion”), the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs now move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims. Defendants move, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, for an order granting them costs and attorneys’ ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lynne Schlude, the parent of a learning disabled child, has brought this action against defendant Northeast Central School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), on the ground that this court lac...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER PROCEDURE Plaintiffs bring this action claiming damages as a result of a breach of the Defendant union’s duty of fair representation, breach of the union’s constitution, and violations of 29 U.S.C. § 411. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union (“Defendant”), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut, brings this action against Gregor M. Poleschuk and Gregor Poleschuk, residents of Pennsylvania, for personal injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ. P., for failing to allege an amount in controversy in exc...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Plaintiffs are challenging the validity of an ordinance passed by the City Council of South Burlington that prohibits public nudity. Plaintiffs primarily seek to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance, and they filed a complaint seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, declaratory judgment, and damages. Of the fourteen substantive counts in the complaint, the ...
Views: 1
OPINION This is a civil rights case. During the period in which the activities in question occurred, plaintiffs were housed in the Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”) in Georgetown, Delaware. The defendants are various prison officials within Delaware’s Department of Corrections. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their right to due process in disciplinary hear...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This action is before the court for decision following a five-day bench trial held April 18-22, 1994. Plaintiff BOC Health Care, Inc. (“BOC”) seeks declaratory judgment that the BOC OxyTip oximeter sensors, 1 if used and/or sold for use with oximeters other than BOC oximeters, will not infringe defendant Nellcor Incorporated’s (“Nellcor”) three “Rea...
Views: 1
OPINION Petitioner, Balarangini Ratnam, challenges the failure of the United States Department of Justice to grant her either asylum or withholding of deportation and seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. On April 28, 1995, I held a hearing on petitioner’s application. Thereafter, the respondent, Warren A. Lewis, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, file...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on motion for summary judgment by plaintiff Herman Edelman and cross-motion for summary judgment by defendant Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Also before the Court is a motion for class certification by plaintiff. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs motions for summary...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. Background This is a discrimination action arising from plaintiffs visit to a job fair, which took place in Newark, New Jersey and in which defendant participated. Plaintiff is an African-American woman, aged 41 years old and appears to allege that defendant did not employ her on account of her...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This cost recovery action by the United States (the “Government”) under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), is before this Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This Court was directed to determine whether defendant Alcan Aluminum Corporation (“Al-can”) c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: This declaratory judgment action 1 was filed by plaintiff Western World Insurance Company (Western World) against defendant Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance) 2 to determine which of them is the primary insurer for claims asserted in a civil rights action 3 filed against the City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (the city), ...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND: On February 11, 1994, plaintiff Richard R. Canady, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he is the subject of harassment and abuse as a result of testifying before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER On January 14, 1994, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule 72.1.3. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, filed on February 13, 1995, recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket # 12), which ha...
Views: 0
892 F.Supp. 676 (1995) In re PHAR-MOR, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. GIANT EAGLE OF DELAWARE, INC.; Gerald E. Chait; Stanley Moravitz; Irwin Porter; Farrell Rubenstein; David S. Shapira; Norman Weizenbaum; and Giant Eagle, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. COOPERS & LYBRAND and Eugene M. Freedman, William K. O'Brien, Larry S. Schumer, John Henry Cynkar, Robert Scott Williams, Richard L. Baird, John E. Easto...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court is the motion of defendant, Coopers & Lybrand (“Coopers”), for summary judgement with respect to the claims asserted by plaintiffs, Giant Eagle of Delaware, Inc. (“GE Delaware”), Giant Eagle, Inc. (“Giant Eagle”), and six members of the Board of Directors of Phar-Mor, Inc. (“Phar-Mor”), namely, Gerald E. Chait, Stanley Moravitz, Irwin Porter, David S. Shapira, F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is defendant Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.’s (“Prudential”) Motion for an Injunction Against the Arbitration of Certain Claims (Doc. 8), which requires that we determine whether any of plaintiffs’ remaining claims are eligible for arbitration. Defendant Charles Vollmer joins in this motion. I. Background The Complaint filed by ...
Views: 0
OPINION Petitioner Paradise Motors, Inc.’s (“Paradise Motors”) motion for remand requires us to once again navigate the precarious shoals that emerge at the confluence of Virgin Islands and federal law. At issue here is whether a federal officer properly removed a case involving the customs laws in the Virgin Islands. Although we conclude that this case was improvidently removed under...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed June 5,1995, and the defendant's *321 motion for summary judgment, filed May 19, 1995. Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court will deny plaintiffs' motion and grant the defendant's motion for the following reasons. On May 17,1989, plaintiff Lenno...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (1) Reference is made to defendants’ motion to dismiss; this Court’s November 16, 1994 Memorandum and Order; this Court’s February 17, 1995 Memorandum to Counsel; and to all other filings in this case. (2) Plaintiff, David Alan Wineland (“Wine-land”), is a citizen of Tennessee. Defendants, County Commissioners of Dorchester County (“Commissioners”), are officers of a politic...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Wrenn Handling’s (hereinafter “Wrenn”) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a disability discrimination action arising out of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. FACTS Robert Gower (hereinafte...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on motion by the defendant, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (hereinafter “USF & G”), for summary judgment in this action alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (hereinafter “ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., as well as on plaintiffs derivative claims for wrongful discharge predicated upon age discrimination under the laws o...
Views: 0
*738 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendant from denying full coverage and benefits under its policy, and reasonable attorney’s fees filed ' June 23, 1995. A hearing was held by this Court on July 5, 1995, at which both parties...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Amna Kadiki (“Plaintiff’) alleges that Virginia Commonwealth University (“Defendant”) discriminated against her on account of her sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”). Plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment and Defendant has moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this toxic tort case, the Court must exercise its “gatekeeping responsibility” to assess whether Plaintiffs proffered expert opinions on causation are admissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Plaintiff here alleges chronic injury from exposure to aviation jet fuel (“AvJet”) vapors,...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 16,1994, a Roanoke federal grand jury returned an eleven count indictment charging the Defendants, Victor and Janet Cucci, with various criminal conduct. These charges included: four counts of income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201; four counts of aiding and assisting in the filing of false income tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2); two counts of structuring financial t...
Views: 1
ORDER AND REASONS The Motion to Review and Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment on Prescription filed on behalf of W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. (“Grace”), the only remaining defendant, was submitted on memoranda. For the following reasons, I respectfully reject the Magistrate’s report and recommendation. I conclude that there ...
Views: 1
Before the Court are Exxon Corporation’s (“Exxon”) Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Consider Merits of Individual Claims Prior to Class Certification. These motions came before the Court for argument on November 30, 1994, and for reargument on limited issues on June 14, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Exxon’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Backgroun...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion to Review Magistrate Judge’s Order,” which was submitted without oral argument on a previous date. Having reviewed the record, the memoranda of the parties and the applicable law, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion. Background Plaintiff originally filed this matter in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Paris...
Views: 0
RULING For the following reasons, this court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, this court GRANTS summary judgment on the issue of trademark infringement for the defendants but DENIES summary judgment on the claims of misappropriation and copyright infringement. I. Plaintiff B & S Underwriters, Inc. brings this action aga...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This lawsuit was filed by two physicians against the hospital where they formerly practiced, against the hospital’s administrator and four doctors. The Plaintiffs practiced environmental medicine and admitted patients to Bedford Northeast Community Hospital’s (“BNECH”) Environmental Care Unit (“ECU”). The suit arises from the suspension of the privileges o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The court has received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and *844 Human Services denying plaintiffs claim for social security benefits. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hin...
Views: 0
ORDER The matter before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) on December 16, 1994. The Court has reviewed the motion as well as the responses filed by Jasper Moore, Jr. and Jane Flato Smith on December 22,1994 and January 4,1995, respectively. 1 Having done so, it rules as follows: I. BAC...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Jasper Moore, Jr. on April 18, 1995 and joined in by defendants Charles H. Johnston, Jane Flato Smith, Charles Schreiner, III, H. Dale Priour, and Raymond F. Barker. 1 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “FDIC”) filed its opposition to the motion on...
Views: 0
ORDER ON THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS SCHREINER, JOHNSTON, MOORE, PRIOUR, BARKER AND SMITH Pending for resolution before the Court are the following motions: 1. Second Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Charles Schreiner, III, filed on December 16, 1994; 2. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Raymond F. Barker, filed on December 16, 1994; 8....
Views: 0
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BEFORE THIS COURT, in the above-captioned cause of action, is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen H. Capelle, filed April 6, 1995. Magistrate Judge Capelle submits this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Exxon’s opposed Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Applicability of the Processing Agreement. In 1992, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the same issue. The request was represented to be unopposed, and since then the parties have apparently assumed that the cross-motion is pending. There being n...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Air Tool Lodge Co. 969, AFL-CIO’s (“Union”) Motion for Summary *919Judgment (# 12). The Union seeks to compel arbitration between the Union and Defendant Indreseo, Inc. — Industrial Tool Division (“Indresco”) over the discharge of a former employee of Indresco. Having reviewed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION The individual plaintiffs in this consolidated ease are employees of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The plaintiffs allege that the Commonwealth misclassified them as “exempt” employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and claim that the Commonwealth owes them overtime pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 per week during the three year...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a products liability action brought by plaintiff Deborah Landberg against defendant Ricoh International because of injuries she suffered while operating a photocopier manufactured by defendant. Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendant Lee Davis Strickland is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the court is defendant’s motion to suppress the pistol taken from a car that he was driving at the time of his arrest on other charges. Defendant contends that the pistol should be suppressed because it was seized in the course of an ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS I. Background This opinion addresses this court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a ease in which a former Michigan resident, a United States Citizen, residing on the Island of Saint Martin, a French protectorate in the Caribbean, is being sued by a California corporation, for nonpayment of a lease that was assigned to...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on motion of Defendant Equifax Credit Information (“Equifax”) for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a response, to which Defendant replied. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs, and the decisional process will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D.Mich.Local R. 7.1(e)...
Views: 0
OPINION This action arises out of the alleged sinking of a Boston Whaler boat (“the boat”). Pending before the Court are defendant Boston Whaler, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and defendant West Shore Marine, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant defendants’ motions. I. Plaintiff allege...
Views: 4
ORDER (Disposing of Docket ## 31 & 36) Plaintiffs brought this state-law action against Defendant Honeywell, Inc., (“Honey-wen”) to recover for property damage suffered by Plaintiffs due in part to the alleged failure of Honeywell’s alarm service. Both parties have moved for summary judgment, and those motions are the subject of this order. Docket ##31 & 36. STATEMENT OF THE F...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff L.P. Cavett Company’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 9), Defendant United States Department of Labor’s motion for summary judgment (Doe. 10), the parties’ responsive memoranda and joint statement of stipulated facts (Docs. 11,12,18, 20, 22), amicus curiae Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO’s memorandum in support of the Depar...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM The Court has before it the defendants’ motion (filed March 31, 1995; Docket Entry No. 18) to dismiss and their memorandum (filed March 31, 1995; Docket Entry No. 19) in support, as well as the plaintiffs response (filed April 13, 1995; Docket Entry Nos. 22 and 23). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant the def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Anthony Jones (Jones), an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, brings this pro se § 1983 action against defendant Charles Banks (Banks), a correctional officer stationed at the Stateville Correctional Center. Jones seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment righ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) brings this action against Viskase Corporation (Vis-kase) seeking a declaratory judgment that seven of Viskase’s patents either are invalid or are not infringed by Dow or its customers. Viskase has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is...
Views: 0
*1000 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the large majority of federal district judges, regardless of their respective ideological bents, view the Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) regime as having done substantial damage to the “justice” component of our criminal justice system. This Court is unaware of any like reports...
Views: 0
The court adopts Magistrate Judge Pall-meyer’s Report & Recommendation. The court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #292) on Counts II and III but denies the motion on Count I. Defendants’ objections (Doc. # 331) and Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. #335) are overruled. Plaintiffs’ fraud claims under Illinois common law in Count III are dismissed without prejudice so that Plainti...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Beginning on June 19, 1995, the Court began the first phase of a potential four phase bench trial in this matter which involves an intellectual property dispute involving futuristic robot-like battle toys. Due to the scope and complexity of the issues to be tried in this case, See FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1334-1365 (N.D.Ill.1994), this Court e...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Gordon and Mary Buchanan brought this federal tax refund action alleging an overpayment of their joint tax return for 1986 and/or 1987 in the amount of $542,-451. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to a deduction for those tax years under 26 U.S.C. § 166(d) for a nonbusiness bad debt. Plaintiffs and the defendant, the United States of America, have filed cro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Sunnary Prak (“Mr. Prak”), applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on May 14, 1992. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration by state agency personnel. On November 5, 1993, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Maren Dougherty held a hearing on the mat *1083 ter and found that Mr. Prak was not disabled. The Appeals Council subseque...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jesus Daulo filed a five-count First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) alleging, in short, race discrimination on the part of defendants Commonwealth Edison [sic] (plaintiffs employer) and Philip Stachel-ski, Donald Cook, Thomas Cook, and Anthony Broccolo (plaintiffs supervisors in one capacity or another). 1 Count I alleges race discrim...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Nachson Draiman (“Draiman”) brings this three-count action, both on his own behalf and for a purported class of similarly situated individuals, against American Express Travel Related Services Company (“American Express”). Draiman contends that by reinstating his cancelled credit card (“Platinum Card”) without his express permission and by then seeking to collect ...
Views: 0
Entry Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Remand and the Government’s Motion To Set Aside the State Court’s Denial of Their Motion to Quash Subpoenas This matter comes before the court upon the motion of Defendant, Raymond K. Adams, to remand this case to the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and the motion of the United States to set aside the state c...
Views: 0
*1111 ENTRY REGARDING PATENT VALIDITY ISSUES In the first part of the bifurcated trial, this Court found that Defendants Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Limited, Inc., and Hawk America, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Hawk”) literally infringed Plaintiffs Endress + Hau-ser, Inc.’s and Endress + Hauser GmbH’s (collectively “E + H” or “Plaintiffs”) patent. See Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. ...
Views: 0
ENTRY REGARDING PATENT DAMAGES ISSUES This entry addresses the remaining damages issues tried on April 6, 1995, as the second part of the bifurcated trial. In the first part of the bifurcated trial, this Court found that Defendants Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Limited, Inc., and Hawk Amer-ica, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Hawk”) literally infringed Plaintiffs Endress + Hauser, Inc.’s and Endre...
Views: 2
ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the motion of Mayflower Transit, Inc., Transportation Service of Indiana, Inc., and Gentry Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively “Mayflower”), for preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. *1137 /. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. The plaintiffs in this action, Mayflower Transit, Inc., Trans...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a consolidated antitrust case in which the United States and private plaintiffs are challenging the purchase of a local daily newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Times (“the Times ”), by NAT, L.C. Both the government and private plaintiffs contend that this purchase may substantially lessen competition, since NAT, L.C. (“NAT”), has signif...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1183 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1184 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1186 A. Undisputed Facts.1186 B. Disputed Facts.1188 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1189 A. The Nature Of Utica’s Cause Of Action.1189 1. Actions fou...
Views: 0
ORDER Based upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in the above-titled matter, it is— ORDERED: 1. That plaintiffs’ motion to compel [Docket No. 13] shall be, and hereby is, denied. 2. That defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Docket Nos. 3, 7 and 12] ...
Views: 0
ORDER According to the Complaint, the plaintiff, Jessica Kinzel, wished to purchase a used car. She lacked the money for the purchase or a down payment. As a result of these otherwise unremarkable facts, the plaintiff asserts her qualification to represent a presently uncertified class of individuals who financed used cars using the defendants’ services. The defendants move for judgment on th...
Views: 2
892 F.Supp. 1218 (1995) Felix D. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Norman COPELAND, Leonard Hines, Michael Hurst, Robert Scott, John Rich, Mike Morgan, John Holshouser, Officer Stoffregen, Officer Hampton, Officer J.P. Mulcahy, Gene Huckstep, Larry Bock, E.C. Younghouse and Cape Girardeau County, Missouri, Defendants. No. 1:93CV192-DJS. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. April...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has filed this employment discrimination action alleging that he was terminated from his position as a copier sales representative on the basis of age. He contends that his discharge was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), § 213.010 R.S.Mo. This matter is before the Court on the ...
Views: 0
892 F.Supp. 1246 (1995) SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John MAUPIN, et al., Defendants. No. 4:95CV815 CDP. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. July 7, 1995. *1247 Frank Susman, Susman and Schermer, Douglas Bruce La Pierre, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs. James R. Layton, Atty. Gen. of Mo., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court following a bench trial held from June 12, 1995 through June 15, 1995. Plaintiff Whirlpool Financial Corporation (Whirlpool) filed suit against Mercantile Business Credit, Incorporated (MBCI), Richard Sullivan, Robert Bumberry, Richard *1258Weber and Donald Hindman. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In an Order dated June 9,1995...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court referred this matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 13, 1994. Magistrate Judge Moreno submitted proposed Findings of Act, Report and Recommendation for Disposition to the Court on December 30, 1994. A copy of the report and recommendation was served on the plaintiff as re...
Views: 0
ORDER Sami Fayez S. Aburahmah (“petitioner”) petitions this Court to vacate,’ set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, the petition is denied. BACKGROUND In 1992, a federal grand jury sitting in Arizona indicted petitioner for the kidnaping of his estranged wife, Emerald Crawford Aburahmah (“Emerald”).’ See 18 U.S.C. § 1201. In 1982, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff brought this action alleging three violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.: (1) charge of an excessive premium for continued health insurance in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1162; (2) failure to provide requested plan documents in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty ...
Views: 0
MINUTES OF THE COURT MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS The Gardners filed this suit in the state court in Elko, seeking to “quiet title,” under NRS 40.090(2), to “grazing rights” and “water rights” in the Humboldt National Forest. They did not name the United States or any of its agencies as defendants, instead naming certain local and state officials .and federal officials. The land at i...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff, Keith Maydak, brings this action on behalf of himself and Confidential Services of America, Inc. (“CSA”), a Nevada corporation in which plaintiff maintains an ownership interest. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that neither he nor CSA is liable to defendant Bonded Credit Company (“Bonded”), a collection agency, for any amount of money allegedly owed...
Views: 0
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER comes before the court on motions by plaintiff and defendant for partial summary judgment. Having considered the pleadings filed in support and in opposition to the motions, the court finds and rules as follows: I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed this declaratory judgment action for a de...
Views: 3
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Before me is another in a continuing procession of cases that arose when the combination of sciolistic laissez faire banking policy and individual greed produced the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. During that time hundreds of banks, including Key Savings & Loa...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 21, 1994, defendant Ricky Hampshire was charged with willful failure to pay a past due child support obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228. The support obligation arose from a divorce proceeding commenced by Hampshire’s ex-wife in Kansas on October 4, 1985. The District Court of Riley County granted an order for temporary custody and support on Oc...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER comes before the Court 1 on Defendant Gold Fields Mining Corp.’s motion to dismiss counts 1-4, filed August 15, 1994 (Docket No. 12), Defendants’ motion to dismiss counts 3 and 4, filed September 23, 1994 (Docket No. 23), Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on count 1, filed November 7,1994 (Docket No. 31), Plaintiffs’ motion to st...
Views: 1
*1362ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST GERALD J. HASLIP This age discrimination action came before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against one of the 65 plaintiffs, Gerald J. Haslip (“Haslip”). For reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is granted. I.Background The plaintiffs assert two causes of action against the defendants for ter...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST GEORGE K. MARCH This matter came before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against one of the 65 plaintiffs, George K. March (“March”). The defendants argue that March’s age discrimination claim should be dismissed because March cannot show that their proffered reasons for his terminat...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ERMA G. THOMPSON This age discrimination action came before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against one of the 65 plaintiffs, Erma G. Thompson (“Thompson”). For reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Background The defendants filed...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CONTRACT CLAIMS OF ALL PLAINTIFFS This matter came before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all plaintiffs’ claims for breach of an implied contract (Second Cause of Action). For reasons discussed more fully below, the motion is granted. I.Background The plaintiffs’ employment with the defendant Hercules, Inc. w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter came before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Oritt of Cohne, Rappaport & Segal, A. Howard Lundgren of Keller & Lundgren, and Eve C. Gartner of the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy. Defendants are represented by Jan Graham, Attorney...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion filed June 20, 1995 to remand this action to the Circuit of Barbour County, whence it was removed. The defendants responded in opposition on June 18, 1995. In the two-count complaint, the plaintiffs aver that in connection with certain refinancing loan transactions, defendant Commercial Credit Corp., through ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This case is now before the court on the Geneva County Board of Education’s (“Board’s”) petition seeking approval of its proposal to relocate students currently enrolled in grades 6-12 at Coffee Springs School to other schools in its system and to discontinue those grades at Coffee Springs. The Board’s petition was filed on March 15, 1995. A hearing dat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is Defendant Greene Finance Company of Georgetown, Georgia’s (“Greene Finance”) motion to dismiss (filed February 17, 1995) for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Greene Finance simultaneously submitted a supporting brief. On March 13, 1995, Georgia B. Cordell (the “Plaintiff’ or Mr. “Cordell”) filed a response and brief in opposition to Gree...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 13, *1403 1995. Plaintiffs brought this action on February 24,1995, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604, the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (“the Act” or “the CAA”). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. P...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs in this ongoing class-action lawsuit first sued officials of the State of Alabama over 24-years ago, claiming that conditions at facilities operated by the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation violated residents’ rights under federal law. On January 22, 1993, the plaintiffs moved to enforce a 1986 consent decree and for further relief, c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this lawsuit, plaintiff Calvin Dunning claims that defendant General Electric Company discriminated against him because he is an African-American. Count I of the complaint alleges denials of promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981a, 2000e through 2000e-17 (West 1994). Count II alleges racial h...
Views: 0
ORDER James T. Moffat (Moffat) brings this action against Harcourt Brace & Company (Harc-ourt) alleging breach of contract in which Harcourt granted registration rights and piggyback rights for unregistered shares to Moffat and others. Both Moffat and Harc-ourt filed motions for summary judgment. Each responded in opposition to the other’s motion. Based on a review of the case file and re...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed herein on January 20, 1995 (Doc. # 52). Plaintiffs’ filed objections thereto on February 2, 1995, and the government filed a memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ objections on February 21, 1995. After a de novo review of the entire record herein, the Court hereby adopts, con...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. #86; hereinafter Motion), filed on July 7,1994. Affidavits in support of the Motion have also been filed. See Affidavit in Support of Motion to Assess Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. # 87; hereinafter Don-nelly Affidavit), filed on July 7, 1994; Affidavit in Support of Motion to Assess Fee...
Views: 0
ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 1995, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins, and the objections of plaintiff thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, consistent with the Report and Recommendation, that: 1. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED; 2. Defendants’ moti...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) and Plaintiffs response thereto. (Docket No. 14) I. Standard of Review A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts that support a claim for relief. Conle...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 37) and Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Docket No. 39). The R & R recommends denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed for habeas relief in this Court pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. This Court, under authority of 28 U.S.C. Section...
Views: 0
*1493 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THIS CAUSE was tried without a jury before the undersigned on December 28 and 29, 1993. Plaintiff, Vincent Fioretti is the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by Defendant, Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company (“Mass General”) to Plaintiffs brother, Anthony Fioretti. Anthony Fioretti died in Florida on Febr...
Views: 1
SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the joint motion of defendants National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), 1 National Workers Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the “Pool”), 2 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”), Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”), and Insurance Company of North America (“INA”...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 5, 1995. Defendant filed a response on May 2, 1995. Plaintiff filed a reply on May 24, 1995. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 5, 1995. Plaintiff filed a response on May 24, 1995. Th...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [143-1], (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [144-1], (3) Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief [172-1], (4) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Affidavit [186-1], (5) Defendant’s Motion for Expenses [186-2], (6) Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees [186-3], and (7) Plaintif...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff Denise Childree files this action under the “whistle-blower” provision of the False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (1994), and under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (1994). Plaintiffs Complaint also includes an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under state law. The essence of Plaintiffs claims are that Defendants t...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Stone Savannah River Pulp and Paper Corporation’s (“Stone”) motion for summary judgment. As there are no genuine issues of material fact and Stone is due judgment as a matter of law, the Court GRANTS Stone’s motion. I. BACKGROUND The Court takes sexual discrimination cases seriously. This, however, is not a sexual discrimination...
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