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 → frd → Volume 99

Opinions in frd Volume 99

ORDER This products liability case is set for trial on this court’s current trial calendar, which began February 7,1983. The case was pretried for a second time, and the second pretrial order was signed on November 23, 1982, this case having been continued twice. At a status conference held February 7, 1983, the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court of three new motions filed on behalf of the pl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION On March 15, 1982, Plaintiff, an attorney who is appearing pro se, filed a complaint that revolves around his dismissal from employment with the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA). Plaintiff alleged that his dismissal was racially motivated, that the letter terminating his employment with PHFA was libelous, and that the dismissal deprived Plaintiff of the right ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the above-styled case. Simply stated, this issue has engendered controversy as is evidenced by the sheer volume of paper work filed with the Court as of this date. However, much of the *19evidence proffered by defendants in support of their motions to deny class certification is more properly addressed to the merits of the ac...
Views: 1
ORDER Defendants Seaport Enterprises, Inc., dba Air Services; Air Conditioning Products, Inc.; and L.R. Eversole were served in this action on March 11, 1983. They failed to answer or otherwise appear within the twenty-day limit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Plaintiff moved for entry of default on April 12, 1983, and default was entered against these defendants on April 14, 1983. Defendants now move the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action was brought by twelve Plaintiffs. Eight of them are women who allege that by reason of exposure to diethylstilbestrol (hereinafter referred to as DES) in útero, they suffered various injuries, including cancerous or pre-cancerous conditions, repeated pregnancy losses, infertility, incomplete, defective or abnormal development of their reproductive tracts and other adverse e...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM—ORDER In moving for class certification the burden rests upon plaintiffs to overcome the numerous decisions which hold that certification is rarely appropriate in mass tort actions, “especially” those involving misconduct by one or more defendants over an extended period of time. See, e.g., Abed v. A.H. Robins Co., 693 F.2d 847, 852 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 817, 7...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a class action brought on behalf of black bank examiners employed nationwide by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) alleging that the FDIC utilizes discriminatory training and promotion procedures. The primary allegation of the one count amended complaint is that the Progress Evaluation Examination (“PE”), ostensibly a prerequisite to promotion ...
Views: 3
OPINION This cause is now before the Court on the Defendants’ motions filed herein June 7, 1983, to add Arkwright-Boston Manufactur*59ers Mutual Insurance Company as a real party in interest. Defendant Beloit Corporation designed and manufactured a paper machine which was sold to Plaintiff, Industrial Development Board of the City of Prattville (IDB), and leased and operated by Plaintiff Union Cam...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff seeks class certification of a securities fraud action. Defendants oppose the motion generally, and offer specific arguments for narrowly defining any class which is certified. I GRANT the motion for class certification with certain refinements. BACKGROUND This is an action brought by a former shareholder of Pacific Realty Trust (“PacTrust”) individually and on behalf ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 4, 1982, this Court certified a class in this case consisting of “all those direct purchasers of refined petroleum products from Gulf during the period 1973-75, except consumer, credit card purchasers of gasoline and gasoline products and purchasers through Gulf consignees and Gulf-owned gas stations.” Stertz v. Gulf Oil Corp., 95 F.R.D. 116, 117 (E.D.N.Y.1982). By t...
Views: 0
ORDER These consolidated class actions are before the Court on Plaintiffs’ (1) Motion for an Order Enjoining the Defendant from Communicating with Class Members and (2) Motion for an Order Voiding All Requests for Exclusion and Directing the Mailing of a Court Approved Notice to all Class Members who requested exclusion from the class. By way of background, Plaintiffs Kleiner and Morosani are cus...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This suit involves a challenge to the Secretary’s interpretation of section 301 of the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, Pub.L. 96-265, Title III, § 301(a) & (b), 94 Stat. 449, 450 (1980) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 425(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(6)). Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s timely motion for reconsideration of an Order denying class action certifi...
Views: 1
ORDER This employment discrimination case, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and on the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, Phyllis A. Rogers, worked as a Southeast Region sales representat...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34, for injunctive and monetary relief brought by four named plaintiffs on behalf of a class based upon an allegedly violative age-biased corporate policy implemented by defendant Xerox Corporation on a nationwide basis.1 In addition to the claims brought on behalf of the class, the four named plaint...
Views: 2
ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries allegedly suffered after plaintiff Carl Baise consumed part of a package of summer sausage manufactured by defendant Alewel’s, Inc. Presently before the court is a discovery dispute. Alewel’s has filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ objections to Alewel’s requests for admission and a motion to compel discovery from...
Views: 1
ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff on 5 April 1983 filed a complaint against defendant. The plaintiff is a lessee and occupant of premises owned by a third party. Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that extensive water damage was caused to plaintiff’s property as a result of defendant’s faulty repairs to the roof of the leased premises. It sought damages, inter alia, as an alleged third party beneficiary...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SFM Corporation (“SFM”) brought this diversity action charging a refusal by Sundstrand Corporation (“Sundstrand”) to perform its contract to buy complex machine tools manufactured by SFM. In turn Sundstrand initially filed a one-count Counterclaim accusing SFM of breach of contract. Some nine months later Sundstrand filed a greatly expanded four-count Amended Counterc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Eleven affiliated corporate plaintiffs (collectively “Gold Standard”1) originally filed *109this antitrust action April 29, 1981. Thirteen months later2 Gold Standard moved alternatively (1) to amend the complaint to add class allegations or (2) for voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to two plaintiffs, Ridge Gold Standard, Inc. (“Ridge”) and Cheese Chalet I, Ltd...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION OF POWER DRAULICS-NIELSEN, INC. TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM In its initial answer, the defendant Power Draulics-Nielsen, Inc. (“PDN”) set forth a counterclaim alleging that the instant action was filed vexatiously by Hydro-Air of Connecticut, Inc. (“Hydro Air”). PDN now seeks to add two additional counterclaims. One of these new counterclaims, labelled the “Second Counterclaim” in the p...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE In this case the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P. With the defendant present in the courtroom on April 14, 1983, the Court orally sentenced the defendant to a term of two years incarceration with a five year special parole .term for a violation of 21 U...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER In this action under the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act (the “RobinsonPatman Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 13 et seq., plaintiffs challenge the legality of certain business practices utilized in marketing and distributing citrus fruit products sold under the generic name of “Tropicana Product Sales, Inc.” (“Tropicana”) in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropo...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the motion of defendant Eli Lilly & Company, Inc., (“Lilly”) a pharmaceuticals manufacturer, to compel discovery—more precisely, to facilitate it—namely, to require plaintiffs to execute appropriate written forms addressed to their various physicians authorizing them to release to defendant’s attorneys such information about them as the p...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, a distributor of television entertainment programs, claiming unlawful pirating of its microwave signals, has attempted a shotgun action against 1795 individual party defendants by filing 18 similarly worded actions with approximately 100 defendants allocated to each filing. The attempted filing of these actions with such an inordinate number of party defendants in ea...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER The United States filed the Complaint in this action against the State of New York and the Superintendent of the New York State Police on September 8, 1977. It alleged discriminatory employment practices *132in regard to blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans and females in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the ...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff has appealed from (moved to retax) the costs taxed by the Clerk of Court. Particularly at issue are the Clerk’s disallowance of expert witness fees and the travel costs of Plaintiff to attend her own deposition. After a hearing, the Clerk refused to tax any of Plaintiff’s travel costs and allowed only statutory per diem attendance fees and travel allowances for Plaintiff’s two exp...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM .OPINION AND ORDER This case is an interpleader action. Plaintiffs, various pension plans of Mobil Oil Corporation employees, are stake holders. They have brought defendants, claimants of the pension benefits of a deceased Mobil employee, into court. Plaintiffs have moved to amend the complaint to add a fiduciary as plaintiff and to enjoin one of the defendant claimants from proceeding...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is the Agliams’ Motion to Dismiss defendant Ohio Savings Association’s counterclaim for the balance due on a promissory note. Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The Agliams brought this action against the Ohio Savings Association for violations of §§ 226.17, 226.18, 226.19, and 226.20 of Regulation Z, of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TIL...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation1 (“NCARL”); its former executive director, Frank Wilkinson; and several members of NCARL. NCARL describes itself as an unincorporated association dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and to the eradication of repressive laws and practices throughout the United States....
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The annexed Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States Magistrate, is hereby adopted as the Opinion of this Court. No objections were filed within the time permitted. Settle a final Judgment on three (3) days notice or waiver of notice. So Ordered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION September 1, 1983 NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, United States Magistrate. B...
Views: 4
OPINION and ORDER These are motions by defendants to dismiss this action as a class action and a cross-motion by plaintiffs to certify it as a class action under Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P. *167Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that it was not filed in timely fashion, as required by Civil Rule 4(c), and that, in any event, the proposed class fails to meet the requirements of Rule 23. Lo...
Views: 0
OPINION This litigation centers about the production, distribution, and exploitation of a motion picture, “Caligula,” which was filmed in Italy, and the allocation of profits derived from the film. Currently before the Court is a motion by the defendants to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, who if served would defeat diversity jurisdiction. The plai...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The above-captioned action came before this Court upon the motion of defendant Michael Ray Richardson (“Richardson”), pursuant to Rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order vacating the default judgment entered against him in this case on May 20, 1983. For the reasons stated below, Richardson’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff R...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER These lawsuits, consolidated in this Court for pretrial proceedings, were filed by wholesalers and retailers of phonograph records and pre-recorded magnetic tapes (“records and tapes”) against several major producers of records and tapes in the United States. The complaint charges that since January 1, 1971, defendants conspired to fix, maintain and stabilize the prices of record...
Views: 1
Ronald Harris moves pursuant to Rule 15 for leave to amend his complaint. The motion is denied. Harris’ present pro se complaint alleges false arrest, use of excessive force by the arresting officers, and deprivation of property without due process of law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks to amend his complaint to add the following claims, which he alleges have arisen during the course o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDA OPINIONS AND ORDERS I The defendant Mr. Cook moved the Court for an order requiring certain pretrial discovery from the prosecution * * * pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(d)(2), 16; Federal Rules of Evidence 803(24) and 804(b)(5); 18 *253U.S.C. § 3500; the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of The United States Constitution and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ENTRY DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF NAMING MINORITY INTEREST HOLDERS; MOTION TO THEN BE DECLARED MOOT; CONFERENCE CALL SET This matter is before the Court pursuant to the motion of Defendant NCR Corporation (NCR) to dismiss the Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7), due to Plaintiff’s failure to join indispensable parties. Base...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an employment discrimination action. This matter is presently before the court upon defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental witness and exhibit list and portions of plaintiff’s original witness and exhibit list. The court finds that oral argument is unnecessary and is now prepared to rule. The pertinent facts for this motion are as follows: On August 5, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a diversity action in which plain- ' tiff claims that he was defrauded by the defendants. This matter is presently before the court upon the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s motion for class action certification (Doc. # 67); (2) defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (Doc. # 72); and (3) plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. # 76). The court has heard ora...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to have the court’s order of December 7, 1981, vacated. FACTS Plaintiff Soletanche and Rodio, Inc. (“plaintiff”), an American corporation, brought this suit against defendant for patent infringement. Plaintiff is the exclusive U.S. licensee of a French patent owned by Soletanche Societe Anonyme, a French corporation. This company, Soletanche ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER In this diversity action, plaintiff, Kelly S. Segars, sues defendant, William F. Hagerman, for breach of contract and unspecified tort claims arising out of the sale of a houseboat. Entry of default was had against defendant on June 21, 1983; upon receipt of plaintiff’s sworn affidavit that defendant had not appeared or otherwise *275defended in this action, default judgment with...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In June 1979 a Jeep in which plaintiff was riding swerved to avoid hitting deer. The sudden, evasive maneuver caused the Jeep to roll over; the vehicle’s driver was killed and plaintiff, a passenger, sustained serious injuries. Plaintiff instituted this action against the driver’s estate and the manufacturer of the Jeep, American Motors Corporation (AMC). She charged that the ...
Views: 0
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(c)(1), plaintiffs moved for a determination that this suit, brought under the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 15, be maintained as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action. A hearing was held on October 27, 1982 to consider plaintiff’s motion, whereupon the matter was taken under submission pending the receipt of memoranda from the parties. Plaintiffs alle...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendant in this case is charged with one count of receipt of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(h), and five counts of receipt and possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). On August 1, 1983 his newly appointed attorneys filed several motions on Defendant’s behalf, and a hearing was held on August 16. At that time, Defendant requested that *295the Court ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITION OF PRISONER/WITNESS This case was referred by Order of Reference. In this action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner William Morrill Gilday appears pro se, and respondent Commonwealth appears by Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General. In the instant motion, petitioner seeks to depose Robert Valeri, a co-defendant in petitioner’s original state court t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On or about September 8,1982 defendant Anheuser-Busch served a notice of deposition and for production of documents directed to Alimenta (U.S.A.) and its attorney of record, John G. Parker, Esq., and a subpoena directed to Jan Muis “and his attorney, John G. Parker, Esq.” Plaintiff filed a motion to quash and for protective order on September 20,1982, which this court denied on...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in the above numbered action have moved for certification of a class seeking injunctive relief pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 23(b)(2). After careful consideration of the fairly extensive record and the relevant authorities, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and denies it in part. The Court concludes that a class action may be appropriately maintained o...
Views: 1
ORDER This action is before the court now on motions to dismiss brought by defendants Powell, Jackson and City of Riverdale. Defendants Powell and Jackson assert as grounds for the dismissal of the action against them that they were not named by the plaintiff in her charge of sexual discrimination to the EEOC. They also urged that they are not “employers” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiffs are major interest holders in certain oil ventures known as the Brokenstraw/Irvine Run Joint Venture, DeForest II Drilling Venture and Brokenstraw Oil Offerings 1972-1, 1972-2, 1973-1 and 1973-2 (hereinafter “oil ventures”). The plaintiff Wootten is the purported representative of 143 individuals (...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This is an action alleging patent infringement and unfair competition. In Count I of its complaint, plaintiff Rite-Hite Corporation (“Rite-Hite”) alleges that defendant Kelley Company’s (“Kelley”) “Truk Stop” truck restraining device infringes a U.S. patent pertaining to plaintiff’s “Dok-Lok” truck restraining device.* Count II alleges that Kelley has produced a motion picture ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This is an action alleging breach of contract, misappropriation, conversion and fraud. The complaint was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, but was removed here on April 4,1983. The matter presently sub judice is plaintiff’s motion to quash a deposition subpoena. The motion is denied. The deposition subpoena was issued to Mr. Charles E. Prieve, an attorney of the firm rep...
Views: 0
Defendants appeal from the two rulings included in the special master’s addendum dated October 3, 1983 to his recommendation of August 17, 1983. These two items are all that remain in dispute of a group of discovery problems originally addressed in the special master’s recommendation of June 8, 1983. In Pretrial Order No. 53, the court decided a number of the disputed issues, but referred four of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Senator Jesse Helms seeks leave to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) in two cases decided by this Court in 1977. In Lee v. Kelley, No. 76-1185, and Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Kelley, No. 76-1186 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1977), this Court ordered that tapes and transcripts generated by Federal Bureau of Investiga*341tion electronic surveillance of Dr. Martin...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider the date of the class and to change the definition of the class. CLASS DATE The Ninth Circuit has not been consistent on the issue of retroactive application of Mohasco v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980). Cf. William v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 665 F.2d 918, 924 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982) and W...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Defendant Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE) has moved this court to dismiss Joanne Amspoker as a named plaintiff in this case on the grounds that she intervened more than 90 days after receipt of her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, and hence is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) from bringing a private Title YII suit. Before discussing the legal issues involv...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE) has moved this court to modify its Order of Class Certification issued October 13, 1981 and December 16, 1981 by excluding certain types of faculty from membership in the class or in each represented subclass. The parties agree that the following groups should not be in the class or in each represented subclass: 1. Faculty ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE) has moved this court to reconsider and modify its Order of Class Certification issued October 13, 1981 and December 16,1981. Defendant argues that the recent Supreme Court decision in General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4)(B) (see...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendant to provide “new and accurate” computer tapes containing statistical data on class members for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, and to provide accurate tapes for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79, which defendant has never provided. Defendant contends the tapes for the earlier two years are not within the scope of discovery becaus...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs have moved this court to compel defendant to answer its Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Generally, these interrogatories ask for information regarding institutions’ “Reduction in Force” (RIF) procedures resulting from budget problems. Defendant objects to the interrogatories on several grounds. First, defendant claims that questions regarding RIF procedures are irrelevan...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant has moved the court to certify the question of the propriety of its class certification orders of September 28, 1982 and October 13, 1981 for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides: *509When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appeal-able under this section, shall be of the opinion that such...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs have moved this court for an order compelling production of certain documents. The documents are generally affirmative action documents, files on sex discrimination complaints, and correspondence to and from defendant’s affirmative action officers or committees. Defendant resists production of these documents, arguing that disclosure of documents containing self-evaluation or self-criti...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this diversity action, plaintiff, Liberty National Bank and Trust Company, filed an initial complaint against defendants, Maylan Yackovich and Helen Yackovich, alleging default on a demand note and requesting judgment in' the amount of $54,737.18. Allegedly, defendant, Maylan Yackovich, in July of 1979, executed a demand note on behalf of South West Construction Company, Inc....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendant brokerage firm (Shearson, Loeb, Rhoades, Inc. [“Shearson”]), acting through the individual defendant broker (Palazzo), engaged in “churning" of their stock accounts in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In CIV-81-277, plaintiff Weber has moved for a joint trial of the cases.1 Defendants oppose a joint trial ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 23(b)(2); CONFERENCE CALL SET TO RESCHEDULE TRIAL AND OTHER DATES I. Introduction The captioned cause is an employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 and 2000e-16, as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiff, a black employee at ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the court on defendants’ objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, which urges the court not to vacate a default that had earlier been entered. On October 23, 1980, plaintiff Burroughs Corporation (“Burroughs”) filed a twelve-count complaint against defendants, Carsan Leasing Company (“Carsan”) and Jerome Kleinfield. Brought under this Court’s diversit...
Views: 0
ORDER Pursuant to this Court’s Order of March 24, 1983, in the above-styled action, Dr. Michael K. Bookman, the Executive Director of the Board of Public Education for the City of Savannah and the County of Chatham, delivered for in camera inspection the documents production of which was requested by the plaintiff in a subpoena duces tecum served upon Dr. Bookman on January 21,1983, to-wit: “[t]h...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL In this action, Plaintiffs bring suit against Defendants for injuries resulting from an exploding water heater, based on theories of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability in tort. Named as Defendants are A.O. Smith Corp., manufacturer of gas water heaters, the White-Rodgers Division of Emerson Electric Co., and Eme...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This securities action is before the court on plaintiff Healy’s motion for class certification. The court grants Healy’s motion with some modifications and conditions. As the court informed the parties at the June 3 status hearing, this opinion is a brief outline of the court’s decision, rather than a complete record of all the court’s reasoning. Familiarity with the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories 1—9, 11-12, 14-15, and 18, defendant’s opposition thereto and the entire record herein. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-9, 11-12,14-15, and 18. For clarity, the Court...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, defendant’s opposition thereto, and the entire record herein. At the outset, the Court notes that defendant has agreed to produce the documents requested in items twenty and twenty-four of plaintiff’s first request for production of documents, as rephrased by plaintiff, to the extent that they...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action alleging breach of an agreement to make a loan of $6,000,000 to *555plaintiff. There are two counts in the complaint. The first count contains the allegations of breach and seeks compensatory damages. The second count seeks punitive damages. Defendant, Banque de Paris et des PaysBas (“Paribas”), moves, pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C), for an order dismissing the fir...
Views: 0
OPINION The State of Delaware, by and through its Attorney General, has moved before this court to intervene as plaintiff as a matter of right, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), in this action. Since Delaware does not meet the requirements for intervention of right or permissive intervention, its motion to join the pending litigation as an intervening plaintiff is denied. Plaintiffs in the present a...
Views: 0
OPINION The plaintiff Lois Johnson has brought this cause of action charging the defendants Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department and its officials with sex discrimination in employment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. This cause is now before the court on Johnson's request that it be maintained as a class action. Upon consideration of...
Views: 1
OPINION The issue to be decided here on motion of third-party defendant Fred S. James & Co. of New York (“James”) involves the proper standard for impleading a third-party defendant under F.R.Civ.P. 14(a) in the context of a declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff in the main action, Old'Republic Insurance Co. (“Old Republic”), a company carrying excess insurance, sued Concast, Inc. (“Concast”), S...
Views: 2
*571MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By motion heard on June 6, 1983 and fully submitted for decision as of June 24, 1983, defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 41(b), F.R.Civ.P. for an order dismissing this class action filed in this Court on August 14,1974, with prejudice and with costs, for neglect to prosecute. The history of this litigation, mentioned below, illuminates an apparent loophole in our establis...
Views: 0
ORDER On July 5, 1983,1 the clerk, at the direction of the court, entered judgment against the defendant under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., and awarded to the plaintiff damages in the amount of $74,466.32. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment to add an award of attorneys’ fees. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)...
Views: 0
ORDER Presently pending before this court is defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs. Defendant objects' to three costs taxed to him: (1) travel expenses for witnesses ($523.00); (2) costs incident to taking of depositions ($883.45); and (3) computer research charges ($1,182.00). *580A. Travel Expenses ($523.00) Plaintiff - seeks to recover the costs of transporting two witnesses to Atl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs have come to this Court pursuant to Rule 45(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of *584Civil Procedure seeking enforcement of discovery subpoenas served on April 1, 1983. The subpoenas were issued by the federal district court in the Western District of Texas, where the case underlying this request is pending. Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain copies of documents furnished by the r...
Views: 1
OPINION This lawsuit arises out of delays in the construction of the exterior or “curtain wall” of the Vista International Hotel at the World Trade Center in New York City. Plaintiffs WTC Hotel Corp. and Hotel Constructors, Inc. (“HCI”)1 allege, inter alia, that the delays were caused by the Flour City Architectural Metals Corp. (“Flour City”), the subcontractor responsible for erecting the curta...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION These cases are before us on the motion of the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary), *595pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), to strike certain defenses in the Amended Answer filed in Donovan v. Robbins, 78 C 4075 (“78 C 4075”), by several defendants, hereinafter to be referred to collectively as “Amalgamated” or “the Amalgamated defendants”1 and to strike certain affirmative defenses...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a declaration that they are entitled to extract *603certain liquid hydrocarbons from natural gas delivered to them pursuant to the so-called 1928 B Contract. See Mapco, Inc. v. Pioneer Corp., 447 F.Supp. 143 (N.D.Tex. 1978), aff’d, 615 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1980), for the background to this controversy. Mapco has moved to dismiss, alleging ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Certain pesticide manufacturers and pesticide industry representatives seek leave to intervene as defendants in this action.1 Although three separate motions to intervene have been filed, the prospective intervenors have asked the Court to designate the law firm of McKenna, Conner & Cuneo as lead counsel on their behalf. For the reasons discussed below, the motions to intervene are gra...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action by the United States against General Motors Corporation (“GM”) under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of an order for, inter alia, the recall and repair of GM 1980 model X-cars. The complaint charges violations of the Act by GM between January, 1979, and Augu...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER 1. The plaintiff, in response to the Court’s order, paragraph (b) of September 16, 1983, to identify documents for which a privilege is claimed, has made known its intention to waive the claim of privilege of “Trial preparation” matter in its Supplemental Response filed with the Court September 30, 1983. The plaintiff has provided the defendant with photocopies of notes of observ...
Views: 0
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; FURTHER PROCEDURES ORDERED Defendant Richard Jacob has moved (doc. # 77) to dismiss Counts 2, 3, 7 and portions of Counts 4 and 5 of the amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs Heist and Efros, for failure to comply with the verification and demand requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.1. The director defendants and Dayco have joined this motion (doc. # 83 & 97). W...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION WEINER, District Judge. This action comes before this three-judge panel constituted by order of the Chief Judge of this district dated August 25,1983 for the purpose of ruling on the motions of defendants Raymark Industries, Inc. (“Ray-mark”) and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (“PCC”) for leave to file a third-party complaint against the United States of America.1 For the reasons that...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court (Oberdorfer, J.) has referred to the Magistrate certain discovery disputes which have arisen between the parties to this litigation. Relevant to the resolution of the scope of discovery issues as to what is relevant to the subject matter is an examination of the allegations of the complaint and the issues as they now appear in view of the answer thereto, inc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Sandy Lewis alleges that he was arrested without probable cause on March 28, 1981 and held in custody on suspicion of being one “Murray Brown, alias Michael Lewis,” a person wanted for possession of controlled substances. Lewis asserts that the police determined through fingerprints that he was not Murray Brown but nevertheless charged him with Brown’s alleged offenses...
Views: 2
The court has requested Special Master Sol Schreiber to consider with counsel and make recommendations to the court with respect to a number of pretrial matters. On one of those matters the special master has recommended in his report dated October 20, 1983, that the protective order of October 14, 1982, relating to discovery material produced by the government be lifted. That report is attached a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, as against defendant Ronald H. Glantz (“Glantz”), brought pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 56. The plaintiffs have.filed, inter alia, the statement of material facts required by Local Rule 12.1(a)(1). Glantz has objected, but has filed no counter-statement of material facts, nor has he rebutted in kind t...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The matter is before the Court upon defendants’ Motion to Strike and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, filed on October 17,1983. Plaintiffs filed an opposition thereto on October 25, 1983, and defendants filed a reply on October 31, 1983. Defendants request the Court to strike the newly asserted claims under the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico laws and to dismiss plaintiffs’ cla...
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