Court Cases
| Most Popular Cases |  |
Cases with Faces | |
Cases by Type |  |
Cases by Reporter |  |
Cases by Year |  |
All Reporters → f-supp-2d → Volume 50
Opinions in f-supp-2d Volume 50
OPINION
Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed in
*2
both this Court and the Court of Federal Claims.
1
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ motions, the oppositions and replies thereto, and the entire record, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment. “...
Views: 0
OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs’ response, defendants’-reply, and both parties’ supplemental memoranda. Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ amended' complaint and the relevant pleadings, the Court grants defendants’ motion in part and denies it in part. “Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions' of motions ...
Views: 0
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
The District of Columbia (“the District”), like other defendants, and, in particular, governmental defendants, most frequently settles cases by offering the plaintiff a lump sum and it is for plaintiff and her counsel to determine themselves the amount which the client receives and the amount for which the attorney receives. In this case, however, ...
Views: 0
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, (“FOIA”) action is before me for a report and recommendation on
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Defs.Mot.”),
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial [sic] Summary Judgement
(“Plains.Opp.”), and
Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(“...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Barbara Bilodeau, brought suit against Defendant, Mega Industries, alleging that Defendant wrongfully terminated her on the basis of her alcoholism and seeking damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101
et seq.,
and the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), 5 M.R.S.A. § 4551
et seq. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.
I.
Introduction
This case arises out of a protracted employment dispute between plaintiff, William Fenoglio, and co-defendants, Augat, Inc. (“Augat”), and Thomas & Betts Corporation (“T
&
B”). Fenoglio, the former Chief Executive Officer of Augat, asserts breach of an employment agreement (Count I); wrongful denial of benefits promised in a ch...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Pending before this Court for its approval is the proposed settlement agreement between the plaintiff class and the defendants Allmerica Financial Corporation, SMA Financial Corporation, First Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company, and Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annuity Company (collectively “Allmerica” or “the Company”). Plaintiffs seek certifi...
Views: 2
ORDER
After reviewing the objections, I adopt the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10) dated April 16, 1999, and assume familiarity with that opinion.
I add a concern regarding the finding of a willful violation of the Buy America Act, 41 U.S.C. § 10b (West Supp.1998). In his memorandum setting forth the reasons...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 100 (1999)
In re SAN JUAN DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL FIRE LITIGATION.
No. MDL-721.
United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.
May 16, 1999.
Monita F. Sterling, PSC Liaison, Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, New Orleans, LA, Peter Berkowitz, San Juan, P.R., Jorge M. Suro-Ballester, Suro Ballester, San Juan, PR, Jorge Ortiz-Brunet, Ortiz-Toro & Ortiz-Brunet, Hato Rey, PR, Francisco M. Tro...
Views: 0
ORDER NO. 706 IN THE MATTER OF FINAL PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES
On December 18, 1998, the Court issued its final Order of distribution. See Order No. 685 Approving PSC Report of Reserve Accounts and Order for Final Distribution (docket No. 19414, filed on December 20, 1998). An integral part of this order was our determination that $2,358,456.39 would be paid as attorney fees.
*102I. BACKGROUND
A...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND. ORDER The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Martin’s Report and Recommendation, the objections of defendant Bruce S. Jeremiah, and the response of the government. After conducting its own de novo review of the undisputed facts and the law, the Court finds no merit in any of the objections raised by defendant Jeremiah. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendati...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Barbara Mattias (“plaintiff’) suffered a back injury while she worked for Computer Sciences Corporation. Later she sued her employer, Continental Casualty Company and the CNA Insurance Companies (collectively “defendants”) for long term disability payments that she believes she, should receive under Computer Sciences Corporation’s ERISA plan. The parties disagreed on whethe...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Richard Almeida (“Almeida”), .an employee of defendant United Steelworkers of America International Union, AFL — CIO (“Steelworkers”), ran unsuccessfully for an elective union post. Al-meida claims that incumbent Steelworkers officials, smarting from his public criticisms of their administration, retaliated against his elective challenge by harassing him, ...
Views: 1
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs have filed the instant action to recover payment from the defendants for work completed in the construction of an apartment building for elderly housing. Defendant, Mountain Valley Place, Inc. (“Mountain Valley”), has asserted a counterclaim alleging damages due to incomplete punch list items.
Plaintiffs move fo...
Views: 0
Page 130
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, Samuel Martinez (“Martinez”), brings this action against the defendant, United Technologies Corporation, Pratt
&
Whitney Aircraft Division (“Pratt & Whitney”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”), alleging a discrim...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — DECISION & ORDER
Presently before the Court are Fourth-Party Defendant Lumbermens Mutual Ca
*136
sualty Company’s (“LMCC”) motion pursuant to Fed.R.CivP. 56 seeking dismissal of the fourth-party complaint against it and Fourth-Party Plaintiff Special Metals Corporation’s (“SMC”) cross-motion for summary judgment striking LMCC’s fourth affirmative defense that SMC...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — DECISION & ORDER
The State of New York brings this citizen suit pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1990 (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604, as amended, against defendants, the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, seeking to compel them to perform their nondiscretionary duties under 42 U.S.C. § 7651 note, Clean Air Act Amendments (“CAAA”), 1990 Pub.L. 101-549, § 404...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a letter dated April 13, 1999, sent to this Court by fax and Federal Express and received on April 14, 1999, defendant’s attorney, Gail E. Laser, Esq., asked that this Court reconsider its decision on April 9, 1999, denying defendant permission to travel to Italy from April 14 through 24, 1999. According to defendant’s Presentence Report in this Court: On July 1, 1...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining defendants Gary Konstantin (“Kon-stantin”), Rahim Ali (“Ali”), Reliance Mortgage Corp., Reliance Mortgage Banking Corp. (collectively, “Reliance”), The Hip Hop Café, Augusto Jalón (“Jal...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, commenced this case alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”). Plaintiffs claim of a hostile work environment stems from treatment he allegedly received from co-workers and supervisors based upon the fact that plaintiff is a homosexual...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Mary Lambertson (“Lambertson” or the “plaintiff’) initiated this action against Kerry Ingredients, Inc. (“Kerry” or the “defendant”) by filing a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The complaint, dated June 1, 1998, alleges that she was subjected to gender based discrimination and sexual harassment in violation of...
Views: 1
ORDER
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), on August 26, 1997. On December 8, 1997, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 1998, Magistrate Judge Heck-man filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendant’s motion be converted to a motion for summary judgment, and that summary judgment ...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by plaintiff Luis Rosales, who appears
pro se.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”), alleges that while he was confined at Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”), defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.Introduction. rH
II.History of the Dispute. 1 — I
III. Factual Background . ov rH
A. The Parties. c* rH
B. Product and Market Development. os rH
1. Pepperidge Farm. cs rH
2. Nabisco.
Ci
rH
IV. Applicable Legal Standard. os rH
V. Initial Threshold for Protectability of Trademarks .... os rH
...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 212 (1999)
HERMČS INTERNATIONAL, Hermčs Sellier, Hermčs Gestion, Inc., and Hermčs of Paris, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
LEDERER DE PARIS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., Pelle Via Roma, Inc. Artbag Creations, Inc., and Rene Wang, d/b/a Rene Collection, Defendants.
No. 98 CIV 2820(SAS).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
March 19, 1999.
*213 *214 John M. Desmarais, David S. Brafman, Joseph C. G...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Hermes International, Hermes Sellier, Hermes Gestión, Inc., and Hermes of Paris, Inc. (collectively “Hermes” or “plaintiff’) bring this action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief against defendants Lederer De Paris Fifth Avenue, Inc. (“Lederer”), Pelle Via Roma, Inc. (“Pelle”), Ártbag Creations, Inc. (“Art-bag”), and Rene Wang, d/b/a Rene Collection (“Rene”)...
Views: 0
Page 227
OPINION AND ORDER
Having invested in excess of $1.3 million in several product arbitrage companies, Plaintiff David M. Fromer (“Fromer”) allegedly discovered that these companies were actually part of an elaborate “Ponzi” scheme. Having then been sued in a class action by other third-party investors caught up in the scheme (the
Restifo
action), Fromer and the other
Re...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Currently before the Court is the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance’s motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the City from selling or destroying prior to the determination of this action approximately 1, 100 City-owned parcels comprising approximately 600 community gardens. 1 In order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrat...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are (1) defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment, and (2) plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s eleventh affirmative defense. For the reasons stated herein, (i) defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; (ii) defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; and (iii) plaintiffs motion is ...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Paul Valentine, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that defendant Standard & Poor’s (“S & P”), his former employer, discriminated against him .in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101
et seq.,
and discharged him in retaliation for filing a complaint with the.Equal Employment Opportunity...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER
(Paper 10)
The defendant City of Burlington (“Burlington”) has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 in this personal injury case, arguing that it is statutorily immune from liability and it is immune from liability as a governmental entity. Paper 10. Jurisdiction is based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1
For the followi...
Views: 1
OPINION
Plaintiff Francis Edward Shovlin, D.D.S., M.S. (“plaintiff’), brought this action alleging,
inter alia,
that defendants violated his rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also alleges defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights.
Now before the Court...
Views: 0
OPINION
This is an action commenced by plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Syncsort Incorporated (“Syncsort”) against defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Sequential Software, Inc. (“Sequential”). In a complaint (the “Complaint”), filed by Syncsort on 26 February 1998, Syncsort seeks injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, fa...
Views: 0
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Carolyn Kohn to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel, Diane K. Weeks, Esq. Oral argument was heard on January 11, 1999 and an evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 15,1999.
For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs counsel, Diane K. Weeks, Esq., is granted.
II...
Views: 0
OPINION Assistant prosecutor Sara Sencer-McArdle (improperly pled as “Sara Spencer-McArdle”) (“Sencer-McArdle”), Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (“ECPO”) investigators George McGrath (“McGrath”) and Richard Mastroangelo (“Mastroange-lo”) (collectively the “county investigators”), and Division of Youth and Family Services investigator Louis Fonolleras (“Fonolleras”), all move for summary judg...
Views: 1
OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on the motions of plaintiffs Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (“Roche”) and Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. (“Syntex”) to voluntarily dismiss their complaint against defendant Genpharm Inc. (“Genpharm”) without prejudice and to dismiss Genpharm’s counterclaims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may b...
Views: 1
ORDER THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: This action was originally filed by Plaintiff P. Brian Brumfield on August 7, 1998, in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, Pennsylvania. On September 8, 1998, the action was removed to this court. At all times relevant to the allegations set forth in the complaint, Brumfield was employed as a Supervisory Correctional Officer at the Al...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 385 (1999)
Joseph A. MYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
PENN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (Fred Stine, Charles Stauffer, Michael Rishel, Joe Klunk and Wendell Felix); and Penn Township, Defendants.
No. Civ.A. 1:CV-98-1884.
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.
June 3, 1999.
*386 *387 Daniel M. Frey, Hanover, PA, Rees Griffiths, Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, York, PA, for plainti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM
I. Introduction.
Joseph A. Myers Real Estate, Inc. (the “owner/developer”) obtained the approval of Penn Township for a plan to construct a residential real estate development. During the course of construction, the Township drew down on a letter of credit that the plaintiff, Joseph A. Myers (“Myers”), had provided to secure the construction- of certain improvements required by the p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM
I. BACKGROUND
On November 1, 1996, plaintiff Jessica Hoffman (Hoffman) filed this Title VII action against defendant R.I. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ramada Inn d/b/a Cristallo Steak House (Ramada), contending,
inter alia,
that she had been subject to a sexually hostile work environment during her employment as a waitress for Ramada. (Dkt. Entry 1.) Hoffman’s co...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 401 (1999)
Dr. Leemon McHENRY, Plaintiff,
v.
Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Dr. David E. McFarland in his official capacity, Dr. Richard J. Collings, in his official capacity, Dr. Carl E. Brunner, in his official capacity Defendants.
No. Civ. 98-2468.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
May 11, 1999.
*402 *403 Charles M. Watkins, Paul R. O...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This reverse employment discrimination action is filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, Title'Vil, 42 U.S.C. I 2000e et seq. and under 42 U.S.C.. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3). The Plaintiff in this case, Leem-on McHenry, was employed in a one-year *404teaching position for the 1995-96 academic year in the Philosophy Department at Kutztown University. The Plaintif...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Carl J. Cini (“Cini”) initially filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Paul Revere Insurance Company (“Paul Revere”) alleging that Paul Revere wrongfully denied his claim for residual long term disability benefits under a group disability insurance policy. Paul Revere removed the action to this Court pursuant to federal question...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Having obtained the agreement of the Internal Revenue Service to abate an assessment of $150,000, including interest and penalties, dating from an alleged underpayment on her 1980 tax return, plaintiff requests $40,912.50 in attorney fees and costs as the “prevailing party” pursuant to § 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. § 7430. The government tacitly concedes that plain...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 1999, after consideration of the motion (doc. no. 64) of defendant, William T. Kring, D.D.S. (“Dr. Kring” or “Kring”), for summary judgment, and the parties’ written submissions, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion shall be and hereby is denied for the following reasons: (1)Plaintiff, Thomas Merchant, sued defendant, Dr. Kring, claimin...
Views: 1
OPINION Pending before the court is the motion (doc. no. 11) of defendants, City of Pittsburgh, Dominic Cimino, Ronald Graziano, and Richard Bruce (collectively “city defendants”), to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the motion (doc. no. 8) of plaintiffs, Maurice and Nancy Nern...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Piney Run Preservation Association (“Association”) filed this suit against the County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland (“County”), alleging violations of the Clean Water Act (“Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. *444 I. The Association is a non-pro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Ivy Hall Geriatric and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.(“Ivy Hall”), a provider of nursing home services, has sued Donna Shalala, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, (“HHS”), Nancy-Ann Min Deparle, the Director of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, (“HCFA”) (together, the “federal defendants”), and Dr. Georges C. Benjamin...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 460 (1999)
MOTOR CITY BAGELS, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
The AMERICAN BAGEL COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
No. Civ. S-97-3474.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
June 7, 1999.
*461 *462 *463 *464 *465 Thomas J. Minton, Quinn, Ward and Kershaw, Baltimore, MD, John Thomas Ward, Ward, Kershaw and Minton, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for Randall S. Flinn, plaintiff.
Peter J. Kadzik, ...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 489 (1999)
William M. COOPER, Jr., and Teresa Cooper, Plaintiffs,
v.
Daniel GLICKMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant.
No. 1:98CV00089.
United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.
May 11, 1999.
*490 *491 William McCullough, Raleigh, NC, for plaintiffs.
Gill P. Beck, Office of U.S. Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BEAT...
Views: 0
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion by National Credit Union (“NCUA”) to dismiss this action. The court conducted a “show cause” hearing on February 25, 1999, in which the NCUA was required to show cause why Bricks Community Federal Credit Union (“Bricks”) should be liquidated. After reviewing the documents of record and considering to the testimony of Alonzo Swann, region...
Views: 0
ORDER
The Petitioner, John Shriver Wiggins, moves this Court to bypass the Secretary of Treasury and act on his request under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) for relief from his Federal firearms disabilities imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In the alternative, Wiggins moves this Court to order or com
*513
pel the Secretary of Treasury to act on his request for relief under § 925(c). For ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This telecommunications services dispute presents the following questions:
(1) Does the two-year statute of limitations in § 415(b) of the Federal Communications Act (FCA)
1
apply to state law
*518
causes of action?
(2) Can parties, by contract, agree to a limitations period shorter than the two-year period prescribed in § 415(b)?
...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Edward M. Hendrick filed this action against his former employer, Brown
&
Root, Inc., seeking damages for the company’s unlawful use of Hendrick’s name. Brown & Root has moved to dismiss the action or to stay it and compel arbitration of the claims which it presents. Although the title of the motion includes dismissal as a requested remedy, the motion address...
Views: 1
Page 539
50 F.Supp.2d 539 (1999)
Carlos Arnoldo Vanegas AGUILAR, Petitioner,
v.
Warren A. LEWIS, Immigration and Naturalization Service District Director, Respondent.
No. Civ.A. 99-662-A.
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.
June 11, 1999.
*540 Julien A. Graystone, Law Offices of Julien A. Graystone, Ana T. Jacobs, Ana T. Jacobs & Associates, Washington, DC, for petitioner...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This
pro se
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action presents the question, unresolved in this circuit, whether inmates seeking solely monetary relief are required to exhaust their administrative remedies in a prison grievance system that does not award monetary damages. For the reasons that follow, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), correctly construed, requires inmates seeking solel...
Views: 0
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ADJUDGED AND ORDERED
that:
(1)The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation will be adopted in so far as it recommends summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.
(2) Defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are DENIED.
(3) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment sh...
Views: 1
*566 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER, DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT ORDER, DENYING MOTION FOR AMENDMENT AND CLARIFICATION OF JUDGMENT, DENYING MOTION TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO VACATE...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the motion of the defendant to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The memorandum accompanying the motion addresses only' the Rule 12(b)(5) justification — dismissal based upon insufficiency of service of process. The Court’s clerk, with notice to the defendant, con...
Views: 4
Before this Court is Defendant’s Motions for Dismissal or Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56. This cause came for a hearing on a previous day and oral argument was waived. The Court, having studied the applicable law and the memoranda submitted by the parties is now fully advised of the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
...
Views: 0
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Before this court is the disposition of plaintiff Rowan Companies’ (“Rowan”) declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has no maintenance and cure obligation to Larry D. Ainsworth (“Ainsworth”), its former seaman employee. After a bench trial and for the following reasons, this court RENDERS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, deciding that it...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, filed in this declaratory judgment action by the plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty”) (docket entry # 38), and the defendant, Canal Insurance Company (“Canal”) (docket entry # 37). For the reasons stated herein, Liberty’s motion is GRANTED, and Canal’s motion is ...
Views: 0
Page 601
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are:
1. Defendant American Airline’s Motion for and Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, filed June 9,1997:
2. Plaintiffs Memorandum Response to Defendant American Airline’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 7, 1997;
3. American’s Reply to Plaintiffs Response to American’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 18,19...
Views: 1
50 F. Supp. 2d 619 (1999)
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES, CO. LTD., Hyundai Electronics America, Inc., and Hyundai Semiconductor America, Inc., Defendants.
No. 2:98CV74(TH).
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
March 15, 1999.
Kenneth Robert Adamo, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Dallas, TX, Jay Carl Johnson, Texas Instruments Incorpo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of Roger Langford, deceased, alleging that he died as a result of injuries sustained while employed by defendant Santa Fe International Corporation (plaintiffs allege specifically that Robert Langford died as a result of injuries incurred while fighting oh fires for defendants in Kuwait). Plaintiffs (all residents of Texas) allege that divers...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
The above cause came on for a non-jury trial commencing February 22, 1999, and concluding February 24, 1999, before the Honorable Samuel B. Kent, presiding. The Court having carefully considered the testimony of all witnesses presented live and by deposition; all exhibits admitted during the course of the trial; all pleadings filed in the case; J...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. *649 For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer is hereby DENIED. Defendant appears to contend that the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, requires that this case be transferred from the Galveston Division to the H...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Darryl Smith brings claims against his former employer, United Parcel Service of Ohio, Inc. (“UPS”). Smith alleges that he was discriminated against and retaliated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Apri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Equitas’ Motion to Dismiss.
1
Plaintiff filed a response to which Defendant Equitas replied. After reviewing the file and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court finds that Defendant Equitas should be dismissed from this action. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [dkt. #4] is granted for the reasons set for...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 662 (1999)
In re CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION.
No. 98-70417.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
April 23, 1999.
*663 *664 *665 Gerald Mantese, Troy, Starley Bernstein, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew McGinness, Ann Arbor, Timothy Nelson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER STRIKING AFFIDAVIT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION ...
Views: 1
*682
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT PAGING NETWORK OF MICHIGAN, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT; REFERRING PLAINTIFF’S COMMUNICATIONS ACT CLAIM TO THE FCC; AND STAYING THIS ACTION PENDING THE FCC’S RESOLUTION OF THE REFERRED CLAIM
Count III of Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendant’s conduct w...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 687 (1999)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Randy P. TURNER d/b/a "Turner's Big Game Processing", Defendant.
No. 98-80490.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
May 3, 1999.
Kashna Digle, Asst.U.S.Atty., Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Andrew Wise, Federal Defender, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN L...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Presently before the Court is defendant City of Detroit’s motion for summary judgment filed March 22, 1999. Plaintiff Lu-wanna Hooper responded to the instant motion on April 28, 1999. Plaintiff initiated the instant action with the filing of her complaint on August 6, 1998. Plaintiff claims that def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R.CIV.P. 56
The instant ease involves claims brought by plaintiff, Leon Hollowell, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of
*698
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq.
(“Title VII”), and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. This case concerns a dispute between plaintiff Ronald T. Guzy, a retired Ameri-tech employee, and defendants Ameritech Corporation, Ameritech Management Pension Plan, State Stre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the Court on defendant Neller’s motion to modify, the government’s response and various briefs filed by the parties thereafter. The issue presented to the Court is whether or not defendant should now be released from detention pending his appeal. This Court, after defendant’s conviction, denied bond; and the Court of Appeals also denied bond finding no...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants with respect to the patent claims is granted. This Court has jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Glasstech, Inc. (“Glasstech”) ...
Views: 0
Page 733
*735
ORDER
In this case, Plaintiffs James D. Stout and Shirley A. Brown make claim for fraud, violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the federal Truth-in-Lending Act arising from the plaintiffs’ purchase of used motor vehicles. Now before the Court is the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 1,
et seq.,
the Federal Arbitration...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER
I.
On November 2, 1998, this court struck down Ohio Revised Code § 123.151, which provides race-based preferences in the award of state construction contracts, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Two weeks earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, likewise, found this Ohio law...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action in which plaintiff, who is African-American, alleges that his employment was terminated on account of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Plaintiff also asserts supplemental state law claims of race discrimination under O.R.C. § 4112.02, .99, and discharge in violation of Ohio’s public...
Views: 0
Page 785
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Larry Arwood, brings this action alleging that he was subjected to a hostile and intimidating work environment based on his race and religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed Nove...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The United States government filed this civil forfeiture action, seeking to forfeit all funds contained in seven bank accounts and two safe deposit boxes on the theory that these funds were transferred to financial institutions within the United States from abroad with the intent to support the international terrorist activities of the HA-MAS organization ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Braulia Martinez filed this action against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration challenging the denial of her application for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C." §§ 416(1), 423, and 1382. The court has jurisdiction to review the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
South Holland Metal Finishing Co., Inc. [“South Holland”] brought this action against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago [the “District”], alleging that the District is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [“§ 1983”] for selective enforcement of the District’s Sewage and Waste Control Ordinance. South Holland moved for voluntary dismis...
Views: 0
Page 816
*817
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Ree Clay and Ruby Chivers (collectively “Plaintiffs”) instituted this action under the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601
et seq.
(1998), against Iver R. Johnson and Marvin Bilfeld, d/b/a Davenport Construction Co. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of TILA and seeking rescission of their 1995 home improv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant Captain James Hartsfield’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the court (1) dismisses with prejudice plaintiffs § 1983 claim against defendant Captain James Hartsfield in his official capacity and (2) grants summary judgment in favor of Captain Hartsfield on plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Captain Hartsfield in hi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lisa M. Raimondi has filed a complaint against defendant McAllister
&
Associates, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated § 1692e(5) and 1692e(10) by threatening to contact plaintiffs employer, and that defendant violated § 1692c(a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
SunRise Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a SunRise Care and Rehabilitation for University (SunRise) operates a 122 bed nursing facility in Edwardsville, Illinois. SunRise Healthcare Corporation operates approximately 420 nursing ho...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The City of Goshen enacted an ordinance that would, among other things, make it illegal for members of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to wear masks in public assembly. The United States Constitution protects a group’s speakers the right to anonymity when past harassment makes it likely that disclosing the members would impact the group’s ability to pursu...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 845 (1999)
Ruth Ann GUINAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant.
No. IP 98-16 C B/S.
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
May 7, 1999.
*846 Irving Fink, Yosha Ladendorf Krahulik & Weddle, Indianapolis, IN, for plaintiff.
John S(Jay) Mercer, Wood Tuohy Gleason Mercer & Herrin, Indianapolis, IN, for defendant.
ENTRY...
Views: 0
ENTRY The prosecution, United States of America (the “government”), seeks a criminal conviction of defendant, Robert H. Kramer (“Kramer”), for willfully failing to pay a past due child support obligation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228, known as the “Child Support Recovery Act” (“CSRA”). For the reasons discussed, we find the defendant GUILTY as charged in the grand jury’s one count indictme...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Sherman Webster claims that Wisconsin Power & Light Company [“WPL”] denied him a promotion from his position as a “line truck operator” to a position as a “heavy duty earth borer operator” because he is a Native American. WPL has moved for summary judgment, claiming that it denied him the promotion only because he incorrectly answered a number of safety-relate...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 863 (1998)
JOHNSON WORLDWIDE ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ZEBCO CORPORATION and Brunswick Corporation, Defendants.
No. 97-C-453-S.
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.
April 2, 1998.
*864 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHABAZ, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. commenced this patent and copyright infringement action alleging that the defendant Zebco Corpo...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 871 (1999)
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
and
The STOCKDALE AGENCY, and Ray Bryan, Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
v.
Winmill International, Inc., and David J. Miller, Jr., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
Leroy V. Abbott, Third-Party Defendant.
No. C97-4039-MWB.
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.
May 22, 1999.
*872 John D. Mayne, Mayne & Mayn...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
A bench trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on July 6, 1999, but certain dis-positive motions are still pending. Consequently, this matter comes before the court pursuant the September 24, 1998, motion of plaintiffs-intervenors the Stock-dale Agency and Raymond L. Bryan to dismiss the proposed counterclaim of D.J.M. In...
Views: 0
*877
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE POR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
[[Image here]]
Novel claims and issues of statutory interpretation are presented in this dispute over whether a swine nursery and confinement facility in northwestern Iowa threatens an alluvial aquifer and the plaintiff property owners’ use and enjoymen...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 888 (1999)
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNICAL SURFACING, INC.; Phoenix Group, Inc.; Ephorm Freeman; and Phoenix Foods, Inc., Defendants.
No. CIV. 97-49 JRT/RLE.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
March 12, 1999.
John M. Anderson and Kelly A. Putney, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.
*889 George G. Eck and Er...
Views: 0
Page 891
ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs petition for an award of attorney’s fees. Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, the' court awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,000.
BACKGROUND
The court has reviewed the procedural background underlying this litigation on numerous occasions. In a decision filed Februar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Medtox Scientific, Inc. (“Med-tox”), fik/a Editek, Inc. (“Editek”),
1
filed this action on January 31, 1997, to recover alleged short-swing insider profits realized by Defendant Morgan Capital L.L.C. (“Morgan Capital”) and its alleged control persons, Defendants Alex and David Bis-tricer (“Bistricers”), on a series of ...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 908 (1999)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Andres SALGADO-OCAMPO, Defendant.
No. 97-239(2) (DSD/JMM).
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
June 16, 1999.
Daniel Martin Scott, Katherine Menendez, Federal Public Defender, Mpls, MN, for Andres Salgado-Ocampo, defendant.
R.J. Zayed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, counsel for plaintiff.
ORDER
DOTY, District Judge....
Views: 1
50 F.Supp.2d 913 (1999)
Christos V. GEORGIOU, Plaintiff,
v.
Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
No. 4:97-CV-1910 CAS.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
March 18, 1999.
*914 Robert T. Ebert, Jr., Bryan Cave LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Christos V. Georgiou, plaintiff.
Christos V. Georgiou, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Wesley D. Wedemeyer, Office of U.S. ...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 918 (1999)
Mike McCANN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FORT ZUMWALT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
No. 4:98CV1790 RWS.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
April 27, 1999.
*919 Joseph L. Green, Baerveldt and Bagsby, St. Charles, MO, for Mike McCann, by and through his parent, nfr, Robert McCann, Erin Fannning, by and through her parent, nfr, Deanna Reinwald,...
Views: 1
50 F.Supp.2d 925 (1999)
In the Matter of the Complaint of LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC., as Owner of the M/V HELEN B for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.
No. 4:97CV2214 RWS.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
May 14, 1999.
*926 Theodore H. Lucas, James V. O'Brien, Richard J. Behr, Lewis and Rice, St. Louis, MO, for Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., plaintiff...
Views: 0
50 F.Supp.2d 931 (1999)
Richard A. LEVY, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL, ASSURANCE CO., Defendant/Third-party Plaintiff,
v.
Debra A. Levy, Third-party Defendant.
No. 4:96CV02128SNL.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.
May 26, 1999.
Brian D. Klar, Attorney, Kazanas and Klar, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for Richard A. Levy, plaintiff.
Debra A. Levy, St. Louis, MO, pro ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Mercedes Dionida (“Dionida”) is suing Defendants for disability benefits
*936
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Dionida is a registered nurse who was employed by St. Luke’s Hospital in San Francisco. St. Luke’s provides its employees with the St. Luke’s Ho...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING -APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE •'
On December 14, 1998, the parties’ stipulated motion for approval of the settlement agreement and dismissal of- the action came on for hearing before this Court. At that time,- the Court instructed the parties' to engage in fürther discussions regarding the terms of the settlement agreement. Th...
Views: 0
ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: QDRO ISSUES
Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment re: QDRO issues and EW & C and the Williams Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing before this Court on May 24, 1999. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the case file, it is hereby ORDERED that Plain...
Views: 0
Page 966
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL
The Court, the Honorable Robert J, Timlin, has read and considered plaintiff Greg Colyer’s motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel, defendants’ opposition thereto, and plaintiff Colyer’s reply. The Court concludes as follows:
I.
BACKGROUND
This case represents yet another legal reverberation of the April 1,...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
On three issues not yet decided by the Ninth Circuit, the Court holds California’s False Claims Act does not protect federal whistleblowers, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim, and a state wrongful employment retaliation claim is preempted by the Federal False Claims Act.
I.
BACKGROU...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are defendant Gartner Group, Inc.’s objections to the magistrate judge’s September 28,1998 order sanctioning Gartner for failing to produce discovery. For the reasons expressed herein, the court sustains Gartner’s objections.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Computer Economics, Inc. (“CEI”) is a newsletter publisher specializi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, James Van Gundy (“Van Gun-dy”), instituted the above-entitled action against defendant P.T. Freeport Indonesia, a/k/a Copper Overseas Service Co. (“Freeport”), alleging Freeport discharged him in violation of Montana’s Wrongful *994 Discharge From Employment Act, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-2-901, et seq. (“WDEA”). Freeport invokes the diversity jurisdiction of thi...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are defendants’ objections (#s 97, 98, 101) to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (# 95) that defendants’ motions for summary judgment (# s 57, 61) be denied in part and granted in part and that the motion (# 58) to exclude expert testimony filed by defendant Knoedler Manufacturers, Inc. (“Knoedler”) and Designer Metal Products, Inc. (“Designer”) be denied...
Views: 0
ORDER
Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs Bedroc Limited, L.L.C.’s (“Bedroc”) and Earl Williams’ (“Williams”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16), filed on February 1, 1999. In connection with this initial submission, Bedroc and Williams have also provided: (1) a Notice of Filing Facsimile Declaration (Doc. # 17) (filed on February 1, 1999); (2) a Notice of Filing Unsigned D...
Views: 0
*1010
ORDER
Defendant, United States of America (“the United States”), pursuant to Rule 56, moves for summary judgment on its counterclaim for injunctive relief. The United States also requests that I take judicial notice of five orders issued by the United States Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff, Jay L. Depew, moves for judgment o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant, First UNUM Life Insurance Company (“First UNUM”), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Plaintiffs, Frank Pirkheim and Roxanne Pirkheim, also move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. The cross-motions, which require construction of an insurance policy, are adequately briefed and oral argument will not materially aid their resolution....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This retaliatory discharge case comes before the court on the following motions: the plaintiff Cynthia M. Bausman’s (“Baus-man”) motion for partial summary judgment (Dk.35); the defendant 'Interstate Brands Corporation’s (“Interstate Brands” or “IBC”) motion for summary judgment (Dk.37); and the plaintiff Bausman’s motion to strike (Dk.44) the affidavit of Robert Linc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jerome Girard brings this diversity case alleging that defendant Trade Professionals, Inc. is vicariously liable for defendant Roger Anders’ negligence and that Trade Professionals is itself negligent for hiring Anders. The case is before the court on Trade Professionals’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 36). For the reasons set forth in this memorandum...
Views: 0
50 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (1999)
RAYES, INC., d/b/a Wheelchairs of Kansas, Plaintiff,
v.
Dale BASGALL, Defendant, Dale Basgall, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
Willard Frickey, a/k/a Lee Frickey, Third-Party Defendant, Dale Basgall, Counter-Claimant,
v.
Rayes, Inc., d/b/a Wheelchairs of Kansas, Counter-Defendant.
No. CIV. A. 97-2588-GTV.
United States District Court, D. Kansas.
May 10, 1999.
Leland H. Corley...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This survival and wrongful death action arises out of an explosion at defendant *1059 Western Resources, Inc.’s Lawrence Energy Center near Lawrence, Kansas, which resulted in the death of Charles Edward Price. The case is before the court on defendant Western Resources, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 17). Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ action is barred by ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Donald C. Nowlin brings this action alleging that defendant K Mart Corporation constructively discharged him on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101
et seq.,
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001
et seq.,
and in retaliation for ex...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Susan Lintz and Connie Dieci-due filed suit against defendants alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq. This matter is presently before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment ...
Views: 0
*1087
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. (Docs.15, 26) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law, the Court finds that Defendants’ motions should be DENIED.
I. Summary of Case
This action is one for declaratory relief and money damage...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary and Final Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement and Order that Notice be Sent to the Class (Docket No. 195), filed August 31, 1998, and the Application of Class C...
Views: 0
Page 1111
50 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (1998)
NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL CARE, a California corporation; Sherry J. Von Stess, Defendants.
No. 97-CV-1127-H.
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.
October 26, 1998.
*1112 *1113 James Andrew Enlow, Schuller & Mills, Tulsa, OK, John Wayne Anderson, Jr, Tulsa, OK, Ike Amos Hobaugh, Ike...
Views: 0
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, defendants’ motion in limine to exclude plaintiffs experts, and plaintiff
1
Scott McCollin’s motion to reinstate his fraud on the FDA claim. The court conducted hearing on these motions on April 1, 1999, at which plaintiff was represented by Donna Cummings, defendant Synthes, Inc. was represen...
Views: 1
50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (1999)
Mike APFFEL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Robert HUDDLESTON, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:98-CV-0496-S.
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.
May 27, 1999.
*1130 Kathryn Collard, Law Firm of Kathryn Collard, L.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for plaintiffs.
Dan R. Larsen, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SAM, Chi...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
I. Introduction
On November 23, 1998,
2
the Court issued an Amended Order adopting Lead Counsel’s allocation of Attorneys’ fees. Soon thereafter, some members of class counsel motioned the Court to reconsider its Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b). Specifically...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Donald and Connie Brink-man’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(7), and Plaintiff California Casualty
&
Fire Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. After reading the briefs, hearin...
Views: 0
Page 1168
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is a Motion For Summary Judgment with accompanying Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Br.”), filed by Defendants Stanley B. Sessions (“Mr.Sessions”), Lynn D. Sessions (“Mrs.Sessions”), and Argonaut Relocation Services (“Argonaut”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on December 30, 1998. Plaintiffs Scott Wheelan (“Mr. Wheelan”) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
This cause is before the court on the following motions, all filed on January 29, 1999:(1) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Town of Hayneville; (2) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Chief of Police Edward Boyd; (3) Motion for Partial Dismissal of Claims against Defendant Cíete Davis; and (4) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Mayor Joe ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, filed on September 15, 1998. On November 9, 1998, Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss is due to be granted and that Plaintiffs...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiffs Motion To Remand, filed on November 9, 1998, and Plaintiffs Motion For Costs And Attorney’s Fees (“Motion For Atty’s Fees”), filed on December 7, 1998. On November 30, 1998, Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) filed a Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Remand, which the court construes as ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendant First National Bank of Brundidge’s (“Bank”) Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice Or In The Alternative Motion To Stay (“Motion”), filed on April 21, 1999. Plaintiff Nobel Insurance Group (“Nobel”) filed its Response To Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice Or In The Alternative Motion To Stay (“Response”) on April 29, 1999. Defendant Ban...
Views: 0
Page 1219
*1221 MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This three-judge court has been convened to hear a case implicating the pre-clearance mandate of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973c. The Plaintiffs in this action are registered voters in Jefferson County. They contend that § 307-X-1-.21 of the amended Procedures for Electronic Vote Counting Systems, which allows fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants City of Opp and Mark Kyser on January 28, 1999 with their Brief In Support Of Their Motion, For Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Br.”). Plaintiff filed his Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment and Brief In Opposition To- Motion For Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Resp.”) on F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion To Remand, filed on March 26, 1999 with its Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Remand (“Memorandum”). Defendant filed a Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Remand (“Response”) on April 14, 1999, and Plaintiff filed a Reply In Support Of Motion To Remand (“Reply”) on April 14, 1999. After careful consideration of th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Frankie E. Lake filed this lawsuit in state court against defendant UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461, commonly known as “ERISA”. Lake seeks to recover benefits allegedly due her under the Synovus Financial Corporation Group Long-Term Disability Insurance Policy. Invo...
Views: 1
Page 1257
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the following Motions for Summary Judgment:
1. Plaintiff Bradley E. Murray (“Plaintiff’) submitted his Motion, for Partial Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.”) on February 2, 1998.
1
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff also filed both a Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“Pl.’s Facts”) and a Memorandum of Law (“PL’s Br.”) on...
Views: 0
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt.30) and Defendant’s Opposition (Dkt.47) thereto; and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.39) and Plaintiffs Memorandum (Dkt.48) in opposition thereto; and Plaintiffs Request for Oral Argument (Dkt.37). This is an
*1282
action brought by Plaintiff Nolan Wilkes, Jr., as Per...
Views: 1
50 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (1999)
TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT/ADVANCE-NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Time Warner Cable, Plaintiff,
v.
WORLDWIDE ELECTRONICS, L.C. d/b/a Worldwide Electronics, Nationwide Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Nationwide Electronics, Alan Marks, Lewis Schneiderman, Susan Marks a/k/a Susan Mann, Audrey Schneiderman, John Does 1-10, Jane Does 3-10, Unidentified Corporations 1-10 and Unidentified...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated and Amended Complaint (DE# 31). The Court has reviewed the responsive pleadings and the other pertinent portions of the file and heard argument of counsel on this Motion on February 2, 1999. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is deni...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF CORAL GABLES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT ANA BAIXAULFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City of Coral Gables (“City”) on May 14,1999. Defendant Ana Baixauli (“Baixauli”) also filed a Motion For Summary Judgment on May 14,1999. Plaintiff submitted a single...
Views: 1
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment, [# 6-1] and [# 12-1], as well as Plaintiffs Motion to Exceed Page Limit [# 11-1].
I. BACKGROUND
. The issue for decision in this case presents a conflict between national telecommunications policy, as expressed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the land use decisions of l...
Views: 0
ORDER
This case is presently before the Court on plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Damages Claim Under Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996[31] and plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Claims for Relief Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988[32]. The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out ...
Views: 1
Page 1364
ORDER
Plaintiffs filed their original § 1983 claim on February 7, 1995 and their first amended complaint on September 17, 1996, alleging defendants violated plaintiffs’ decedent’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Presently before the court is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
The facts the parties can agree on are as follows: Plaintiffs’ deced...
Views: 0
ORDER
Plaintiff Sandra L. Murray and the other named and putative plaintiffs in the above-entitled class action seek legal and equitable remedies against Defendants John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its hospital affiliates for violating their civil rights by denying them employment because of their weight. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Defendants enforced a ...
Views: 0
|
About Apps, Extensions & AI System Status Privacy Security Contact Us | |
