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 → us-dist-lexis → Volume 1995

Opinions in us-dist-lexis Volume 1995

MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action for a declaratory judgment. Plaintiff is Constitution Reinsurance Corporation (“Constitution”), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant is Stonewall Insurance Corporation (“Stonewall”), an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama. Constitution seeks a declarat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action on a debt. Plaintiff is Bay State Milling Company (“Bay State”), a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts. Defendant is Terranova Bakers Supplies Corporation (“Terranova Bakers”), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Bronx, New York. Bay State seeks to recover for goods that B...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This application is before this Court in its capacity as the “rate court” under the Amended Consent Judgment (“Consent Decree”) entered in United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, 1950-51 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 62,595 (S.D.N.Y.1950). The Consent Decree, originally entered in 1941 and extensively amended in 1950, settled the Unit...
Views: 1
*688 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all individuals who purchased common stock of The Leslie Fay Co., Inc. (“Leslie Fay”) between March 28, 1991 and April 5, 1993 (the “Class Period”). The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Before the Court ...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action for copyright and trade dress infringement, tortious interference with contract and unfair competition, defendants Satellite Airlines Ticketing Centers, Inc., 1 A1 Young and William Young (collectively, the “Satellite Defendants”) move, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 56, for (1) judgment on the pleadings di...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This memorandum and order will resolve two outstanding motions filed in this insurance fraud case. The first is Plaintiff Mario Selvaggi’s motion to remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The second motion, filed by Defendants Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Prudential) and Richard DeVogel, seeks ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Presently before the court is Defendant American Red Cross’s (“defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff commenced this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on May 20, 1993. Defendant Red Cross removed the case to this court on June 24,1993. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the following reasons, the Summary Judgment Motion is granted. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are two pretrial motions to suppress evidence. The court has previously described the indictment in this case. See United States v. Messino, 852 F.Supp. 652, 653-54 (N.D.Ill.1994); see also, 865 F.Supp. 511 (N.D.Ill.1994); 855 F.Supp. 973 *1038 (N.D.Ill.1994); 855 F.Supp. 955 (N.D.Ill. 1994); 852 F.Supp. 657 (N.D.Ill.1994); 842 F.Supp. 1107 ...
Views: 1
*75 OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Riddell Sports Inc., (“Riddell”) along with the other counterclaim defendants (collectively, “counterdefendants”) moves the Court to dismiss counts VII through XI of defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Frederic H. Brooks’ (“Brooks”), and counterclaim plaintiff Connecticut Economics Corporation’s (“CEC”) (collecti...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, are members of the defendant, Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America (“Local 100”), which represents employees of the New York City Transit Authority and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority. The plaintiffs belong to the Coney Island Overhaul Section of the Car Maintenance Division,...
Views: 0
OPINION ORDER This is an action under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 741-52, by the owners of the Hyundai New World and parties related in interest (collectively, “plaintiffs”) against the United States of America (the “Government”). Plaintiffs allege that the Hyundai New World ran aground off the coast of Brazil in 1987 as a result of the negligent publication of an inaccurate nau...
Views: 4
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Eskofot A/S (“Eskofot”) against EJ. Du Pont De Nem-ours & Company (“Du Pont”) and Du Pont (U.K.) Limited (“Du Pont U.K.”). Eskofot alleges that defendants have monopolized the domestic and international market for certain printing equipment and materials. Memorandum of Plaintiff Eskofot A/S in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss t...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, M.J.F.M. Kools, a citizen of the Netherlands, brings this diversity action against Citibank, N.A. for alleged fraud and breach of contract arising out of Citibank’s payment on a letter of credit to Jade-USA, Inc. Citibank has moved to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to plead fraud with particularity, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), and failure to state a ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are (1) the Government’s Supplemental Santiago Proffer on the Superseding Indictment (“Supplemental Proffer”), see United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir.1978), as well as various motions related to Santiago issues, or arising out of evidence discussed in the Supplemental Proffer; and (2) the Government’s Notice and Motion in Limine to Adm...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action on behalf of a putative class of recipients of benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependant Children (“AFDC”) program, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., the federal Food Stamps program, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., and the New York State Home Relief program, New York State Soc.Serv.Law § 157 et seq. Jurisdiction exists under...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING This litigation involves the effort of dissident members of the Coushatta Tribe to *1532 prevent casino gaming on lands held in trust for the tribe by the United States. 1 On October 29, 1994, the Governor of Louisiana entered into a Tribal-State Compact with the Coushatta Tribe, a prerequisite to lawful gambling under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. ...
Views: 3
OPINION Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility (“GMCF”) operated by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) at the time of the events relevant here, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged filing of false weapon possession charges against him and for alleged procedural deficiencies in the hea...
Views: 1
BACKGROUND Petitioner George McCrory seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his right to a jury of his peers was violated by the prosecution’s discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Petitioner, an African-American, was found guilty of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Trespass in the Second Degree by an all-white jury on...
Views: 1
*557 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Auburn Correctional Facility operated by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) at the time of the events relevant to this action, brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts various Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Motions Plaintiff moved for partial summa...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Said motion together with Plaintiffs suggestions in support, Defendants’ suggestions in opposition, Plaintiffs reply suggestions, and all accompanying exhibits were reviewed by the Court. After due consideration of the above, for the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was b...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On September 20, 1994, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a one-count indictment charging defendant Ted Russell Perkins II with distributing and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Before the court is defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized at a bus station by members of the Pennsylvania State Polic...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This class action had its genesis on Friday, April 2, 1993. That morning Philip Morris announced that it would reduce the average price on its flagship Marlboro cigarette brand by forty cents per pack. Philip Morris expected that, as a result of this, operating earnings for 1993 from its United States tobacco business would be down as much as forty percent. Less tha...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ and defendants’ objections to Magistrate Judge Lovegreen’s Report and Recommendation of November 9, 1993. For the reasons discussed below, defendants’ underlying motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part. I. FACTS This action arises out of two incidents in which various defendants a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this bankruptcy appeal, appellee McCrory Corporation (“McCrory”) seeks to dismiss some of the appellants in this action. McCrory alleges that appellants Supermarket General Holdings Corporation, U.S. Shoe Corporation, the Disney Store, Incorporated, and the Children’s Place Retail Stores (hereinafter the “Retail Appellants”) lack standing to prosecute a...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”) and Robert L. Bartley (“Bart-ley”) seek disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, of two reports, one prepared by the United States Park Police (the “Park Police”) and the other by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”), concerning the death of former deputy White House...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff American States Insurance Company’s (“American States”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 41), Defendant Insurance Company of North America’s (“INA”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #39), Defendant Travelers Insurance Company’s (“Travelers”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 40...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and its trustee, Howard McDougall (collectively “the Fund”), have brought this action against defendant, Dussault Moving, Inc. (“Dussault”), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for employer contributions allegedly owed to the Fund. Before this Court is plaintiffs’...
Views: 1
OPINION In 1977, defendant’s predecessor in interest purchased the Thomas Y. Crowell book publishing subsidiary (“Crowell”) of plaintiffs predecessor in interest, Dun-Donnelly Corporation. 1 Among Crowell’s publications at the time of the purchase was Dun & Bradstreet’s Guide to $Your Investments$: *105 19XX (the “Guide ”), which has been r...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Pending in each of the above captioned cases is a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants. We will address the motions seriatim. I. Facts These cases arise from Plaintiffs employment with the Defendant, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (“Commission”). In the suit against the Commission (No. 93-1261) and various of its employees (No. 93-...
Views: 0
OPINION This case is before the Court upon remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 14, 1992, this Court entered its opinion in United States v. City of Taylor, Michigan, 798 F.Supp. 442 (E.D.Mich.1992), granting relief to the Plaintiffs and ordering payment of damages and civil penalties. The case was reversed by the United States Court...
Views: 0
The Court has before it the Appeal of Michael G. Rinn, Trustee (“Trustee”), from a Memorandum Opinion issued by James Schneider, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Maryland, on June 28, 1994, denying Trustee’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and dismissing Trustee’s complaint to avoid the liens of First Union National Bank of Maryland (“First Union”). 176 B.R. 390. ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Gwendolyn Woods, Adrienne Greene and Lavonne Harmon (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that Calvin Foster, Robert House, the New Life Outreach Ministries of Chicago (“the Ministries”) and the New Life Baptist Church of Chicago (“the Church”) (collectively “Defendants”) violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), breached a contract with the City of Chicago to t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This civil matter is before the Court by motion of the plaintiff, Omega Sports, Inc. (Omega), which asks us to remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and award it sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. For the reasons that follow, we will grant Omega’s motion to remand, but deny its request for Rule 11 sanctions. I. BA...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Dale Alan Thomas (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Robert Olander (“Defendant”) alleging that the Northampton County Prison law library is inadequate, depriving Thomas of his constitutional right of access to the courts. Defendant Olander is the Warden at Northampton County Prison; Plaintiff Thomas is a prisoner committed to his custody. Defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Midwest Indemnity Corporation (“Midwest”) has brought a third-party suit against Anderson, MePharlin & Conners (“AMC”), G. Wayne Murphy, and Larry E. Robinson 1 for damages arising from their alleged legal malpractice in a California civil action (“Jones Bros, litigation”). This matter is before the court on third-party defendants’ mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on the Manufacturer Defendants’ motion for certification for interlocutory appeal. On October 18, 1994, this court issued an order denying the Manufacturer Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In that motion, the Manufacturer Defendants argued that the plaintiffs were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“JNL”) brings this seven count amended complaint against Gofen & Gloss-berg (“G & G”), Boulevard Bank National Association (“Boulevard”) and the Midwest Securities Trust Company (“MSTC”). 1 Presently before this court are numerous motions to dismiss many of the claims and cross-claims asserted b...
Views: 0
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above-captioned cases involve a breach of contract claim and Declaratory Judgment Act claims seeking to declare the rights and obligations of various insurance underwriters and agents to indemnify Richard and Eloísa Toops (“Toops”), Larry Hurst (“Hurst”), and Thomas Holm (“Holm”) for a $12,020,231.76 judgment entered in their favor in a ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Defendants have requested this Court to remove this case from our trial pool and to extend the time permitted for discovery. They support this request with several reasons. First, that there is an appeal pending before the Third Circuit; second, that discovery remains ongoing; third, that all defendants may want to file summary judgment motions at a later date. We find that these reason...
Views: 0
*438 OPINION & ORDER This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by plaintiff, United States of America, against defendants, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“the IBT”) and the IBT’s General Executive Board. This settlement was embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (“the Consent Decree”). Among other things, the Consent Decree p...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is opened before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Broadcast Music Inc. (“BMI”), and various copyright owners, for a default judgment against defendants DeGallo, Inc., doing business as Club Coco-mo, and Mario DePalola. This matter has been decided upon the written submissions of the plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons given belo...
Views: 0
*689 OPINION In Cane v. Worcester County, 35 F.3d 921 (4th Cir.1994), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Court’s finding that the at-large electoral system used by Worcester County (“County”) for election of the County Board of Commissioners (“Board”) was violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, 1 and reversed and remanded the Court’s imposition of a remedial system bas...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. 9). Plaintiff Debra J. Marshall (Marshall) alleges that Defendants violated her employment-related rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (EPA). Marshall’s complaint originates from alleged sexual harassment that she suffered while working in the Breva...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Court now considers the motion for summary judgment filed by the State of Maryland, Montgomery County Sheriff Raymond Eight and Deputy Sheriff for Montgomery County Darren Popkin (the “state defendants”) and the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Devon Brown, Captain Barbara Ward and Corporal Andre Watts (the “county defendants”). Fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons which follow, the Court will grant the motion. I. Plaintiff, a 67-year old American seaman, filed this action pursuant to the maritime laws of the United States, as amended by the Jones Act, 46 App.U.S.C. § 688 et seq. Plaintiff alleges t...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM SEEKING EXCESS JUDGMENT IN DAMAGES I. INTRODUCTION On June 11, 1993, Plaintiff, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, brought this legal malpractice suit on behalf of the Debtor and her bankruptcy estate. The suit alleged negligence on the part of the Debtor’s counsel and his law firm in their representat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Chicago Area International Brotherhood of Teamsters Health and Welfare, Pension, and Severance and Retirement Trust Funds (“the Funds”) bring this single count action, alleging that defendant Thomas S. Zaccone Wholesale Produce, Inc. (“Zac-cone”) failed to contribute certain required amounts to the Funds, in violation of a labor agreement betwee...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Nilsa M. Ruiz-Rivera brings this complaint against A.D. Moyer, District Di*871rector of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) alleging a violation of her due process rights. INS now moves to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.1 I. ...
Views: 0
873 F. Supp. 1153 (1995) Joan R. FRENDREIS, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. No. 94 C 6690. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 12, 1995. *1154 Arthur M. Gorov, Berkson, Gorov & Levin Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Joan R. Frendreis. Raymond J. Kelly, Jr., Linda P. Kurtos, Seyfarth, Shaw Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, for Blue ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff James Stephen Matthews has filed a first amended complaint against defendants Rollins Hudig Hall Company (“Rollins”), Aon Corporation (“Aon”) and George E. Corde, Sr., alleging in Counts I and II that defendants willfully terminated his employment because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 62...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Both plaintiff and defendants in this age discrimination ease have objected to two rulings by United States Magistrate Judge-Mark D. Fox of December 1, 1994.1 Judge Fox has subsequently vacated all pre-existing discovery deadlines, requested the parties to seek to agree on a schedule for completing discovery, and has scheduled a further conference for March 1, 1995 at 8:45 A.M. ...
Views: 0
OPINION In this case, plaintiff charges that defendant is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for a violation of the Mississippi actionable words statute in connection with an incident during which plaintiff was cursed by a managerial employee in the presence of a supervisor. This cause is presently before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action by Gregory Bullion against his former psychologist, Angelo F. Gadaleto, Ph.D., for breach of professional and fiduciary obligations. Since the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000, and Bullion is a citizen of Virginia and Gadaleto a citizen of Pennsylvania, this court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Gadal...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f), it is a federal crime to commit arson in respect of a property “owned, possessed, or used by, or leased to ... any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance.” A federal jury convicted defendant Cecil Davis of four *1477 charges based on this crime as a result of his participation in an arson committed a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants. Defendants make two main objections to the Interrogatories; first, that statistical evidence is irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims and second, that they do not have the race information sought by plaintiffs and could not gather it without excessive burden. This case allege...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Donald Myers has filed five separate motions in limine with this Court. He addresses all of them in a single memorandum of law, as we resolve of them today. Myers seeks to exclude the following evidence: 1) any evidence regarding the regulatory status by the Food and Drug Administration of pedicle screws; 2) any expert testimony regarding lack of informed co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER WITH SUPPORTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. INTRODUCTION This is a facial challenge on constitutional grounds to certain provisions of Chapter 17-500 of the Philadelphia Code (“Chapter 17-500” or “Ordinance”), a City of Philadelphia (“City”) ordinance creating preferences, or “set-asides,” in City contracting for businesses owned by minorit...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Jane Doe (“Doe”) 1 commenced this employment discrimination action against the County of Milwaukee (“County”) on October 8,1993. On the eve of trial, the County filed a motion to amend its answer and for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons which follow, the court shall grant the County’s motion to amend its ...
Views: 3
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 65(b) I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This matter comes before the court pursuant to Plaintiff Sports Design and Development, Inc.’s d/b/a Bill Lewis Lures (“Bill Lewis Lures”) Application for Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(b) and Civil Seizure Order (# 2) filed January 3, 1995 and motion to sea...
Views: 2
ORDER AND REASONS This matter came before the Court for hearing on a “Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of American Commercial Marine Service Co., Inc.”1 Following oral argument, the Court took the matter under advisement. Having reviewed the memoranda and argument of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment for the following reasons. B...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER On August 18,1994 sixteen-year-old Benjamin Borger (“Borger”) filed this First Amendment civil rights suit (by his father, Darrell Borger), against the Kenosha School District, its superintendent, and its board of education (“School Board”) because they refused to allow the movie “Schindler’s List” to be shown as part of his high school curriculum. Borger now seeks summ...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT In this action, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) seeks to recover on alleged guarantees of the obligations of the trustees of the Seacoast Realty Trust to the now defunct Essexbank. Summary judgment has been entered in favor of the FDIC against Spencer M. Kagan and Ronald S. Rubin. George Linsky and Alan Finn have filed b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Myers has moved this Court to try Corrigan’s negligent credentialling claim against Methodist in a trial separate1 from her other claims. Defendant Davne has filed a joinder to this motion pursuant to Rule 26(b). That rule governs protective orders in the context of discovery, which has no applicability here. Nonetheless, we will treat his joinder as a motion requesting a sep...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petitioner represents himself in this matter and brings this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate the judgment and sentence entered by this court on August 2, 1993. Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court considers Petitioner’s motion without a hearing. After reviewing the Petitione...
Views: 3
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT By agreement, the parties submitted this case for decision on the merits on the administrative record and memoranda without live testimony. For the following reasons, the case is remanded to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs for an additional evidentiary hearing. BACKGROUND Magola De Jesus Flores-Salgado, a Colombian citizen, entered the United States as a non-immigra...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is Skrmetta Machinery Corporation’s “Objections to Order of Magistrate Judge Entered on November 22, 1994,” which is an appeal of the Magistrate’s denial of Skrmetta’s motion to amend its counterclaim and third-party claims. At the request of Skrmetta Machinery Corp. at oral argument on another motion in this case on December 21,1994, this matter...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This action arises out of a snowmobiling accident in Canada. Plaintiffs are Brian J. Miller (“Mr. Miller”) and his wife, Heidi G. Miller (“Ms. Miller”) (collectively, the “Millers”). The Millers are citizens of Connecticut. Defendant is Bombardier, Inc. (“Bombardier”), a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Montreal, Canada. Mr. Miller alleges ...
Views: 0
873 F. Supp. 359 (1995) Johnny QUINONES-RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, the U.S. Customs Service, and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. No. 94-0050 (BTM). United States District Court, S.D. California. January 6, 1995. *360 Alan D. Bersin, U.S. Atty., Donald D. Clausen, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, CA, for the U.S. John F. Cherry, San Diego, CA, for plaintiff. ORDER GRANTIN...
Views: 0
When an agency of the United States becomes the conservator of a failed financial institution and sues directors and officers for causing damage to the institution, the agency must occasionally rely on tolling doctrines to avoid limitations periods that expired before its appointment as conservator. The limitations periods and, in turn, the tolling doctrines are typically governed by state law,...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Adrienne King Hassanein and Richard C. Hassanein (“the Hassaneins”) bring this personal injury cause of action against Aerovías Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. (“Avianea”). Mrs. Hassanein claims she is entitled to recover damages from the defendant as a result of suffering severe emotional distress from her exposure to the rescue scene of the Avianea airpl...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, John Woolfolk, alleges that Defendants, Dr. Theodore G. Duncan, Pennsylvania Hospital (“PH”), and HealthPASS, 1 refused to provide medical treatment because he has tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”). 2 Woolfolk seeks relief pursuant to § 504(a) of Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C.A. § 794(a) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This declaratory judgment action was filed by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (Shelter) on June 22,1994. Shelter seeks a declaration that it does not have a duty to defend a state court lawsuit currently pending between William and Ada Aitken and, inter alia, its insureds, Bill and Janet Gardner. Shelter additionally seeks a declaration that the policy i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand this case to the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama, filed on June 17,1994. The plaintiff, Johnny Shelly (“Shelly”), brought suit in state court alleging causes of action that arise out of defendant’s practice of disconnecting collect telephone calls made from corr...
Views: 0
*956 OPINION I. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of persons purchasing common stock of Defendant Medlmmune, Inc. between January 4 and December 2, 1993, have sued the corporation and various of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities law, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to s...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 17, 1990 the National Credit Union Administration Board (the “Board”) declared Amalgamated Taxi Federal Credit Union (“Amalgamated”) insolvent and appointed itself as liquidating agent. The Board as Liquidating Agent for Amalgamated (“plaintiff”) brought this action under 12 U.S.C. § 1789(a)(2) alleging that defendants fraudulently induced Amalgamated to make certai...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Presently before this court is the December 20, 1993, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David N. Hurd, recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint be granted in part and further that the motion be converted to one for summary judgment and be granted in part and denied in part. Objections to the Report-Recommendation were submitted by the parties a...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ appeal from Magistrate Di Bianco’s November 22, 1994, Decision and Order, see Docket # 38, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for recusal, extended the time for discovery, and stayed both the plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel and the decision as to whether the pro-se plaintiff parents could represent the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER I. HISTORY Plaintiff, Nathaniel Jones-Bey (hereinafter “plaintiff’ or “Jones-Bey”), is presently an inmate at the Maximum Control Complex (hereinafter “MCC”) in Westville, Indiana, On August 3,1993, he filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against various defendants, including officers and officials of the MCC, alleging that the defendants were deliberately indiffe...
Views: 0
*927 ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 5). 1 For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED. I. Factual Background Plaintiffs originally filed their class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) (attaching the Amended and Restated ...
Views: 0
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM The above entitled matter, having come before the Court on the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court, having reviewed the materials on file herein, both in favor of and in opposition to, and having heard the oral argument of the parties, and being fully informed in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows: Background: In 1989, the Uni...
Views: 0
Before the court is the Motion to Remand of Mary P. Booty and Wilton L. Booty, (“plaintiffs”). Shoney’s, Inc. (“Shoney’s”) opposes the motion. This motion, which was set for hearing on January 4, 1995, is before the court on briefs, without oral argument. BACKGROUND This litigation arises out of an alleged slip and fall in a Shoney’s Restaurant which occurred on or about July 28, ...
Views: 1
An opinion and order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, dated August 14, 1991, Association for Retarded Citizens v. Sinner, 942 F.2d 1235 (8th Cir.1991), directed this court to consider the *691 merits of the claim of the State of North Dakota, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5), testing whether, if the injunction has become illegal or changed c...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Appellant, The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Aetna”) appeals three separate orders of the Bankruptcy Court: (1) the May 14, 1993 order, issued by Bankruptcy Judge Conrad, denying administrative expense priority and excise tax priority to Aetna’s claims for $38 million of workers’ compensation payments it made to workers’ compensation funds of various states upon th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the request for class certification under Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) filed by Plaintiffs, George McCree (“McCree”), Bobby Batiste (“Batiste”), Darren Nunn (“Nunn”), and *574Aloysious Wayne Cleveland (“Cleveland”) on November 28, 1994. Plaintiffs filed this action on June 7, 1994, against Sam’s Club, a Divis...
Views: 1
ORDER The above named defendants are charged in a six-count indictment with various crimes arising out of an unsuccessful attempt, on or about February 15, 1990, to free the defendant, Jorge Samuel Cruz, from the Charleston County Jail, where he was being held awaiting sentencing for an earlier drug-related conviction. All three defendants were charged in Count 1 with conspiring to assist in th...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the early morning of May 8, 1990, the defendants Norman Pahs (incumbent candidate for LaPorte County Commissioner) and Lee Mumaw (Executive Director of the La-Porte County Maintenance Building Department) saw plaintiff Harry Parish (a county janitor supervised by Mr. Mumaw) erecting a campaign sign for a candidate opposing Mr. Pahs in the Democratic primary. The defendan...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On December 19,1994, prior to the trial of Defendant Kevin D. Mangum, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant’s “Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence,” as well as the Defendant’s “Motion for Disclosure of Confidential Informant and Exculpatory Information.” On that date, the Defendant also filed a “Motion to Bifurcate Trial ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Plaintiff North Penn Transfer, Inc. (North Penn) filed this action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 10741 and 10762 to recover freight charges allegedly owed by the defendant, The Maple Press Company (Maple Press). North Penn is a freight carrier presently operating as a debtor in possession under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, administered before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the E...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellants George Ryan and Gloria E. Fu-naro appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eisenberg, Judge, which denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment, granted appellee trustee’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and declared certain mortgages, notes, and proceeds therefrom, to be property of the debto...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motions to vacate entry of default and for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs complaint. Also before the Court are plaintiffs motions for default judgment and to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Lorton Correctional Facility (Lorton), alleges that defendants violated his righ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff in this case, Laile E. Fair-bairn, previously was employed as an assistant superintendent of schools for educational services by the defendant Board of Education of South Country Central School District (“Board”). Her job was eliminated on June 30, 1992, apparently for budgetary reasons. Fairbairn has contended that the Board authorized in August 1992 another ...
Views: 0
OPINION Before the Court is the motion of William Hankins for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 88. Mr. Hankins’ motion is based on the newly discovered affidavit of Barbara Lovett, a co-conspirator who testified on behalf of the government during the trial. This affidavit was submitted on May 9,1993, in a civil forfeiture action for a 1989 Ford van. In this a...
Views: 0
*581 OPINION Defendants Daniel Palmadessa (“Daniel”), Donald Palmadessa (“Donald”), William Pal-madessa (“William”), Supreme Recycling, Inc. (“Supreme”) and Fortune Interior Dismantling Corporation (“Fortune”) have moved for dismissal of the complaint (the “Complaint”) of plaintiffs Red Ball Interior Demolition Corporation, a New York corporation (“Red Ball”) and John Palmade...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the pending portion of defendant Clement A. Messino’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Seized During Execution of Warrants of Seizure and Monition Pursuant to Civil Forfeiture Proceedings.1 I. INTRODUCTION The court first commented on this motion in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 19, 1994, 1994 WL 722742, at *1-3. In that opinion the co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Southland Terrace Associates purchased a Louisville, Kentucky, shopping center (the “Center”) from defendant Mellon Bank, N.A. in 1992. During negotiations to purchase the property, Mellon allegedly provided plaintiff with a report prepared by Diagnostic Environmental Inc. (“DEI”) which purported to describe the extent of asbestos-containing material in the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before this court is defendant Emmanuel Vlamakis’ motion to withdraw his plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the following reasons, Vlamakis’ motion is denied. I. FACTS Emmanuel Vlamakis was the sole defendant named in a one-count information filed in the Northern District of Illinois on June 22, 1994. The sole count ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. The parties have submitted memo-randa in support of their respective positions and the matter is mature for the Court’s consideration. This action was initiated in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia on September 28, 1992. Plaintiffs original tort claim for negligence and products liability was...
Views: 2
*324 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to transfer venue. For reasons that follow, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED but their motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. I This Court has previously stated the standard used to evaluate contested personal jurisdiction is: ...
Views: 0
ORDER STRIKING JURY DEMAND This matter comes before the court pursuant to plaintiff/counterclaim defendant’s November 10, 1994, motion to strike jury demand (docket number 16). Defendant and counterclaim plaintiff David Garst filed a counterclaim in this action on October 6, 1994. That same date, David Garst also filed a demand for jury trial on the counterclaim. Plaintiff and counterclai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 8,1994 this matter came on for trial before the Court sitting without a jury. Following the presentation of evidence by the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement, and Ordered the parties to submit post-trial briefs. The parties have complied and this matter is ripe for adjudication. I. The plaintiffs, railroad companies ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Exportadora Frupac Ltda. (“Frupac”) against Yashiro Senpaku Kaisha Ltd. (“Yashiro”), M/V YASAKA REEFER (the “Yasaka”), Nichiro Corp. (“Nichiro”), Windle Shipping Co. Ltd. a/k/a Wendel Shipping (“Wendel”), Compañía Sud Americana De Vapores a/k/a CSAV (“CSAV’), and Great White Fleet, Ltd. (“GWF”). Frupac brought the instant action seeking damages for...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner Harry Nicks seeks to vacate his 1974 conviction and 1975 sentencing before Judge Whitman Knapp of this Court on a charge of armed bank robbery. Nicks claims that he was deprived of a constitutionally required competency hearing before sentencing. Judge Knapp granted relief. The Second Circuit reverse...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant, Osram Sylvania, Inc. (“Osram”) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for a Stay of Proceedings. Plaintiff, Midland American Sales—Wein-traub, Inc. (“Midland”) opposes both requests. For the reasons set forth, Osram’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, rendering its alternative Motion for a Stay of Proceedings moot. Pert...
Views: 0
ORDER In this civil action, plaintiff Herbert Kopf alleges federal claims of (1) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub.L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (1985)) and (2) employment discrimination based on disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Pub....
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is a motion brought by defendants First Investors Corporation (“FIC”) and Howard Froman (“Froman”) (together the “defendants”) seeking to compel arbitration, to stay the present action and to impose the cost of bringing this motion on plaintiff, James R. O’Donnell, Jr. (“O’Donnell”). Defendants argue that the underlying action brought by O’Donnell, concerning hi...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Reynaldo Rodriguez brings this three count action, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Presently before the court is defendant Board of Trustees of the City of Aurora Police Pension Fund’s motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted. I. Bac...
Views: 0
*540 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Messing brings this action for damages against defendants Carl Rosenkrantz, EMSA, a Florida limited partnership, and Provident Imaging Consultants, Inc. (“PIC”), claiming fraud and breach of an employment contract. The Court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants have moved to the stay proceedings...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Valarie Hudson and Cynthia Freeman (“Plaintiffs”) allege that, while they worked for Defendant Soft Sheen Products, Inc. (“Soft Sheen”), Defendant Larry Allen (“Allen”), a vice president of Soft Sheen, sexually harassed them. They bring two counts under Title VII and one count each under common law theories of negligent retention and battery. Allen moves ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action arises from an altercation on May 22, 1989 in which defendant Kevin Kelly, a New York City Correction Officer, shot plaintiff Michael Longin. Plaintiffs assert federal and state claims against defendant Kelly individually and the City of New York (the “City”). The City moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ federal claim, brought pursuant to 42...
Views: 2
OPINION and ORDER The Complaint in this much-publicized matter alleges that the Defendants engaged in the design and implementation of experiments from 1960 to 1972 to study the effects of massive doses of radiation on human beings in preparation for a possible nuclear war. The experiments utilized terminal cancer patients who were not informed of the consequences of their participation n...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above-entitled matters having come before the Court upon motions for summary judgment by the plaintiffs and the various defendants, and the Court having reviewed the materials on file herein, having heard the oral arguments of the parties, and being fully advised in the pre...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (# 46) filed by Defendants on October 11, 1994. Plaintiff Carole Marsh Carter filed an Opposition (# 51) on November 4, 1994, and an Errata (#52) thereto on November 14, 1994. Defendants filed a Reply (# 57) on December 9, 1994. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND According to the facts as presented in Plaintiffs Second Amend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because matters outside the pleadings have been presented, the Court treats the motion as one for summary judgment and disposes of it as provided in Rule 56. The parties have submitted memoranda in support of thei...
Views: 0
873 F. Supp. 927 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, v. Dave E. SCHEINER. Cr. A. No. 94-287-1. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 15, 1995. *928 *929 Donald J. Goldberg, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll and Theodore Simon, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants. Lee Dobkin, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for the U.S. MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. Def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs ask this Court to reconsider 1 its dismissal of their Title VI claims against the City of Chicago (“City”) and *130 grant them leave to file a Third Amended Complaint containing such claims, as well as a refined version of their Title VI claim against the Chicago Board of Education (“CBOE”). 2 In support of their Motion, plaintiffs claim that they...
Views: 1
7. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...........................................1302 A. Procedural History...................................................1302 B. Identification Of Plaintiff’s Claims ...................................1303 1. Lack Of A Jurisdictional Statement..............................1303 2. Plausible Federal Claims ............
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs motion is granted. BACKGROUND This is an insurance coverage case. The plaintiff, Petersen Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“PS & G”), brought this action against the defenda...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Nashaat N. Antonious (“Antonious”) and Soheir F. Antonious (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring this action against Dawud Muhammad, Goldome, Charles Raab, the County of Rockland (“Rockland County”), detectives Ronald Taggart and Mary Murphy, Assistant District Attorneys (“ADAs”) John Grant and Walter J. Green, Jr., and District Attorney (“DA”) Kenneth ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, an osteopathic doctor, has sued defendants claiming that their refusal of orthopedic surgical staff privileges to him constitutes a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Defendants contend that one of several immunities entitles them to summary judgment. After careful consideration of the arguments ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action for breach of contract brought by Elite Parfums, Ltd. (“Elite”), a Delaware Corporation which has its principal place of business in Manhattan. Defendant Pedro Rivera, individually and doing business as El Mago Perfumes & Cosmetics, is a citizen of Texas and brings this motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER This action arises out of a series of insurance transactions involving. Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate” or “plaintiff’) and defendants, thirty-three reinsurance companies. 1 Pursuant to New York Insurance Law section 1213(c)(1), Allstate contends that each defendant must post a pre-filing security in an amount sufficient to cover Allstate’s claim agai...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Plaintiff Robert Chambers in this age discrimination case has objected to two rulings by United States Magistrate Judge Mark D. Fox of November 17, 1994. The first order declined to authorize ex parte interviews by plaintiffs counsel of defendant Capital Cities/ABC (“Capital Cities” or “defendant”) current employees.1 Plaintiff argues that the result is to make it effectively i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Jose Medina has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his convictions on February 27, 1986 and sentence for murder and arson in the Supreme Court, Westches-ter County. Petitioner’s prosecution arose from a fire in a building in which a mother and her son were found dead; petitioner was heard by witnesses to say that ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Plaintiff North River Insurance Company (“North River”) has moved for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Dutchess County (the “County”) under the County’s policy with North River with respect to allegations of improper law enforcement conduct asserted in Fodelmesi v. Schepperly, 87 Civ. 6762. Nor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Memorandum and Order addresses two outstanding motions in this dispute. The first is a motion filed by the defendants, who seek an award of summary judgment against Plaintiff Catherine J. Killian as to Counts I through V and Count VII of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint, as well as a summary judgment award against Plaintiff Richard E. Grossbe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM These consolidated diversity actions involve a dispute between a primary and an excess insurance company. Before the court are cross motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pennsylvania law applies to both cases. The dispute arises over a complicated settlement of a state court personal ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter has been opened before the Court upon the motion of the defendant Ka-pral to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, a Chevrolet “Blazer.” The Court has *1343received written submissions from the parties, heard the oral arguments of counsel, and held a hearing on this matter at which the testimony of witnesses was received. Upon consideration of the foregoing and for the r...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COMERICA BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action is brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for environmental contamination of property allegedly caused by defendants Graying Reel, Inc. and Mill & Abrasive Supply, ...
Views: 0
RULING This case involves claims brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation against former directors of First Bank of Pineville, Louisiana, alleging breach of fiduciary duty of care and loyalty. Before this court is the motion of defendant Randolph A. Monsur for a judgment on the pleadings. Defendant Monsur argues that (1) the FDIC’s complaints are barred by prescription and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto, and the Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Because the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court will GRANT the Defendant’ Motion. I. ...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Levy, Phillips & Ko-nigsberg (“LPK”), has moved for an order directing Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (“Aetna”) to pay attorney fees and disbursements pursuant to New York State Worker’s Compensation Law § 29. For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The Parties, Prior Proceedings and Facts The parties, facts, and p...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER The third-party plaintiff, United Arab Shipping Co. (S.A.G.) (“UASC”), moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment on its third-party claims for indemnity against third-party defendant, Universal Maritime Services Corp. (“Universal”). 1 UASC asserts that Universal owes it money for damage that occurred to a ship...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff makes five separate claims of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. First, plaintiff alleges Sgt. Martin Smith kicked him in the head on April 13,1992. Second, plaintiff asserts Officer Donald Harmon attacked him without provocation on May 25,1992. Third, plaintiff asserts defendants Harmon and Captain Richard Humphrey used exc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants, John Geils, Richard Weber, Peggy Walberg, Richard Reimer, Joseph Krass, Robert Strandt and Barbara Wan-zung, have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs, James Garry and Thomas Thompson, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings. For the reasons stated below, the defendants’...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER The plaintiffs have moved for an order remanding this action to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County and awarding costs and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 1 For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that an award of costs and expenses is unwarranted. Therefore, the cas...
Views: 1
873 F. Supp. 147 (1995) UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALG, INC. d/b/a Aviation Leasing, Group, Inc. and Tajik Air Limited, Defendants. No. 94 C 3619. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 18, 1995. *148 Christina M. Tchen, Miriam Goldman Bahcall, Esther N. Iwerebon, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Chicago, IL, for United Airlines, Inc. John Scott ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, appearing pro se in this action, 1 alleges that Defendant, in failing to hire him, discriminated against him on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Defendant has moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Kimberly Riley and Laura Carros commenced this action against their former employer, Technical and Management Services Corporation (“TAMSCO”). They contend that TAMSCO discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and retaliated against them for raising discrimination and sexual harassment concerns in violation of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 20...
Views: 0
873 F. Supp. 1560 (1995) John Stephan PARISIE v. James T. MORRIS, Chairman of Georgia State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles; J. Wayne Garner, Bettye O. Hutchings, and Bobby K. Whitworth, members of Georgia State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles; Michael P. Sullivan, Parole Decision Guidelines employee; and Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, State of Georgia. No. 1:94-CV-1476-RCF. United States District Co...
Views: 0
*1551 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This action is before the court on several summary-judgment motions. Redwing Carriers, Inc., (“Redwing”) brought this action primarily under 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(f), part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), t...
Views: 4
ORDER This action is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel [31-1], (2) Defendant Judge Dorothy A. Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [34-1], (3) Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment [37-1], (4) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [38-1], (5) Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument on All the Motions for Summary Judgment [38-...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, damages and attorney fees. Defendants have filed briefs in opposition and plaintiffs have filed their reply. For the reasons and in the manner discussed below, the motion is granted. 1. BACKGROUND In a Memorandum Opinion date July 16, 1993, the Court narrowed the claims in t...
Views: 0
I. Defendants Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”), Yourdon, Inc. (“Yourdon”), Thomas A. Walker, John Kucik and Michael French have moved for an order precluding the quid pro quo discrimination claims of plaintiffs Susan Q. Bridges, Virginia D’Aponte and Kimberly Muryasz. The motion is denied. Plaintiffs brought a claim against Defendants Kodak, Yourdon, Walker, Kucik, French, Kevin Cash, Mary H...
Views: 0
*459OPINION AND ORDER This is a putative class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure brought by members of The Directors’ Guild of America (“DGA”) against the DGA, the DGA-appointed Trustees of the DGA-Producers Pension Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), and the DGA-Producers Pension Trust. Plaintiffs claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation to its member...
Views: 2
OPINION Traffic accident in Michigan. Interstate truck driver from Michigan routinely hauls to and from Illinois. Does this Court in Illinois have personal jurisdiction over him? No. I. BACKGROUND On July 22, 1992, Wanda Obermeyer, an Illinois resident, had car problems on Interstate 1-96 near South Haven, Michigan. As a result of the problems, she ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Jacksons instituted this products liability suit against Mazda Motor of America, Ine. (“MMA”) alleging personal injury resulting from a one car accident in the District of Columbia. The Jacksons’ complaint sets forth claims for relief based on strict liability in tort, negligence, failure to warn and breach of implied warranty. After conducting discovery, MMA moved for ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court is the motion for partial summary judgment of defendant WDSU-Television, Inc. (“WDSU”) and John Carpenter seeking dismissal of plaintiffs claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the motion of defendant John Carpenter (“Carpenter”) seeking dismissal of all of plaintiffs claims against him individually. The Co...
Views: 2
873 F. Supp. 1277 (1995) Russell C. DOANE, Plaintiff, v. Mike ESPY, Secretary United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. No. 91-C-0852-C. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. January 5, 1995. Alan R. Malasky, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Christa A. Reisterer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Madison, WI, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER CRABB, Chief ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER The defendants’ have submitted an application for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in accordance with an order of the Court dated October 22, 1994. In that order the Court granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorneys under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs commenced this action under 4...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER At the conclusion of the both the plaintiffs case and the entire case, the defendants made a variety of motions on the record for judgment as a matter of law, as to which the Court reserved decision. On January 4,1995 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The jury unanimously determined that the plaintiff Marshall Crowley (“Crowley”) did not prove that the B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER In this diversity case, the defendants Signal Technology Corp. (“Signal”) and Ditric Optics, Inc. (“Ditric”) move pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c) for a judgment on the pleadings (1) dismissing the complaint as against the defendant Signal, and (2) dismissing the tenth cause of action in the complaint as against the defendant Ditric. The basis of the underl...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER The United States has commenced this action under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“The Fair Housing Act” or “Act”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, alleging that the defendants engaged in discriminatory housing practices on the basis of handicap against Josephine and Joseph Palasciano (“Palascianos”). The Palascianos move to intervene as of right i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This Clean Water Act case involves property on Big Pine Key, an island located in a chain of islands known as the Florida Keys. The United States alleges that the Defendant, Parks B. Banks, unlawfully placed pollutants in the form of fill material in adjacent freshwater wetlands without a permit. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345 and 135...
Views: 0
ORDER (1) AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER DENYING CONFIRMATION OF DEBTOR’S PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND DISMISSING CASE DATED AUGUST 24, 1993, AND (2) AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER ON DEBTOR’S EMERGENCY MOTIONS DATED AUGUST 27, 1993 BEFORE THIS COURT is University Creek Plaza, Ltd.’s (“University”) appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Denying Confirmation of Debtor’s Plan of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The court has before it a discovery motion in one of two related actions involving a dispute between North River Insurance Company (“North River”), an excess insurance carrier, and Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), a primary insurance carrier. In essence, the actions concern the payment of a settlement of a state court personal injury action brought by one Sandra M...
Views: 0
OPINION AND FINAL ORDER This case is before the Court on each party’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Court finds no material issue of fact, and resolves all legal issues in favor of Defendant, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs motion. I. Factual and Procedural History In 1987, Dorothy Dennis purchased a life insuranc...
Views: 0
*431 MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant, Aluminum Company of America (“Alcoa”), has moved this Court to transfer venue of this action to the Western District of Pennsylvania. The motion to transfer venue was briefed by all parties and an oral argument on the motion was held on December 7, 1994. Based upon the briefs submitted by the parties as well as the oral arguments, this C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a Part I petition to perpetuate testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27. For the reasons that follow, we grant the petition. Alpha Industries, Inc. (“petitioner”), a manufacturer of military-style clothing and goods in the United States, asserts that Mika Overseas Corporation (“respondent”) ships and distributes Alpha jackets to Japan. Petitioner has four ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction This case arises out of the termination of plaintiffs employment with defendant Polychrome. Plaintiff, Paul Reilly, alleges that his refusal to report to work when instructed to do so was not a material breach of his contract and that he was therefore fired without cause. He further contends that Polychrome has unfairly withheld sa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Mutual Service Corporation (“MSC”) and Carol A. Holesha (“Holesha”) have sued Margaret Spaulding and the co-trustees of the Helen Spaulding Trust, Joseph P. O’Connell and James Weber, seeking to vacate an arbitration award, and the defendants have in turn counterclaimed for enforcement of the award. Both MSC and Holesha now move to vacate the arbitration a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves several claims of discrimination asserted against the Rector and Board of Visitors (“the Board”) of the University of Virginia (“UVA”) and certain Deans and faculty members of the UVA School of Architecture, Department of Urban Planning (also “Department”), by Plaintiff Collin pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cour...
Views: 3
RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND The plaintiffs, thirteen former employees of the defendant, the Hamilton Standard Division of United Technologies Corp. (“United Technologies”), bring this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp.1994) (“ERISA”). In their Second Amended Co...
Views: 0
873 F.Supp. 227 (1995) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AREL, INC., Defendant. No. 4:93CV01441 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. January 19, 1995. *228 Peter W. Herzog, Jr., Herzog and Crebs, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff. Edward C. Cody, Klutho and Cody, St. Louis, MO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GUNN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Alford T. Ford, Jr., plaintiffs’ son, sustained a fatal gunshot wound during an arrest. Mr. and Mrs. Ford allege claims both individually and on behalf of the decedent’s estate. This matter is before the court for consideration of *151 defendants’ motions to dismiss (doc. # 10, # 15 and # 17). I....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter, an action arising partly under various federal and state statutes and alleging illegal discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, is now before the court on the “Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice” filed by all parties on January 6, 1995. The parties have apparently resolved their disputes. A part of the resolution is that defendants wi...
Views: 0
I. INTRODUCTION These matters, which are consolidated for pretrial purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, are before the Court upon early Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants 1 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) and American Durafilm Company, Inc. (American Durafilm), and upon a Motion to Dismiss, Sever and Remand by Duke University and Dr. Edward A. Dolan (Duke Defendan...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action object to the findings of United States Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV contained in his Report and Recommendation, which resolves a dispute over the amount of attorney fees and costs properly imposed on plaintiffs as a condition to filing their Fourth Amended Complaint.1 For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recomme...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case arises under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), which creates statutory trusts in favor of unpaid sellers of perishable goods. Plaintiffs are unpaid sellers seeking trust benefits totalling $191,180.56 from the defendant Seo Young Ho in his capacity as the sole shareholder, officer, and director of Tradefield Produce Corporation (“Tradefi...
Views: 2
OPINION There have been tried to the Court two declaratory judgment actions brought by insurers, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company (“Atlantic”) and Insurance Company of North America (“INA”), against two insured coffee traders, Van Ekris & Stoett, Inc. (“VES”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Balfour Maclaine International, Ltd., and Armenia Coffee Corporation (“Armenia”) which they respectively ins...
Views: 0
The Resolution Trust Corporation (the “RTC”) appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Brozman, B.J.) (“the Bankruptcy Court”) dated May 31, 1994 and docketed June 3, 1994 (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the Appellees’-Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization dated January 14, 1994 under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon the Defendant Peter Halmos’ Motion to Enjoin SafeCard Services, Inc.’s Violation of the Court’s Final Order of Dismissal. The Motion has been fully and extensively briefed, and is now ripe for disposition. The original complaint in this case was filed on March 14, 1989, by a SafeCard shareholder — Thomas Wolfe — individually and on beha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Lloyd Hope and Constance Fennell, the parents of plaintiff Moyo Hope (“Moyo”), a 14 year-old minor, brought this action pursuant to (i) title II of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., 1 (ii) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Section 2000d”), 2 (iii) the Civil Rights Act of 18...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Darryl Wallace (‘Wallace”) brought this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Wallace’s status as a fugitive from justice warrants dismissal of the petition. I. FACTS On April 19,1989, Wallace was convicted in New York State court of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the thi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before this Court today is Plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges causes of action under theories of breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference and fraud. The immediate relief requested is an order that would: 1) enjoin Defendants from using, copying, developing derivative works from, or transferring in any way ...
Views: 0
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In this consolidated action, three former advertising executives allege that they were unlawfully terminated by reason of their age. The case was assigned to the writer, sitting without a jury, for the purpose of determining whether, under Ford Motor Company v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 102 S.Ct. 3057, 73 L.Ed.2d 721 (1982), plaint...
Views: 2
CONTENTS of MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page I.INTRODUCTION ⅞0 05 II.AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED 05 1496 III. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN STATE COURT AND IN PRIOR FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS INSTITUTED BY HO-GUE 1500 IV. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HOGUE’S GUILT 1500 A. Witness Crawford 1503 B. Witnes...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York is a default judgment entered on October 28,1994 in the amount of $500,000 against West Side Federation for Senior Housing, Inc. (“West Side”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Euclid Hall Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. (“Euclid” and, together with West S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Susan W. Vannoy, has moved for entry of an order permitting a jury trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(b). 1 On July 22, 1994, Vannoy instituted this action against Jay A. Cooper and Mommy Market Productions, Inc. by filing a Motion for Judgment in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. Vannoy seeks damages for personal injuries arising out of a...
Views: 0
Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff Elton Holmes, an inmate at Tidewater Correctional Unit #22, has filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with jurisdiction vested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff complains that, while he was housed at Dillwyn Correctional Center [“DCC”], defendants downgraded his Good Conduct Allowance [“GCA”] status without providing him with the due proc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case of first impression presents the need to decide when a partnership’s obligation on a debt “arose” for purposes of holding incoming partners personally liable on that debt. See Va.Code § 50-17 (codifying Uniform Partnership Act (“the Act”) § 17). The parties stipulated most of the facts and presented evidence on those not stipulated. The issues have ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the Court are the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”)1 and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment, each filed following the return of a jury verdict for the Plaintiff on November 1, 1994, in the above-captioned case. Upon careful review of the pleadings, the relevant case law, the oral argument of counsel at the Decembe...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an employment discrimination case. Emmanuel A. Daramola alleges Westinghouse Electric Corporation wrongfully discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. At the conclusion of trial in October of 1994, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Westinghouse ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Caterpillar Brasil, S.A. (“Caterpillar Brasil”) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Caterpillar maintains that it does not possess the requisite minimum contacts necessary for this court to invoke jurisdiction. Because this court finds that Caterpillar did maintain minimum contacts w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this case to the Judicial District Court in Jefferson County on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction. After considering the respective positions of the parties concerning the motion to remand, this court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Calcasieu Communications, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, is the gen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is now before the court on the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Tom Tate (“Tate”), Larry Ikner (“Ikner”), Simon Benson (“Benson”), Mike Barnett (“Barnett”), Morris Thigpen (“Thigpen”), Tom Allen (“Allen”), Marian Shinbaum (“Shinbaum”), W.E. Johnson (“Johnson”), and Charlie Jones (“Jones”). 1 For the reasons stated belo...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff brings this diversity jurisdiction breach of contract action alleging that defendant dismissed her from its School of Medical Technology (the “School”), without cause, in breach of defendant’s policies and procedures. Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment, along with supporting and opposing memoranda, affidavits and exhibits. Fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This is a consolidated class action alleging that defendants Lotus Development Corporation (“Lotus”), James P. Manzi (the Lotus Chief Executive Officer and Chairman) and Edwin J. Gillis (the Chief Financial Officer) knowingly made certain false and misleading public statements in violation of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. SUMMARY In July 1994, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (the “Veterans”), which has traditionally sponsored the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston (the “Parade”), instituted this action against the City of Boston (the “City”) and its Mayor. The Veterans request a declaratory judgment and injunction to compel the City to issue the Veterans...
Views: 1
*222 MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on various motions. Plaintiff is a Missouri inmate who was incarcerated at the Potosí Correctional Center when he filed the instant suit. Plaintiff claims that defendant prison officials violated his due process, equal protection and ex post facto rights by applying a new policy linking assignment and compensation for prison jobs to educational ac...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Tom William Pridy and Ronald Keck. Plaintiff Frankie Schwartz filed suit against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging that defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and participated in a conspiracy. Plaintiff seeks monetary ...
Views: 0
The proposition presented by this case is a prototype of what may be expected in the wake of the 1990 enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Susan Fisher, a grade-school music teacher, contends that the Somerville School District and several of its officials violated her right to a workplace free of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil *450 Rights Act of 1964 by failing to respon...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, reflecting long-standing federal practice, prohibit the presence of any person in the grand jury room other than the grand jurors themselves while the grand jury is deliberating or voting. Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(d). 1 By contrast, the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, reflecting long-standing state practice, permit the prosecut...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., by denying them severance pay. Defendants move for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court grants defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are fo...
Views: 0
*426 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Cameron K. Wehringer, pro se, has brought this legal malpractice action, alleging that Powers & Hall was professionally negligent in representing Wehringer, as plaintiff, in Wehringer v. Brannigan, Essex Superior Court Docket No. 87-2558. Weh-ringer specifies a variety of allegedly negligent acts that purpor...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on Appellant’s, Ervin Staggs (hereinafter: “Staggs”), appeal of United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Grant’s Decision wherein Judge Grant ruled that Appellee, James Forrester (hereinafter: “Forrester”), was entitled to summary judgment. In re Staggs, 178 B.R. 767 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1994). For the following reasons, the Bankruptcy Court’...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Plaintiffs moved this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) for an order directing defendant to provide the names and addresses of all potential plaintiffs herein and authorizing court-approved notice of pendency of action to be mailed to such potential plaintiffs1. The potential plaintiffs are described as salaried, exempt employees, 40 years of age or over, employed by ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION At an initial pretrial conference held on November 9, 1994, the parties indicated that the principal roadblock to successful settlement discussions was their disagreement regarding the plaintiffs ability to recover lost profits should there be a finding that there was a binding contract between the parties. At the conference it was agreed that the parties would submit memor...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER This action involves the contractual relationship among the plaintiffs Manuel and Esther Kitrosser, also known as Manny and Esther Kay (“Mr. Kay,” “Mrs. Kay,” or “the Kays”), two corporations formed by Mr. Kay known as Top Form Mills, Inc. (“Top Form”) and Top Blush Corporation (“Top Blush”) (collectively referred to as “the Corpora *461 tions”), and the d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Don Campbell has brought suit against the Illinois Department of Corrections, Michael O’Leary, Howard Peters, Charles Williams, John Groves, Michael Lane and Carol Mills, alleging that defendants kept him imprisoned beyond his legal release date in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On Februa...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After a bench trial on the issue of liability, 1 the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact 1. The plaintiffs are five former employees of Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (“Bell of Pennsylvania”) and New Jersey Bell Telephone Company (“New Jersey Bell”) who voluntarily ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this insurance dispute, defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) moves, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In the alternative, Scottsdale moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1404 and 1406, to dismiss or transfer the action on the grounds of im...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated hereinafter, Defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED. I On October 19, 1993, Plaintiff Phyllis F. Shore filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that her former employer, A.W. Hargrove Insurance Agency, Inc., (“Hargrove”) had discharged her and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Richard Abrazinski is a Maine prison inmate serving a ten year sentence for burglary and other charges. A portion of his confinement was .served in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections facilities. He brings this suit against numerous defendants, for claims which stem from events occurring in the Massachusetts prison system. Presently before the court i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case questions the constitutionality of a rule of the Rhode Island House of Representatives which plaintiffs claim is interpreted and enforced so as to allow governmental lobbyists onto the floor of the House while the House is in session while denying lobbyists for private organizations the same access. Plaintiffs claim that this rule, Rule 45, violates thei...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”), in its capacity as liquidating agent of Barnstable Community Federal Credit Union (“BCFCU”), seeks a declaratory judgment that the title insurance policy issued by defendant, Ticor Title Insurance Company (“Ticor”) to BCFCU on a Cape Code motel is in full force and effect. It has also asserted ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America (“State Mutual”), the insured, brings this action seeking a declaration pursuant to Mass.Gen.L. Ch. 231A that defendant Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (“Lumbermens”), the insurer, owed it a duty to defend and indemnify it for the costs of litigatin...
Views: 1
ORDER This ease is now before the court for consideration of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding the constitutionality of the Utah adultery statute, Utah Code Ann. 76-7-103. The magistrate judge recommends that summary judgment be entered in favor of defendants on this, the only issue remaining in the case. Plaintiff has filed a general objection only to ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Daniel Immediato, a Rye Neck high school student and resident of Mamaroneck, New York in this district, together with his parents, Diane and Eugene Immediato, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of a mandatory community service program (“the Program”), described below, established by Defendants Rye Neck Scho...
Views: 0
I. INTRODUCTION This cause comes before the court upon Defendant United States of America’s (“United States”) motion for summary judgment on all counts pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Responses were filed by Carroll, Welch, McKinney, Bennett, Doucey and Weliever (Plaintiffs in this action); Solar Sources, Inc. (Defendants and Cross-Defendants); and Control Syst...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the court is WEB COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.’S MOTION IN LI-MINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO BRUCE JENSEN IN PLAINTIFF’S CASE. By way of this motion WEB COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., (“Web”) seeks to exclude, in its case, certain designated exhibits relating to payments made by Gary Jacobsen, Web’s principal officer, to Bruce Jensen for work contracted by Gateway 2000, ...
Views: 0
OPINION Petitioner Edwin D. Wood has an appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of this Court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, but is scheduled to be transferred to another institution for administrative reasons. Petitioner ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM—DECISION AND ORDER The defendant the Long Island Railroad Company (the “Railroad”) moves this Court under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order granting the Railroad a new trial on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive. As an alternative remedy, the Railroad asks for remittitur reducing the jury’s award. For the reasons set...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Madera Broadcasting, Inc. (“Madera”) moves this Court under Rules 12(b)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order dismissing this action on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over defendant and the subject matter of this litigation. Madera also moves under Rule 56 for partial summary judgment, arguin...
Views: 0
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Donald R. Morrison (“petitioner”) brings this action to quash an administrative summons served by respondent Martha Bowman upon Karen Novak, legal counsel at Milk Marketing. This matter is before the Court, pursuant to E.D.Order 91 — 3(III)(B), on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the respondent United States of America. On August 3, 1994, the Internal Revenue S...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT Defendant Ronald Collis was indicted in this action on October 13, 1994. In Count I, defendant was charged with obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 for submitting to a Federal District Court a bogus letter requesting leniency for himself. The letter allegedly bore the forged endo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This is an action for review of a decision made by the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) and its Commissioner. Judicial review of the FDA’s decision is authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. The plaintiff pro se, Elizabeth L. Henley, filed the Complaint on or about November 26,1993....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER In this action to review an arbitration award rendered pursuant to the Radway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (the “RLA”), defendant British Airways moves this Court under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civd Procedure for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and t...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the Court is defendant Alfonso A. Ballard’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal *89and Stay of Commitment and the government’s response thereto. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny defendant’s motion.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 20, 1994, a jury convicted defendant on 22 counts of knowingly and willfully making fraudulent statements to the United States...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this legal malpractice action seeking damages caused by the alleged negligence and breach of contract by defendant, Kelly, Haglund, Garnsey & Kahn (the firm), plaintiff John Merchant claims the firm breached a national standard of care involving federal income tax law by dividing assets in a pension and profit sharing plan through a post-nuptial marital agr...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Kent G. Alexander and Defendants William A. Perrill and Luis Rivera jointly move for an order vacating this Court’s July 8, 1994 Amended Final Judgment and its published October 27, 1993 order and memorandum opinion. See Alexander v. Perrill, 836 F.Supp. 701 (D.Ariz.1993). While appeal was pending, the parties en: tered into a full and final settlement of their dispute. Afte...
Views: 0
OPINION Petitioner filed a motion to quash Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses issued to financial institutions requesting information regarding petitioner’s accounts. The gravamen of petitioner’s motion alleges that the IRS issued the summonses without lawful authority and without due process of law. Respondent filed a motion for summary denial of petitioner’s motion to quash and for enfor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has for consideration a reintroduced and amended motion filed by defendant, Charlie Smith, III. It seeks a dismissal of the indictment. His motion was orally presented and partially argued just before the case was called for trial on January 17, 1995. The court allowed the motion as timely, because it relies on authority which appeared after this case had ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION A. Procedural History. Plaintiff conservation organizations filed their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the United States Forest Service, and the United States Forest Service (collectively “USFS”) on April 12, 1994. In their first claim for relief, ...
Views: 1
873 F. Supp. 179 (1995) Jerry A. WOODKE, Plaintiff, v. Patrick DAHM, Individually, Douglas Blass, Individually, and both d/b/a Cornbelt Manufacturing, Inc., Michael Depew, Individually, and d/b/a Clark Trailer Sales, Inc., Defendants. No. C 94-4050. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. January 17, 1995. *180 *181 *182 Robert Kohorst, of the Kohorst Law Firm, Harlan, IA, for ...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction.1155 II. Findings of Fact A. Excessive Force.1159 B. Medical Health Care .1200 C. Mental Health Care.1214 D. Conditions in the Security Housing Unit.1227 *1155 E. Cell Housing Practices. I> CO C...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Request for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Second Cause of Action (“Plaintiffs Request”) (Doc. # 28). The second cause of action the Court dismissed in its October 11, 1994 decision was a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio public policy (Doc. #). 1 The Court dismissed the claim on the basis that a public policy wrongful d...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are defendants’ combined motions to stay injunctions pending appeal and to certify earlier evidentiary orders for interlocutory appeal. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. I. BACKGROUND FACTS The facts pertinent to these motions are as follows. In December 1...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MO- ■ TION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY The court heard the parties’ motions on December 19, 1994. Arnold L. Lum, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Pai ‘Ohana (“Pai ‘Ohana”); Thomas A. Helper, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared on behalf of the United States of America and Bryan Harry (“Defendants”). After reviewing the mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant MQS Inspection, Inc., (MQS) moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on plaintiff Ralph Hogue’s (Hogue) claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (ADA), for constructive discharge, and for damages. The motion is adequately briefed and oral argument will not materially assist in its resolution. I will gra...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court for entry of judgment following trial to a jury which has rendered its verdict in the form of answers to certain special interrogatories. The issues presented by the pleadings and the order on pretrial conference involved the liability of the plaintiff to pay certain FICA and FUTA taxes on behalf of its truck drivers and on behalf of its president...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants, Howard Peters, Michael Lane, Michael O’Leary and Salvador Godinez have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff, John Williams (“Mr. Williams”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the defendants’ motion is granted. Background On October 21, 1992, Mr. Williams filed a complaint under Section 19...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff D.S. America (East), Inc. (“Screen East”) brings this diversity action against defendant Chromagrafx Imaging Systems, Inc. (“Chromagrafx”) alleging claims for breach of contract. In response to the complaint Chromagrafx asserts eight affirmative defenses and three counterclaims — breach of contract, fraud and antitrust violations. Presently before the Co...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause comes before the Court for decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties agree that this ease turns on the question whether the Defendant was in possession of property or *968 rights to property belonging to a third-party taxpayer on the date the Defendant was served by the Internal Revenue Service with a Notice of Levy. After c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This'is a ease in which the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (“the University”) has sued the Razorback Sports and Physical Therapy Clinic (“the Clinic”) for unauthorized use of the RAZORBACK name and design logo. The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(l)(a) (Wes...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Two of the three defendants in this diversity-of-citizenship action—Michael and Thirza Ann Elliott (collectively “Elliotts”)—have filed a motion to dismiss Count II of the Complaint filed by Vincent Union (International), Ltd. (“Vincent Union”). Elliotts claim that this Court lacks jurisdiction over that count, the only one in which they are named. For the reasons...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plug-In Storage Systems, Inc. (“Plug-In”) has moved to disqualify the law firm of Hill, Steadman & Simpson (“Hill Firm”) as counsel for Mustang Enterprises, Inc. (“Mustang”) in this patent action. At this point the parties have briefed the issues that this Court had identified—issues that, though not exhaustive of the grounds on which the motion might be g...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Greens of Olympia Fields (“the Greens”) is a Planned Unit Development Subdivision located in Olympia Fields, Illinois within the geographic boundaries of Rich Township High School District Number 227. The Board of Education of Rich Township High Schools (“Board of Education”) is authorized by the State of Illinois to establish and operate a number of high school...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the Court are the Plaintiffs Petition for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs, the Plaintiffs Supplement to Petition for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs, as well as the Defendant’s respective responses thereto. The Plaintiff seeks a total of $204,-461.25 in fees and $9,958.39 in costs in her original fee application, and an additional $5,9...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court are Defendant’s April 4,1994 Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs May 11,1994 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion and grant Plaintiffs Motion. ORDER AND OPINION I. Factual and Procedural Background On September 15, 1987, Plaintiff timely filed a U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for its tax year ending...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NBD’S MOTION FOR INTERPLEADER, DISPOSITION OF TRUST ASSETS, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, in the City of Detroit, State of Michigan, on the 24th day of January, 1995. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on defendant National Bank of Detroit, Inc.’s Motion for Rulin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Isadore Goldberg d/b/a Assured Lifetime Benefits (“Assured”) filed an amended complaint against Lifetime Options, Inc. (“LOI”), Philip Miller and Nancy Miller (“Mr. Miller” and “Ms. Miller” and collectively, the “Millers”) on August 30, 1994. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Assured alleges tortious interference with con...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Althin CD Medical, Inc., filed a two count amended complaint against defendants West Suburban Kidney Center, S.C. and Sherman Levine, M.D. Count I alleges a federal cause of action for copyright infringement. Count II alleges that the defendants misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Now before the court ar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on defendant Dowling’s1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from this court’s June 10, 1994 Memorandum-Decision and Order, as modified by an Order dated August 6, 1994. The June 10 Order granted in part and denied in part cross motions for summary judgment, 854 F.Supp. 932. Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 62, defendant a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this pro se action to challenge the final decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Both parties move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). I Plaintiff, born on Februa...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff Bowne of New York City, Inc. (“Bowne”) seeks an order pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure determining that there is no just reason for delay and directing entry of a final judgment in favor of Bowne and against defendant AmBase Corporation (“AmBase”) on Bowne’s twentieth through twenty-third and twenty-eighth through thirty-first causes of action, on...
Views: 1
OPINION This is an action for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), common law fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against eight individual and corporate defendants. In brief summary, Interpool Ltd., a publicly held company engaged in the intermodal equipment leasing business, 1 claimed that Barry Patterson and Richard Cuneo...
Views: 1
OPINION The matter before the court is Plaintiff General American Transportation Corp.’s Discovery Motion to Compel. BACKGROUND In March of 1991, the plaintiff, General American Transportation Corporation (GATC), filed an action against the defendant, Cryo-Trans, Incorporated (CryoTrans), in the Northern District of Illinois seeking a judicial declaration that United States Letters Patent No. 4,70...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action by Don M. Arnold against Amoco Oil Company (Amoco) and Workman Ofl Company, Inc., (Workman) under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2801, et seq. Jurisdiction is vested in this court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2805. Arnold alleges that Amoco terminated his franchise agreement without providing an appropriate right of first refusal or...
Views: 1
RULING ON APPEAL This matter is before the court on an appeal taken by plaintiff and a cross appeal taken by defendant, Windsor Group, Inc., from the ruling of the magistrate judge dated December 22, 1994. The matter has been submitted on briefs; it involves issues of subject matter jurisdiction and “fraudulent joinder” of parties. The first issue raised on appeal by plaintiff is whe...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court are defendant’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Disposition on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This civil action arises, in part, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185. The amended complaint sets forth six counts, all of which essentially allege that ...
Views: 0
ORDER Procedural History This matter is before the Court for review of the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and this Court must resolve the dispute. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 554-55, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court performs a de novo determination of those portions of the Repo...
Views: 0
*98 MEMORANDUM Today we consider Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on their Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. 1 The litigation arises out of events occurring between 1991 and 1994. In early 1991, Iversen Baking Company entered into a Services Agreement with Weston. 2 According to the terms of the contract, the parties agreed that Iversen ...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDERS AND FINAL JUDGMENT Table of Contents I. Introduction........................................................................479 II. Prior Proceedings..................................................................485 A. Trust’s Initial Operating Difficulties..............................................485 B. Class Action and First Settlement............................
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff N.F.L. Insurance Ltd. (“NFLIL”), represented by its liquidators, brings this action against fourteen teams of the National Football League (the “NFL”), the NFL, the NFL Management Council (“NFLMC”), and seventeen members of NFLIL’s Board of Directors. NFLIL is a Bermuda mutual insurance company and was organized as part of a program to self-insure the parti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I This lawsuit grows out of a dispute between plaintiffs and defendant Lanier Worldwide, Inc. (the “employer”) concerning the adequacy of bonus payments due plaintiffs for producing business for the employer. The dispute focuses in part on whether equipment transactions negotiated by plaintiffs on behalf of defendant constituted “operating” or “capital” leases and wh...
Views: 1
873 F. Supp. 159 (1995) CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Hazel O'LEARY, Secretary of Energy, Defendant. No. 93-3131. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division. January 24, 1995. Lance T. Jones, Thomas R. Lamont, Eric M. Schwing, Babette P. Salus, Springfield, IL, for plaintiff. James A. Lewis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, I...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before us is a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of our November 10,1994 Opinion and Order (the “Order”) in this case. Because we fully described the facts and circumstances of this matter in that Order, see In re Del-Val Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 868 F.Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y.1994), we assume familiarity with it and merely sketch the bare ...
Views: 1
*375 ORDER Plaintiff Lawrence Wallace, Jr. alleges that, upon returning from active duty in Saudi Arabia, defendant Hardee’s of Oxford, Inc., 1 refused to reemploy him as an assistant manager in violation of the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 4301-07 (West Supp.1994). 2 Wallace seeks damages under the Act. This cause is now before the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in this action have moved pursuant to Rule 45(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., 1 to hold *79 Fire Marshall David Lynn of the Fire Department of the City of New York (“F.D.N.Y.”) in contempt of court. Fire Marshall Lynn refused to comply with a subpoena for production of investigative reports and testimony pertaining to a criminal invest...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Douglas McIntosh, brought this action against his former employer, Irving Trust Company (“the Bank”) on September 4, 1987. The plaintiff, who is African American, alleged that the Bank had intentionally discriminated against him because of his race by failing to promote him from the position of Customer Relations Assistant (“CRA”) to that of Assistant Secr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND JUDGMENT Before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation’s (“TEAJF”) and Defendant W. Frank Newton, its chair, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Thomas Phillips, Raul Gonzalez, Jack Hightower, Nathan Hecht, Lloyd Doggett, John Cornyn, Bob *3 Gammage, Craig Enoch, and Ro...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion which asks this court to remand this lawsuit to state court, namely, the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, where the case originated before defendants removed it under Title 28 U.S.C. *135 §§ 1441 1 and 1446 2 to this court. Submitted pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § ...
Views: 0
In two prior published opinions, this Court rendered rulings on pretrial matters in this civil action. The Court’s Memorandum and Order of April 22, 1993 granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. PPM America, Inc. v. Marriott Corp., 820 F.Supp. 970 (D.Md.1993) (“PPM America I ”). In its later Opinion of May 23,1994, the Court granted defendants’ ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter comes on appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of New York. The district court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The defendant-debtor, Mr. David Lyons, filed for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 9, 1991. He continues to operate a horse farm in the Town of Phelps in Ontari...
Views: 0
*43 OPINION AND ORDER The issue in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) that Christopher Baker, an eleven year old child, is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income benefits because he is not disabled within the meaning of that program. The administrative denial of disabil...
Views: 0
*1521 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendants Upscale Communications, Inc. and Bovanti Communications, Inc.’s motions for summary judgment accompanied by supporting briefs, exhibits and affidavits. The defendants filed their individual motions on July 25, 1994. Defendants Upscale Communications, Inc. and Bovanti Communications, Inc. filed su...
Views: 4
OPINION Attorneys’ fees. Another “cottage industry.” Based on our analysis, the Court awards Plaintiff $42,319.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,769.54 for costs incurred. BACKGROUND On June 20,1991, Jason Scott Gregory and five of his friends were inside a friend’s apartment located at 226 Westminster Street, Jacksonville, Illinois. Gregory and his friends gathered to celebrate his .saf...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Like rumors of Mark Twain’s death, statements that the last chapter in this saga had *1156 been written were (lamentably) premature. Statements of this sort appeared in In re Moffitt, Zwerling & Kemler, P.C., 864 F.Supp. 527 (E.D.Va.1994) (hereinafter Moffitt II), 1 which held, inter alia, that 21 U.S.C. § 853 r...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff is an Asian/Pacific Islander, his color is brown and his national origin is Filipino. He is, and at all times relevant to this case was, employed at the Smithsonian Institution in the Office of Protection Services. Since commencing employment at the Smithsonian in 1975, plaintiff has risen from a GS-3 Guard position to a GS-8 Guard Supervisor position. In November 1987 plain...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss filed November 9, 1994. Defendant contemporaneously filed a brief in support thereof. Plaintiff Mark Knox filed a response on December 12, 1994. After careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, the relevant case law and the record as a whole, the court issues the following opinion. *1283I. ...
Views: 0
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This motion to dismiss and for summary judgment revolves around a trade dispute between two manufacturers of pads for the keys of woodwind instruments. Plaintiffs are an Italian manufacturer, Music Center S.N.C. Di Luciano Pisoni & C., and a New York importer of these products, Enzo Pizzi, Inc. Defendants are Prestini Musical Instruments Corpora...
Views: 1
*1290 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, both filed October 11, 1994. Plaintiff brought suit in Federal Court on November 5, 1993, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., commonly known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and alleging stat...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendants Ocean World Lines, Inc. (“OWL”), Colleen Ranieri, Robbins Fleisig Forwarding, Inc. and M.E. Franks, Inc. (“the moving defendants”) move for an order staying all proceedings in the action filed by plaintiff American Shipping Lines, Inc. (“ASL”) against them and all proceedings *501 regarding the cross-claims filed by them against defendant Massan Shippin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joan T. Napoli (“Napoli”) brings this action against Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) and Keane, Inc., for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and conversion. Jurisdiction is based upon the federal question of the copyright infringement count, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction of the state law coun...
Views: 0
*337 Opinion and Order In this trademark action, defendants National Football League (“NFL”), National Football League Properties, Inc. (“NFLP”), and Jacksonville Jaguars, Ltd. (“JJL”), seek to dismiss or transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1404(a). For the reasons discussed below, the motions are denied. Background In the early 1990’s the NF...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION In January 1991, we enjoined the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) from reducing to 20 from 25 the number of games involving the Chicago Professional Sports Limited Partnership’s NBA team, the Chicago Bulls (“Bulls”), that WGN Continental Broadcasting Company (“WGN”) could televise as a superstation. Our opinion and decision are repor...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Currently pending in this action are the following motions: (1) motion by all defendants for summary judgment on all counts (docket no. 49); (2) motion by defendants Ruoff and Redmon for summary judgment on counts III and IV, based on qualified immunity (docket no. 50); (3) motion by all defendants for summary judgment on all claims brought by plaintiff Becker based on...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Prison inmate Selma Geder brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that several prison officials violated his constitutional rights. Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set forth below, their motion is granted in part and denied in part. Facts Selma Geder (“Mr. Geder”), proceeding pro se, is i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RE: BANKRUPTCY APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION Before this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), is an appeal brought by Stephan M. Rodolakis (“Rodolakis”), Chapter 11 Trustee, seeking the reversal of a judgment by Judge Henry J. Boroff of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. In granting summary judgment for defendant Chertoff, the Bankruptcy Court determined ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ July 5,1994 motion to dismiss in part and Plaintiffs’ October 18, 1994 motion to amend complaint. The Court, having heard the arguments of counsel, reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds Defendants’ motion to dismiss is well tak...
Views: 3
*1341ORDER In this federal criminal ease, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of an indictment charging him with distribution of methamphetamine. The indictments followed controlled buys of methamphetamine from the defendant by a confidential informant. At sentencing, the government sought restitution of the “buy money” used by the confidential informant to purchase the methamphetamine f...
Views: 0
OPINION Ever since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a debate has raged about the effectiveness of defensive weaponry known as the Patriot Air Defense Missile System (“the Patriot”). Critics have asserted that numerous defects in the Patriot led to a dismal performance by the weapon during the Persian Gulf War. These critics claim, in addition, that, notwithstanding the Patriot’s poor per...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs Request for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for murder in the second degree at the Old Colony Correctional Center, a medium security facility of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. On June 22, 1994 plaintiff p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT PALL CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (#69) I. INTRODUCTION There are only two items remaining in dispute respecting Defendant Pall Corporation’s1 Motion to Compel Discovery (#69). The first relates to the extent to which Micron Separations, Inc.,2 having raised the defense of reliance on an opinion of counsel to a charge of wilful infringement, must pr...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER The matter before the Court arose on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed September 30,1992. The petition included a statement of facts involving an extra judicial contact with a juror in 1984 during the trial of the captioned action. The contact with the juror was never reported to the Court by the juror or anyone else. On J...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on several motions. Defendant Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (“Domino’s”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 5,1994. Defendant Thomas Reams (“Reams”) also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, on December 15, 1994. Defendants Clarkfinn Pizza, Inc. (“Clarkfinn”) and Willie B. Clark, Jr. (“Clark”) filed separate Motion...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion is granted. Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. FACTS 1 Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“E.E.O.C.”), brought this action against Defendant, Clayton Residential Home...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before the court is defendants’ appeal from Magistrate Hurd’s discovery order filed July 20, 1994. This appeal arises from an action plaintiffs commenced on September 21, 1993, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and fiduciary prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) et seq. The discovery dispute arose because ...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs JoAnn Meadows and Patricia Smouse originally brought this action against the State University of New York at Oswego (“SUNY Oswego”) and Dr. Stephen Weber, President; Dr. Jane Milley, Provost; Deborah Stanley, Executive Assistant to the President; Dr. Sandra Moore, Athletic Director; Dr. Bruce Lester, Interim Athletic Department Chairman; and Marta S...
Views: 0
ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES UNDER EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon petition for fees and expenses filed by claimant, R.A.C. Leasing Corporation (“R.A.C.”). Defendant, Frank Bachner, was indicted for knowingly and intentionally engaging in a criminal enterprise to import cocaine. As part of the indictment, the United States sought forfeiture upon Baehner’s...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION The parties in this action (and many of the parties in two recently filed related actions) have spent a good deal of their time during the last fourteen years litigating against one another. The subject matter of this litigation marathon is the artwork of the late Pablo Picasso, who created more than one hundred thousand works of art prior to his...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Bond Street Associates, Ltd. (“Bond Street”), moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 1994, reported at 174 B.R. 28 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The motion for reconsideration is granted. For the reasons stated below, upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original Order. I. This action was filed in state court, removed to the Eas...
Views: 0
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 1995, upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED as to Count IV of the Complaint in Intervention, and is otherwise DENIED. I. Facts In its complaint, plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) al...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, MMAR Group, Inc. and its principal shareholders, Cory Miner and Paul Brown (collectively, “the MMAR Defendants”), move to dismiss a diversity suit brought on April 30, 1993 by John Murray, James Berardi, Robert Petitti, and Joseph Hurley. The complaint seeks to hold the MMAR Defendants liable, under the s...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Michael Brumer, purchased disability insurance policies from three different insurers, including the movant National Life of Vermont (“NLV”). The three occupational disability policies purchased from NLV provide for benefits to be paid in the event Brumer should become totally or partially disabled. Total disability is defined in the policies in question as an ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 10, 1994, out of an abundance of caution, we held a conference with the parties to this suit and suggested to them that, to bring solid closure to the preceding patent trial, we may need to rule on the outstanding issue of inequitable conduct. At the conference, we asked the parties to brief us on whether such a ruling would be appropriate. Accordingly, on May 12, 1994...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, Sham Ming Wang, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and a passenger on an ill-fated journey of the vessel “Golden Venture,” brings this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1105a(a)(10) and 1105a(b), to challenge an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing petitioner’s appeal of the decis...
Views: 0
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDERS BEFORE THIS COURT is Holywell Corporation and subsidiaries, and Theodore B. Gould (“Debtors”) appeal from the following Orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court: 1. United States Bankruptcy Judge Sidney M. Weaver’s Order Denying Motion of Defendants Theodore B. Gould and Holywell Corporation to Amend Answer and to Join Additional Part...
Views: 1
873 F. Supp. 310 (1995) COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. DEREK TUMBLESON, et al., Defendants. No. A94-184 CV (JKS). United States District Court, D. Alaska. January 20, 1995. *311 Eric P. Gillett, Oles, Morrison & Rinker, Seattle, WA, for plaintiff. George M. Kapolchok, Anchorage, AK, for defendant. ORDER FROM CHAMBERS SINGLETON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff (Doe. 243) and by the garnishee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) (Doc. 245). This is a wrongful death action arising from a collision between plaintiffs decedent and a homemade trailer carrying a backhoe being towed by a pickup truck driven by defendant Na...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the Court are the Defendant’s Motion to Amend Sentence and the written and oral responses thereto by the Government and the United States Probation Officer assigned to this case. This matter raises the question of whether a D.C. Superior Court sentence runs consecutively or concurrently to a District Court’s sentence where, at the time of sentencing ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (“Pension Fund”), and Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund (“Health and Welfare Fund”), and their trustee, Howard McDougall (collectively “the Funds”), brought this action against defendant, GL & B Leasing, Co., Inc. (“GL & B”), under the Employee Retirement Incom...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Consolidation of Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. (Doc. 2, Case No. 94-2230-GTV). A hearing on the motion was held on January 23, 1995, and the court orally advised counsel of its ruling on the motion. The court also ruled on the following two motions in Case Number 94-2215-GTV: the moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This diversity of citizenship case is before the court on defendant’s motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, to transfer the ease to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. For the reasons set forth below, ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are Resolution Trust Corporation’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Granting of Respondent Gillam’s Motion to Stay and Respondent Gillam’s Opposition thereto. Respondents Jon Burke and Eugene Reed have also filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay Enforcement of Modified Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum, which the Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”) opposes. U...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These are consolidated wrongful death and survival actions in which plaintiffs seek recovery for the' injury and death of three-and-one-half-year old Emily Mozier who drowned in defendants’ swimming pool. These cases are before the court on defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 71) of the court’s Memorandum and Order entered on April 7, 1994, which denied defendants’ ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These consolidated cases were originally brought in the Wyandotte County, Kansas District Court by Midland Bank of Kansas (Midland) and were' removed to this court after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver for Midland. FDIC seeks a money judgment to recover for alleged nonpayment of certain promissory notes, enforcement of pe...
Views: 0
873 F. Supp. 1160 (1995) HEALTH O METER, INC., Plaintiff Counterdefendant, v. TERRAILLON CORPORATION, Defendant Counterclaimant. No. 94 C 5567. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 31, 1995. *1161 *1162 *1163 Richard Eugene Dick, Richard Daniel Harris, John S. Pacocha, Law Offices of Dick & Harris, Chicago, IL, for Health o meter, Inc. Patricia Susan Smart, J...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff in this diversity jurisdiction suit against her former employer alleges that defendant wrongfully discharged her in violation of Kansas public policy. Plaintiff contends that her termination was in retaliation for plaintiffs exercise of her rights under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. Defendant argues that plaintiffs termination was based on an exce...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 After a long and tortuous journey, this litigation—on which the parties first crossed swords, despite the fall 1994 case number of the current action, in mid-1993—has nearly reached the point of a partial consideration on the merits. “Nearly” and “partial” are the right words, because even now the question for decision is only whether plaintif...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Annie Matlock, Special Administrator of the Estate of Archie Matlock, Jr. (deceased), brings this action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Richard L. Hawkes, H. Randle, Jr., Richard E. Patrick, and Maria Diaz, all Chicago police officers. Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the suit is barr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are pretrial motions in limine as well as a few remaining pretrial motions and matters. For background on this case see United States v. Messino, 871 F.Supp. 1035 (N.D.Ill.1995), and other eases cited at 871 F.Supp. at 1037-38 of that opinion. I. TAINT ISSUES RELATED TO PREVIOUSLY SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Celex Group, Inc. and Celebrating Excellence, Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs” or “Celex”) 1 sue The Executive Gallery, Inc. (“Executive Gallery”), alleging federal and common law trademark infringement (counts III and VII, respectively), Lanham Act and common law trade dress infringement (counts I, TV, V [Lanham Act] and VII [common l...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Michigan Environmental Response Act (“MERA”), M.C.L. 299.601 et seq., and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”), M.C.L. 691.1201 et seq. Plaintiffs’ complaint also states comm...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a breach of contract dispute in which Plaintiff Brookside Farms (“Brook-side”) alleges that Defendant Mama Rizzo’s Inc. (“MRI”) breached its contract with Brookside to purchase 91,000 pounds of fresh basil leaves. Before the Court now are Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims. In this diversity action, plaintiff Fidelity Telephone Company (Fidelity) seeks damages from defendants “Shields” (one law partnership, two law professional corporations, five individual attorneys and ten John/ Jane Does) on theories of breach of fiduciary duties (Count I); intentiona...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER This matter came before the Court on January 25, 1995, on plaintiffs Motions to Compel Compliance with a Subpoena Duces Tecum and to Compel Answers to Interrogatories 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 21. Present at the hearing were Jeremiah A. Denton, III, Esquire, counsel for plaintiff; Alan B. Rash-kind, Esquire, counsel for defendant; and Harold P. Juren, Esquire, counsel for the City o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Alan H. Williams was employed by Air Wisconsin, Inc. from 1978 through 1992, when his employment was terminated on grounds of time card falsification. In this action, Williams alleges that the termination constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement between Air Wisconsin and Williams’ former collective bargaining representative, International Association ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Count I of plaintiff Weidenaar’s complaint. 1 In Count I Weiden-aar seeks a declaration that defendant Indiana Insurance Co.’s (“IIC”) worker’s compensation lien on a judgment he obtained against third parties in state court must be reduced by 40%, that being the jury’s assessment of Weidenaar’s fault for his ...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 1140 (1995) H. Peter KRIENDLER and Kenneth L. Seposs, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., WMX Technologies, Inc., and Philip B. Rooney, Defendants. No. 93-C-5694. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 31, 1995. *1141 *1142 *1143 Edwin J. Mills, Stull, Stull & Brody, N...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the action. For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim is denied. Defendants’ motion to stay the action pending disposition of an action in state court is granted. Facts Beginning in 1982, Eyvind J. Er...
Views: 0
OPINION ORDER The Government seeks an in limine ruling in this prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 1 for illegal reentry into the United States after arrest and deportation. The government argues that the defendant, Jose Remedio Mancebo-Santiago, should be precluded on grounds of irrelevance and considerations under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 from submitting evidence of the following at t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order. This is the most recent discovery dispute in a case that has already spawned more than ten discovery rulings, usually requests for Protective Orders. Christy requests (1) that defendants be prohibited from taking his deposition for a second time, (2) defendants be prohibited from giving instructions to witnesses prior to deposi...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action against the. City of Allentown, and Officers David Bac-hert and Ronald Miller, both of the Allentown Police Department, alleging that they are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Constitutional rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of Deputy Sheriff Douglas Paul Hartman of the Lehigh County Sheriff’s Department. ...
Views: 0
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER AFTER REMAND FROM THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 1991, I reversed the administrative law judge’s decision denying Evelyn Pet-tyjohn Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 410-433 and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI. See Pettyjohn v. Sulliva...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on the appeal of the debtors, Marcus Wayne Vann and Stephanie Joy Vann (Vanns), from the bankruptcy court’s order of April 11, 1994. In that order, the court denied the debtors’ motion to avoid creditor Century Finance Company’s lien on a 1980 Ford pickup truck, attached snow plow, and 16-foot trailer (hereinafter referred to col...
Views: 2
OPINION Mark Putnam is a former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who pled guilty to first degree manslaughter and confessed to murdering an FBI informant. Mr. Putnam filed *709 this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, to compel the disclosure of records pertaining to him that are maintained by th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Appellant Bahram Khozai’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order validating a foreclosure sale and dismissing Appellant’s case with prejudice. Appellant contends that the foreclosure sale was invalid because it occurred while an automatic stay was in force. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Bankruptcy Court erroneously dismissed th...
Views: 1
The report and recommendation of Hon. Marianne B. Bowler, U.S.M.J., is adopted and defendant’s motion to suppress is allowed with respect to evidence seized in the basement storage room and is otherwise denied. It is so ordered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS(DOCKET ENTRY # 10); DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (DOCKET ENTRY #18) Aug...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter was tried before the Court as a bench trial on November 28,1994. Present at trial were Allan L. Durand on behalf of the plaintiff, SCDF Investment Corporation (“SCDF”)1, Henry C. Perret, Jr. on behalf of third-party defendant, Bal-Chem Industrial and Sanitary Maintenance Corporation (“Bal-Chem”)2, and Neal I. Fowler on behalf the United States of America (“United States”). SCD...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendant, the Sierra Development Company (Sierra) moves to dismiss plaintiffs’, Fox, Herman and Conger’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion (Doc. # 9) has been opposed (Doc. # 12) and the opposition has been replied to (Doc. # 13). The motion to dismiss (Doc. # 9) is ripe for consideration. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT The...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the cross-motions of plaintiffs Pat M. Barrett, Jr. and his current wife, Joyce Barrett and defendant United States for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court has considered the parties’ memoranda of authorities and concludes that the plaintiffs’ motion should be denied and the gove...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today this Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to effect service in a timely fashion, although we find that service of the complaint has not been made. According to the pleadings and attached exhibits, on July 18, 1994, counsel for Plaintiffs arranged to have the instant complaint and summons served on the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Wurrtember...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Causley Edwards (“Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Joe Thorpe (“Defendant”) alleging a false statement contained in a letter Thorpe wrote to Edwards’ employer dated March 24, 1989, caused Edwards to be suspended from employment for over five years. Defendant Thorpe now moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint or *694 grant judgment on the pleadings. For ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today we decide Defendant Chester County Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This litigation is a medical malpractice action brought by Janet Stipp and her husband Jerry against Dr. Paul Kim and Chester County Hospital. According to the Complaint, in 1992, Dr. Kim performed a mam-moplasty, or breast reduction operation on Janet Stipp. The Complaint alleges that Dr. Kim remo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has brought this action under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Presently, the ease is before me on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. After considering the arguments of counsel on that motion, I am of the opinion that it should be granted. Facts Plaintiff is 48-years-old and weighs around 330 pounds. She has multiple s...
Views: 0
OPINION GENENTECH’S MOTION TO TRANSFER OR STAY Both Novo Nordisk and Genenteeh are involved in the business of genetically-engineered pharmaceutical products. Novo Nor-disk is waiting to get FDA approval to be able to sell Norditropin, genetically-engineered human growth hormone, inside of the United States. Genenteeh owns some U.S. patents concerning the production of human growth h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Defendant Toni Ann Granello pleaded guilty to narcotics offenses and was sentenced on November 25, 1986 to ten (10) years imprisonment and a special parole term of life. She had no prior criminal record and her behavior while in custody has been praised by the prison authorities. On December 28, 1988 her prison term was reduced from ten (10) to seven (7) years pursuant to Fed.R....
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs William and Eleanor Monaghan (the “Monaghans”) have moved to enforce an oral agreement of settlement between them and defendant SZS 33 Associates, L.P. (“SZS”). Also, SZS sought to enforce a contractual indemnification provision under an easement agreement (the “1935 Easement Agreement”) against Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”) and the Po...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Fidel Vargas, through counsel, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute approximately two (2) kilograms of cocaine and to do so within 1,000 feet of a public school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841 and 856. Vargas appealed his conviction, which was affirmed by summary order. United States v. Vargas,...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION In 1989, Consolidated Auto Recyclers (“CAR”) was a potential target for an invest *1078 ment group comprised of Plaintiffs Allied Investment Corporation, Allied Venture Partnership, Allied Technology Partnership, Allied Capital Advisers, Inc., and Allied Investment Corporation II (collectively referred to as “Allied”). While considering whethe...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On November 21, 1994, plaintiff Little League Baseball, Inc., a corporation chartered by federal statute, 36 U.S.C. §§ 1071-1088, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges breach of contract by defendant Welsh Publishing Group, Inc. On December 5, 1994, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Verified Complaint are granted. BACKGROUND On May 3, 1993, plaintiff pro se Queen Esther Jones (“plaintiff” or “Jones”) filed a Verified Complaint against defendants Capital Cities/ABC Inc., WWOR-TV Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., WPIX Inc., CBS Inc.,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I This action based on diversity of citizenship arises out of a November 1991 construction site accident in which plaintiff Edward J. Minall fell and injured himself on a muddy device known as a “scissors jack” in the course of his employment. The construction took place at a mall owned by defendant PCM Development Company (“PCM”), under the overall general supervision of defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner pro se in the above-captioned action brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his judgment of conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and government suppression of exculpatory and impeachment evidence concerning the informant. In the alternative, petitioner maintains that his sentence should be modified due to his “minor partici...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”), as receiver for Whitestone Federal Savings and Loan Association (“Whitestone”) and Nassau Savings and Loan Association, F.A. (“Nassau”), brought this action to foreclose a first mortgage given by defendant Hidden Ponds Phase IV Development Associates (“Phase IV”) and to foreclose a subordinate mortgage held by defend...
Views: 1
*189 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Appellants Tom Lange Co., Inc. (“Lange”) and Scott Finks Co., Inc. (“Finks”) appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Conrad, B.J.). The order, dated August 1, 1993, held, inter alia, that certain assets were not subject to a statutory trust under the Perishable Agricultural Comm...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I Petitioner Harris Shendur has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction after trial for possession of three (3) kilograms of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812 and 841, as well as 18 U.S.C. § 2. On April 15, 1992, I sen *86 tenced petitioner to ten years’ imprisonment, after a downward departure from the United States Sentencing ...
Views: 1
Credit Lyonnais (“CL”) commenced this action against Getty Square Associates (“Getty”) and Sol Arker (collectively, the “Defendants”) to foreclose its first mortgage lien on the premises located at 30 South Broadway, Yonkers, New York (the “Premises”). CL now moves for summary judgment. Defendants cross-move for summary judgment contending that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and,...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Deloitte & Touche’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action complaint alleging a violation of the Securities Exchange Act was heard on December 9, 1994. After the hearing, the Ninth Circuit rendered its opinion in In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc). Both sides submitted lett...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on the Motion of Defendant Drug Enforcement Administration for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this Freedom of Information Act ease. The DEA filed its Summary Judgment Motion on October 19, 1994. Defendant asserts that it has provided Plaintiff with certain documents responsive to his FOIA request, but has inv...
Views: 0
OPINION This aging hazardous-waste-disposal-liability-insuranee-coverage dispute, unique in some details, is in many ways within a familiar pattern of factual and legal complexity. In a commendable response to the practical consequences for the parties and the legal system, counsel cooperated fully with the court in fashioning an order for phased trial, commencing with a Phase-One Trial b...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order remanding the above-entitled proceeding to this court. In so doing, the court of appeals directed this court to reconsider the qualified immunity issue herein in light of United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890 (9th Cir.1985), ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion to compel discovery from defendants. Plaintiff owned a hardware store which sustained a fire loss on or about October 12, 1991. The structure and its contents were destroyed by fire. Defendants provided insurance for the building and its contents. Plaintiff was indicted on March 16, 1992 on charges of setting fire to the store and fi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., filed this action against four individuals, including Richard Germunson, and American Family Insurance Group. The action is one seeking a declaratory judgment as to rights and liabilities, or lack thereof, of plaintiff to any or all defendants who have claimed or may claim an interest in a particular insurance poli...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it plaintiffs motion to stay the proceedings (docket No. 92), defendant’s opposition (docket No. 94), and the respective supplements to these motions. First Union National Bank of Florida (“First Union”) initiated this action against Margo Farms del Caribe, Inc. (“Caribe”) to foreclose assets which Caribe offered as a guarantee on a loan to its parent corp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This matter is currently before the court on plaintiff George W. Hamner’s motion for reconsideration and motion to alter and/or amend judgment (Docs. #38-1 and 38-2). Defendants have responded and oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion is denied. On November 15,1994, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 4, 1994 (filing 19) I granted declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants after I found that Nebraska’s Medicaid regulations violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because those regulations conflicted with federal law found in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agen...
Views: 1
876 F.Supp. 1332 (1995) Carlos Romero BARCELO, Plaintiff, v. Miguel Hernandez AGOSTO, his wife Maria Casanova, and the conjugal partnership constituted between them, Marco Antonio Rigau, his wife Maria Del Carmen Moran, and the conjugal partnership constituted between them, Edgardo Perez Viera, his wife Carmen L. Marrero, and the conjugal partnership constituted *1333 between them, and Popular De...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a habeas corpus case brought by petitioner Roy Lyman (Lyman), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his guilty pleas and resulting sentences regarding two counts of first-degree assault and one count of using a knife in the commission of a felony. These charges were much reduced. Lyman was originally charged with trying to murder two children by slashing t...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, which the Court has previously advised the parties would be decided pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R.Civ.P. The parties have received ample opportunity to present all pertinent materials, and the motion is now ready for decision. The following statement contains undisputed facts presented by defendants in...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a discrimination action in which the plaintiff, Leann M. Schweitzer-Reschke, seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq. (“KAAD”), against the defendants Avnet Inc., d/b/a Hamilton Hall-Mark, formerly known a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion to reverse the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) (Doc. 7) and the Secretary’s motion to affirm (Doc. 10). The court has reviewed the entire record, as well as the parties’ memoranda and the relevant law, and is ready to rule. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On Dec...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I.INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended and Re-Stated Complaint filed by Defendant, Alabama State University Board of Trustees (“the Board”) on August 22, 1994. Plaintiff, Rachel Lewis (“Lewis”), filed this action on March 29,1994 alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Defendant, World Industrial Constructors (World) entered into a construction contract with Amerada Hess Corporation (Hess), with World agreeing to perform certain construction work (Hess-World contract) on an oil refinery that Hess was building in St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. World then entered into a subcontract (World-Merit contract) with defendant...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Random House, Inc. has moved for dismissal of Plaintiff Mark Lane’s complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Alternatively, Random House has moved for summary judgment under Fed .R.Civ.P. 56. Upon consideration of the filings of counsel and the relevant law, Random House’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED on all counts. Random House h...
Views: 1
876 F.Supp. 641 (1995) KESSLER INSTITUTE FOR REHABILITATION, INC., in its own right and for and on behalf of its employees and patients; Sally Tannenbaum, Legal Guardian of Heather Benney; Heather Benny and United Association for Handicapped Persons, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF the BOROUGH OF ESSEX FELLS, a municipality, and Borough of Essex Fells, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-2361(WG...
Views: 5
*102 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by George Larkin Roberson, against the Board of Supervisors of Wise County, Virginia (the Board), and against six members of the Board in their individual capacities. 1 The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Roberson maintains that he was terminated as Superintendent of Public Works by the B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant in the above-captioned cause. A hearing on the matter was held January 30, 1995, as preparation for trial which was to be held later that same day. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted as set forth below. The parties agreed th...
Views: 1
OPINION & ORDER Petitioner, Wallace Matura, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 *236 BACKGROUND On October 18,1989, petitioner and his co-defendant Philip Harris were arrested after Harris handed a bag containing two quart bottles filled with phencyclidine (“PCP”) to an informant and an underc...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER G. Oliver Koppell, the Attorney General of the State of New York in 1994, brought this action on behalf of the People under (1) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”); (3) Sections 63(12) and 296 of the New York Executive Law; an...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on the Petitioner’s motions for stay of execution and writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of his capital murder conviction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2254. The Petitioner, Dana Ray Edmonds, is presently incarcerated at the Greensville Correctional Center under a sentence of death. Edmonds’ execution is scheduled to be carried out at 9:00...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 1 (1995) Vladimir MATUSEVITCH, Plaintiff, v. Vladimir Ivanovich TELNIKOFF, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-1151 RMU. United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 27, 1995. Arnon D. Siegel, David C. Finn, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Washington, DC, Jerome G. Snider, Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for plaintiff. Forrest A. Hainline, III, Washington, DC, for defendant...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Judson C. Brewer (“Brewer”) was employed as a sales representative for Quaker State Corporation until his termination from the company in 1992 at the age of 53. As a result of his termination, Brewer has filed this action against Defendants Quaker State Corporation and Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation (collectively “Quaker State”), alleging ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Robert Green brings this four count action, alleging violations of the due process clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, as well as breach of statutory duty. Presently before the court are plaintiffs motion for class certification and defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we abstain pursuant to Rail...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (filing 33) and the objection to such Report and Recommendation (filing 35) filed as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and NELR 72.4. I have conducted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and NELR 72.4, a de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter' is before the court on the motion of defendants, ExZec, Inc. (hereafter “ExZec”) and Terence J. Knowles, President of ExZec (hereafter Knowles”) to join Elo Touch Systems, Inc. (hereafter “Elo Touch”) as a necessary party to this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). Carroll Touch, Inc. also filed a motion to join Elo Touch as a necessary...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 14, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against defendant First Services Benefits, Inc. (“First Services”) (Doe. # 399), seeking, among other relief, an entry of default judgment against that defendant. On January 5, 1995, after no response to plaintiffs’ motion was filed on behalf of First Services, the court directed First Services to show cause in wr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This matter comes before the court on the motion of defendant Sunbeam Plastics Corporation (“Sunbeam”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Docs. #7-1 and 7-2). Plaintiff Harold T. Pehr has sued Sunbeam for breach of contract stemming from a Pat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This action is brought by plaintiff Florence Ludwikoski, who was hit in the face and eye by a golf ball she claims was hit by the defendant. She alleges that defendant Ryoji Kurotsu was negligent in the manner in which he hit the ball, and that her injuries are a direct result of his negligence. The matter is currently before the court on defendant’s m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is currently before the court on the renewed motion of the defendant, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (“KPERS”), to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of CM Procedure 12(b)(1) (Doc. *325 # 78). The plaintiff, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (“AISLIC”) opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth fully ...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 1231 (1995) Mark WILSON and Anne Walker, Plaintiffs, v. GLENWOOD INTERMOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, INC.; D. Roger and Bonnie L. Conrad; Branbury Park, Inc; Data-Prop Management, Inc.; David E. and Barbara K. Nagel; Kent S. and Lana R. Gilbert; Tapp/Sorensen Partnership; Elaine M. Miller; John E. Knudsen and Kelly W. Romney Partnership; and Glen C. Rowland, Defendants. Brigham Young University...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on three consolidated actions challenging the constitutionality and execution of Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 21-2511, which provides for the collection of blood and saliva specimens from certain convicted felons for use by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation in preparing “genetic marker groupings,” primarily deoxyribonucleic a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Harris Custom Builders, Inc. (“Harris Builders”) filed this action against defendant Richard Hoffmeyer claiming copyright infringement. Defendant Hoffmeyer then brought a counterclaim against defendant Harris Builders and a third-party complaint against third-party defendant Evan A. Harris, Harris Builders’ president, alleging violations of federal rackete...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff contends that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, and retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). She also asserts a s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for a protective order prohibiting defendants and their counsel of record from seeking or obtaining legal advice from the law firm of Gullett, Sanford, Robinson & Martin. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs motion is denied. Facts Plaintiff, Chemical Waste Management (“CWM”), is a Delaware corporati...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a disappointed bidder case challenging the award of a contract to Precision Echo, Inc., by the United States Department of the Navy and Naval Air Systems Command (“NAVAIR”). The disappointed bidder, TEAC America, Inc., seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the Navy and NAVAIR from proceeding with performance of the contract on the ground that the contract a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The State of Georgia brought this declaratory judgment action under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, seeking a declaration that the Georgia legislature’s creation of 62 elective superior court judgeships after November 1,1964 “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of ra...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff James W. Crabtree has brought this breach of contract and quantum meruit action against defendant Academy Life Ins. Co. in order to recover attorney fees allegedly owed him by defendant. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is in excess of $50,000 exclusive o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motions for reconsideration (Doc. # 18), for relief from default'judgment (Doc. #22-1) and to file an answer out of time (Doc. #22-2). The court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and is now prepared to rule. Motion to Reconsider Defendant seeks reconsideration of our order of November 18, 1994, 159 F.R.D. 45, denying defendant’...
Views: 0
*314 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Terminate its Front Pay-Obligation (Doc. #231).- In our July 10, 1989, order, we determined that defendant had engaged in gender-based discrimination against the class in violation of Title "VTI. Specifically, we found that the class had been discriminated against with respect to promotions within the salary-grad...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to quash an attorney’s hen. (Fihng 28.) For the reasons discussed more fully below, I shall grant the motion to quash. The plaintiffs in this action filed this action through two attorneys: Glen Pressman of Colorado Springs, Colorado and James Welsh of Omaha, Nebraska. Defendant retained Don Witt of Lincoln. Witt tes...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of the defendant, American Airlines, to dismiss (# 33-1), for judgment on the pleadings (# 33-2), and for summary judgment (# 33-3). Rowley alleges claims under (1) the federal Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA), 49 App. U.S.C.A. § 1374; (2) the tort law of the State of Oregon for the intentional and negligent infliction of severe emotional...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Defendant Bryan Memorial Hospital has filed a motion for partial summary judgment (fifing 25) and a motion to dismiss. (Fifing 29.) For the reasons discussed more fully below I shall grant the motion for partial summary judgment in part and grant the motion to dismiss in part. 1 BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, was form...
Views: 0
*1200 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 33). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. I. Factual Background Plaintiff, Bridgette Y. Metoyer, filed this action against her former employer, the University of Kansas Medical Center (“Medical Center”) alleging that she was f...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby grants defendants’ motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are Nilsa Maldonado (Nilsa), her mentally retarded son, Ramon 0. Soto Maldonado (Ramon), and her daughter, Flor de Oro Soto Maldonado (Flor de Oro). The thirty five defendants are various administrators ...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant MERCK & CO., INC., including its division, MERCK HUMAN HEALTH DIVISION, formerly known as Merck, Sharp & Dohme (hereinafter collectively referred to as “MERCK”) moves this court for summary judgment contending that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitation. For reasons discussed below, Defenda...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Willie Thomas has moved for a stay of his forthcoming eviction from a public *273housing unit pending appeal of this Court’s Order of December 23, 1994. In granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Philadelphia Housing Authority and certain named managers of that entity (“PHA”), the Court concluded that PHA’s decision that plaintiff did not qualify as a remai...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN LIFE’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE ADA AND GRANTING DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN LIFE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING SCHERING-PLOUGH DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on defendant Metropolitan Life’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims Arising Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, filed Sept...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants, Total Vision, Inc., d/b/a Optica (“TVI”) and Tony Mackin (“Mr. Mackin”), have filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requesting that this Court enter summary judgment in their favor and against plaintiff, Jill M. Dellert (“Ms. Dellert”) on certain claims in Ms. Dellert’s complaint. For the reasons stated below, defendants...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Center for Radio Information (“CRI”), has moved to remand this case to state court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, on the basis that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendants, Bethlehem Publishing and Martin Herbst, oppose the plaintiffs motion and have cross-moved for the dismissal of certain clai...
Views: 2
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS The court holds that, under California’s broad common carrier statute, a Disneyland amusement park ride may be a common carrier, having a duty of utmost care and diligence. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff patrons at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, claim personal injuries when their boat on the popular “Pirates of the Caribbean” amusement ride was rammed from beh...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 128) I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, Helene Orsi, is a minority shareholder of Sunshine Art Studios, Inc. (“Sunshine” or “corporation”). In 1989 she brought this action seeking derivative and direct relief against the two majority shareholders, the Board of Directors and the corporation, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (Docket Nos. 8, 9 & 14) I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiffs James M. Gonyer and Craig S. Hill, Sr., inmates at the Franklin County House of Correction, allege that pervasive exposure to airborne asbestos fibers throughout the prison facility violates prisoners’ Eigh...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff New England Extrusion, Inc. (“New England”) claims that its insurer, defendant American Alliance Insurance Company (“American Alliance”), breached its insurance policy with New England by denying a claim brought by New England under the policy (Count I). New England further claims that defen...
Views: 0
*306 MEMORANDUM OPINION This action arises out of a settlement agreement reached by Met Laboratories Inc. (“MET”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) of the Department of Labor (“DOL”). MET filed suit seeking to enforce the terms of that agreement, and the parties and intervenor Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (“UL”) filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ME...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are the defendant’s Motion for Stay and Referral to the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) and the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (“Rule 56(c)”) in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the plaintiffs motion will be held in abeyance pending IC...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Emanuel Franklin (“Franklin”) appeals the final decision of Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (“Secretary”) denying Franklin’s claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income under, the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1382 and 1382c.1 As usual in such cases, Franklin and Secretary h...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Active Glass Corp. (“Active”) seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent a labor arbitration demanded by respondents Iron Union and the Iron Funds. 1 Active also *247 seeks an order compelling Iron Union and the Iron Funds to participate in a multiparty arbitration along with the other named respondents: Glaziers Union, the Glaziers ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Currently pending before this Court is the motion of defendant Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Eximbank”) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 For the reasons set forth below, ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.....................................................569 II. FINDINGS OF FACT ..............................................................569 A. Undisputed Facts ..............................................................569 B. Contested Facts..........................................
Views: 1
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 65(a) I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........................1231 II. FINDINGS OF FACT....................................................1232 A. Curtis 1000’s Training Of Its Sales Staff...............................1233 1. Level I Contacts..............
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Facts In January, 1975, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (“Bank”) hired Helen Mirza (“Ms. Mirza”) as a Supervisory Analyst. Ms. Mirza was promoted to Supervisory Agent and Assistant Vice President in June, 1984, and to Vice President in September, 1988. Ms. Mirza remained employed at the Bank until 1989, when Congress enacted the Financial In...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II, III, AND IV OF THE COMPLAINT THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Roadway Package System, Inc.’s (“RPS”) motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants RPS’s motion. Plaintiff American Eye Way, Inc. (“American”) brings this action against RPS to recover damages arisi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits on February 11, 1992 and has been denied the benefits at all levels of administrative review. He initiated this action on December 3, 1993 for judicial review and the Court assigned the case to Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas for a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). The R & R was filed on December 22, 1994 w...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court after a bench trial. Plaintiff, The Merton Company, Ltd. (“Merton”), brought this lawsuit against Defendant, PepsiCo Inc. (“PepsiCo”). Merton asserts two claims against PepsiCo: the tort of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. A. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Mert...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Plaintiff New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, et al. (“Teamsters”) moves for a default judgment against defendant Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. (“Fratto”) in this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to collect $6,030.48 plus post-judgment interest for delinquent pensio...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Presently before this court is the October 7, 1994, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David N. Hurd, recommending that an agreement entered into by the parties on April 9, 1993, (“Good Friday *749 Agreement”) be implemented in the form of a settlement order. Alternatively, Magistrate Hurd recommended that the matter be remanded to an arbitra...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Interactive Network, Inc.’s (“Interactive” or “IN”) motion for summary judgment was heard on *1401 January 20, 1995. The court has read the moving and responding papers and heard the oral argument of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies in pa...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from the “Order Granting Appellee’s Motion to Remand to the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for Sarasota County,” entered on August 8, 1994 by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Alexander L. Paskay. Jurisdiction over appeals from the final judgments, orders and decrees of the Bankruptcy Court is vested in the Federal District courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). ...
Views: 1
A previously convicted narcotics defendant was arrested on narcotics charges after agreeing with an undercover officer to carry out a drug ripoff while utilizing law enforcement equipment. A magistrate judge released the defendant on bond because he had voluntarily surrendered himself to federal authorities. The Government appeals this decision, seeking pretrial detention because the defendant po...
Views: 0
876 F. Supp. 226 (1995) Robert JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Alfonso GOMEZ, Respondent. No. CIV-S-92-2067 DFL GGH. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 11, 1995. Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Rosenthal, San Francisco, CA, for Robert Johnson. Linda Mireya Gonzalez, James Ching, Office of Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for Alfonso Gomez. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER LEVI, District J...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Exempt Funds filed by plaintiff Frank R. Spencer. The United States of America not only responded in opposition to-the plaintiffs motion but also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed each motion and having done so, makes its determination. In June 1991, Spencer invested $65,000.00 in a car dealership owned by defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment. Plaintiff Union Center Development Corporation (Union) is an urban redevelopment corporation organized under Chapter 353, Mo.Rev.Stat. (1986) with the power of eminent domain under § 353.130(3). Section 353.13...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are plaintiffs Objection to Removal, filed December 29, 1994, and defendant’s responses filed January 18, 1995 and February 6,1995. For the reasons stated below, the Court will retain the case. This case was filed in state court on November 1, 1994. The petition alleges that on March 19,1990, in order to induce “plaintiff’ (presumably, James Birdsell) to accept a job transf...
Views: 0
*585ORDER This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s objection to the September 16, 1994, Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate recommended that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner filed his timely objection to the Report, pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(c)(2). After a de novo revi...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING ISLANDS BAKERY PARTNERSHIP’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL THIS MATTER comes before the court on Islands Bakery’s motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the motion together with all documents filed in support and in opposition, and being fully advised, the court finds and rules as follows: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Islands Bakery Partnership (“debtor”) was reorganized and emerged from Chapter 11...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff (“Defendant”), United States of America (“Defendant”) brings this Motion for a Summary Judgment (“Motion”) against Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants (“Plaintiffs”) *144to recover income and social security taxes pursuant to § 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6672. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion of Defendant ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this action (now consolidated) alleging that the United States, Norman S. *528 Johnson, 1 and Does 1 through 25, 2 reduced Plaintiffs exemptions on his W-4 form, and thus increased money withheld from his paychecks. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts two claims for relief: (1) Defendants wrongfully imposed a “jeopardy as...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S RENEWED DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court in a Renewed Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant ZHA, Inc. (hereafter “ZHA” pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 58). By its motion, ZHA seeks a ruling on two issues which this Court left open at the time of the July 18, 1994, ruling on the parties...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Melodie'Miller (“Miller”) brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security- Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, against Universal Bearings, Inc. Employee Benefi-. ciary Association Plan (“the Plan”), an employee welfare benefit plan, seeking recovery of benefits and attorney’s fees. The Plan was established by her father’s ...
Views: 0
*1256 MEMORANDUM OPINION The above case presents an interesting combination of procedural and constitutional questions. This court sentenced Aaron Tremayne Daniels on September 29, 1993, for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(l)(A), and sentenced him to probation. Two weeks later, on October 12, 1993, this court in United States v. Morrow, 834 F.Supp. 364 (N.D.Ala.1993), held that 18 U.S...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This action is before the Court on the following Motions and Responses: 1. Defendant, Florida State Fair Authority’s (hereafter “Authority”) motion to dismiss count I of the Plaintiffs complaint, filed October 11, 1994. (Docket No. 21) 2. Plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to Defendan...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the case to the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama. Plaintiffs initially filed suit in that court on May 13, 1994, alleging various state law causes of action arising out of the sale of insurance by defendants to the plaintiffs. Defendant Commonwealth National Life Insurance file...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Investment Company Institute (“ICI”) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from a final ruling of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) which authorized Chase Manhattan Bank (“Chase”) to offer its customers a species of a *5 non-transferable certificate of deposit called the Market Index Investment (“Mil”). The Mil is a tim...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendants Prudential Securities Incorporated (“Prudential”) and Scott A. Jaffe’s (“Jaffe”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #35). Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiff Chester J. Reed’s (“Reed”) claims of common law fraud, federal securities law violations, state securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and bre...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO REOPEN PROOFS AND DENYING UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO STRIKE After the conclusion of the bench trial on the claim by Oakland County against the United States in the above-captioned action, the United States filed three motions with the court. The first is a motion to reopen proofs ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER This is a suit by a former employee against his former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The former employer has filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for partial summary judgment. *395 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Joe K. Emrick (“Emrick”), is a former employee of Defendant, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company (“LOF”). ...
Views: 4
OPINION AND ORDER This opinion memorializes the oral ruling made in open court on February 3, 1995. *243 The defendant, Union Trust Company, has made a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the district of Connecticut. The Court denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds without prejudic...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment submitted by plaintiff Mountain Gold Properties, Inc. (Mountain Gold) and defendant City of Detroit (Detroit). Defendants, City of Lathrup Village and Oakland County join in Detroit’s motion. After reviewing the papers and hearing oral argument, it is apparent to me that Mountain Gold has raised no genuine ...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER I. Introduction Before me is plaintiffs motion to remand. I hold that Michigan Compiled Laws (M.C.L.) § 418.821 is not preempted by 29 U.S.C. § 1144 and therefore, plaintiffs motion to remand is granted. II. Background Phylhs Johnson (Johnson) was an employee for Schostak Brothers and Company, Inc. (Schostak). On June 1, 1990 Schostak entered into a contract with defendant, Pau...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the following Motions for Summary Judgment: Defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on August 26, 1994; Defendant Roy Anderson Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 30, 1994; and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgme...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant, CPC International Inc. (CPC), to dismiss this complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. STATEMENT OF FACTS The United States is suing to recover an erroneous refund pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7405. In 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examined CPC’s federal Form 1120 income tax re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are two motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants DPC Industries, Inc. and Terry Lee Pierce. Plaintiff, John E. McCray, filed this employment discrimination suit against Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S....
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action asserting claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state law theories by Total Benefit Services, Inc. (“TBS”), a provider of health care financing services. Defendants are Robert H. Carter, III (“Carter”) and two entities affiliated with Carter, Group Insurance Administration of Louisiana, Inc. (“GIA-LA”), and Group Insurance Administr...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are five motions in limine filed by plaintiff Doctor’s Hospital of Jefferson, Inc. (hereinafter “Doctor’s Hospital”). These motions were previously taken under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court grants one motion in part and denies the remainder of that motion a...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING INTERVENING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Intervening defendant George Harabedian (“Harabedian”) is seeking recovery of $11,-165.00 previously deposited with the court by garnishee defendant Kirco Realty & Development, Ltd. (“Kirco”). Harabedian contends that because he holds a security interest in the money, he deserves to take the funds before the plaintiffs1 (“the Tru...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff David Townshend filed this action against defendants Mark Hazelroth, Michael Arrowood, Robert H. White, Michael P. McCarthy, James Dowling, Robert Topp, and James S. Berglund for defamation of character, libel, civil conspiracy and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is defendants’ motion...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Percy Young, Jr. entered a plea of guilty to unlawfully dealing in firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A). Although Young admitted that he dealt in firearms unlawfully, he denied knowing that the firearms transaction was unlawful. The court was concerned that willfulness is an element of the offense, and accordingly, took acceptance of the plea under advi...
Views: 1
DECISION and ORDER BACKGROUND This is one of a series of cases involving the high incidénce of bladder cancer among employees of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Niagara Falls, New York. In this action, plaintiffs Harry Gibbs, Robert Bailey, Anthony D’Orazio, and William Mooney, all former employees of Goodyear, sue defendants DuPont, Allied-Signal, First Mississippi, First ...
Views: 4
876 F.Supp. 975 (1995) Lia G. BRUJIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mel SHAW; Thomas Isgrigg; and United States Credit Bureau, Inc., Defendants. No. 94 C 4611. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. February 9, 1995. *976 Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, Tara Leigh Goodwin, James Eric Vander Arend, Michelle Ann Weinberg, O. Rand...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 31, 1985, Brenda McLaughlin completed an application for a Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company group life insurance policy. On June 10, 1985, she became insured under Policy No. FL-331, with her husband, defendant James McLaughlin, as the named beneficiary. The parties agree that Brenda McLaughlin made all of her premium payments under the policy from ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER I This diversity of citizenship suit was precipitated by a change in the supplier of gaso *46 line to a service station. Plaintiff Star Enterprise (“Star”), the original supplier, has sued all of the defendants except SPI Petroleum for breach of contract. Star’s second claim is against the subsequent supplier of gasoline to the owners, the defendant SPI Petroleum Inc. (“SPI...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs in this action have filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In addition, defendants Ronald Simmons and Ron Simmons Painting, Inc. (“Simmons Painting”) have filed a joint motion for summary judgment. Oral argument on these...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The motion of defendants Darby Borough and Darryl Guy for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim was granted on February 8,1995. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Jurisdiction was declined over the supplemental claims, and they were dismissed. 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). The question raised by this motion is whether defendant Guy, a Darby Borough police officer, who was off-duty at the ...
Views: 0
Petitioner/plaintiff Blair Mersereau seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the respondenVdefendant John J. Ingham, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), Buffalo District, to admit him into the United States as a conditional permanent resident or, in the alternative, to parole him into this country during the pendency of this action. The INS claims that Mr. Me...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This diversity case governed by Illinois substantive law involves a dispute between Trans States Airlines (“Trans States”), a commercial airline, and Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. (“Pratt & Whitney”), an airline engine manufacturer. Trans States has filed a three count complaint alleging theories of negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability. These...
Views: 2
On July 19, 1994, third-party defendant Laidlaw Inc. (“Laidlaw”) filed a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the amended third-party complaints of Solvent Chemical Co., Inc. (“Solvent”), Item 179, Mader Capital, Inc. (“Mader”), Item 181, and ICC Industries, Inc. (“ICC”), Item 183. Item 240. Oral argument was held on December 16, 1994. For the reasons given below, Raid-law’s motion is denied. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In the early hours of May 12, 1992, Theodore Wozniak (“Wozniak”) crashed his all terrain vehicle (“ATV”) in a ditch while being pursued by Orland Park police officers Jeffrey Cavender (“Cavender”) and Troy Siewert (“Siewert”). Wozniak (“Wozniak”) and his wife Karen Wozniak are now suing Ca-vender and Siewert (count I) and the Village of Orland Park (count V) under 4...
Views: 0
This case raises the question of whether, and the extent to which, state prison authorities may constitutionally employ food deprivation as a disciplinary measure. On August 5, 1992, plaintiff Sean Williams, acting pro se, brought suit under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendants Thomas A. Coughlin, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“D...
Views: 0
LETTER OPINION ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH CLERK OF THE COURT This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment by Dowel Associates, Herbert M. Iris, and Lester Z. Lieberman (“Dowel”), and by HMAT Associates, Inc. (“HMAT”). 1 The subject of the instant cross-motions is a ten-acre plot of land on Edwards Road in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, known as Block...
Views: 0
*760 ORDER The five plaintiffs in this action are all inmates who were, at the time the suit was filed, incarcerated at the Allendale Correctional Institution (ACI), a part of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were the victims of discrimination based on their religious beliefs. All five of the plaintiffs are practicing Muslims...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 The issue before this Court is whether the entry of a proposed antitrust consent decree between Microsoft Corporation and the United States is in “the public interest.”2 Microsoft is the world’s largest developer of computer software. On July 15, 1994, the Government filed a complaint charging Microsoft with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. 15 U.S...
Views: 0
ORDER On December 13, 1994, while the jury was deliberating the claim of Maytag Corporation and Jenn-Air Company (collectively “JennAir”) against Robert A. Clarkson, the Court informed the parties and their counsel that it believed the closing argument of S. Jahue Moore (one of Clarkson’s attorneys) was improper, that it was reviewing the matter, and that it may have further comment thereon. Th...
Views: 0
874 F.Supp. 971 (1995) AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GILROY, SIMS & ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al., Defendants. Nos. 91-1012C(6), 91-2104C(6). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. February 9, 1995. *972 Byron E. Francis, Katherine D. Knocke, Associate, Petree Anne Eastman, Daniel R. Wofsey, Armstrong and Teasdale, St. Louis, MO, for American Nat. Ins. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION This matter is before the court on movant Cuch’s motion to vacate judgment, conviction and commitment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A report and recommendation (“R & R”) was issued by the magistrate judge on July 26, 1994. On August 9, 1994 the government filed objections to the R & R. The ...
Views: 2
The United States of America on behalf of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) *962 objects to an Order of the bankruptcy court, provisionally granting the trustee’s motions for partial summary judgment in this and 14 related adversarial proceedings. 1 The bankruptcy court’s Order adopted a Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 1994, as its report and recommendation...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND On August 12, 1994, this court signed an order reflecting its oral decision rendered on August 8, 1994 in which it found, inter alia, that defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) had breached the March 12, 1992 settlement agreement between the parties and had violated the court’s corresponding dismissal order dated April 9, 1992. The court granted partial ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Karol K. Howard, filed a seven-count complaint against defendants, Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427 (Board), Jeffrey Welcker, the principal of Sycamore High School (in both individual and official capacities) and Charles McCormick, the assistant superintendent/business manager of the De-Kalb...
Views: 1
876 F.Supp. 1270 (1995) James C. ORR, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. BLACK & FURCI, P.A., Roy Black, Defendants. No. 93-642-CIV-ORL-18. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. February 3, 1995. *1271 *1272 Kevin F. Foley, Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, FL, for plaintiff. Robert A. Soriano, James B. Baldinger, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the Court is a motion for dismissal made pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure brought by defendant Michael McNulty, a United States Representative from the 21st Congressional District of New York. It is alleged that the complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, and, m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) filed a motion for severance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). For the reasons stated herein, this court finds that the motion for severance is proper and GRANTS that motion. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, South Hampton Refining Co. (“South Hampton”), filed this claim under th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION United General Title Insurance Company (“United”) filed suit alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligence against its former limited agent Land Title Research of Maryland (“Land Title”) and Joseph E. Goldberg, Sr. The Court granted a preliminary injunction which prohibited Land Title or Goldberg from wasting assets and also transferred $955,805 from Land Title’s account...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Both defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. (“TSI”) and plaintiffs Louis and Emma Robinson have moved for summary judgment in this action brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) (FDCPA). TSI seeks dismissal of the complaint in its entirety while plaintiffs seek summary judgment on liab...
Views: 0
■MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of -the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has responded to this motion, and no oral hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.). This is a diversity tort case, in which the' plaintiff 1 sues for injuries received when she ran down fourte...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEPE’S ORDER FOR DISCOVERY Defendant Ronald Collis was charged by Indictment with obstruction of justice, in vio *402 lation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, and serving in a prohibited capacity to a benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1111. Defendant ...
Views: 0
OPINION MEMORANDUM OPINION DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR COUNSEL FEES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS This case arises out of a $1.1 million loan extended to plaintiffs in 1979. As of early 1990, the principal balance had been reduced to approximately $118,000. Rather than satisfy this obligation, plaintiffs initiated three years of protracted, expensive and highly contentious litigation, which resulted in thi...
Views: 0
OPINION OPINION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e. Plaintiff, Fior D’Aliza Minetos, claims that defendants, Peter Basquin, Ruth DeFord (Kotecha), L. Michael Griffel, Russell Oberlin and James S. Harrison (“Music Professors”) and the City University of New York (“CUNY”)/Hunter Co...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is a personal injury case by an aircraft mechanic against Air France and the Port Authority for injuries sustained when plaintiff fell off a ladder/platform while working on the engine of the Concorde at Kennedy Airport. Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim that New York Labor Law § 240(1) makes defendants strictly liable for plaintiffs i...
Views: 0
*1069 OPINION This is an action brought by plaintiffs Gloria E. Martinez (“Martinez”) and Ursulo Hernandez (“Hernandez”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) against defendants United States Postal Office (the “Postal Service”), Orlando J. Chandler, Jr. (“Chandler”), John Doe (“Doe”) and ABC Company (“ABC”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) for damages stemming from alleged personal i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I These related cases arise from repeated flooding of plaintiffs’ homes and property by a nearby tributary of what is known as the Demarest Kill. Plaintiffs assert the flooding occurs because defendants Manual Rapkin (“Rapkin”) and Cranford Farm (“Cranford”), *241 improperly constructed the homes 3.5 feet below the base flood water surface elevation....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This action arises out of a residential lease agreement “with option to buy” entered into between the plaintiffs pro se, Hank Mathon and Sheila Mathon who are husband and wife (“the plaintiffs” or “the Mathons”), and a person identified by the plaintiffs as the owner of the residence named Stanley Stuart (“Stuart”). The plaintiffs allege that t...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Barbara G. Chandler, the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Sam L. Chandler, instituted this action against the City of Newport News (the “City”), the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (d/b/a “AMTRAK”) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”). The action was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News and removed' to this court. Mr. Chandler...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Asbestos Workers Syracuse Pension Fund (“Asbestos Fund”) moves for summary judgment against defendant M.G. Industrial Insulation Company, Inc. (“M.G. Industrial”) in this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”) to collect $56,-462.43 ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND FINAL ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs and Defendant Greenwood’s motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendant Greenwood’s motion. J. Factual and Procedural History Plaintiff Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (“Vermont Mutual”) brought this declarat...
Views: 0
ORDER The court has before it plaintiffs Motion to Remand 1 and defendant FHP of Utah, Inc.’s (“FHP”) Motion to Dismiss. The court first considers plaintiffs Motion to Remand. Plaintiff asserts that because not all of the defendants joined in the notice of removal or filed any pleadings establishing their unambiguous consent, the removal was fatally defective requiring rem...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Trustees of the Redall Industries Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Trustees”) and plaintiff Redall Industries, Inc. (“Redall”) filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. and state law claims. Plaintiffs seek ...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING REMAND This is a tortious interference and wrongful sale case brought by Plaintiffs under Texas state law. This suit was originally filed in the 149th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas and was removed to this Court by Defendants under the premise of federal question jurisdiction. Before the Court now is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the above-captioned cause of act...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, through appointed counsel, brings this action pursuant to the doctrine announced in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that defendants, two correctional officers at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) — Schuylkill, violated his c...
Views: 1
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER This Court has been called upon to supplement its order of January 17, 1995, compelling the discovery of the name, address, and telephone number of the complaining witness. This Court sets forth its reasoning for its decision as follows. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs sought to compel disclosure of the name, address, and telephone number of the complaining witness to an alleged burg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The interesting issue presented by this appeal (Filings 134, 136) from Magistrate Judge Piester’s order (Filing 128) compelling production of documents is: whether a director of a corporation, who is also a minority stockholder, has the right to documents, which are otherwise presumably protected by the attorney-client privilege, when the corporation the director...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BACKGROUND The plaintiffs, Butte Mining PLC (“Butte Mining”), and three of that entity’s wholly-owned Montana subsidiaries — Tzarina & Travona Mining Corp. (“Tzarina”), Central Butte Mining Corp. (“Central Butte”), and North Butte Mining Company (“North Butte”), instituted the present action charging the defendants engaged in a pattern of activity designe...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is a personal injury action arising out of a 1984 accident in which the plaintiff Shawn Collins (“Shawn”), who was then four years old, was injured in the Logan Airport baggage room of the defendant, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”). Shawn was in the baggage room because he had been brought there by his father, Michael Collins (“Collins”), who was...
Views: 1
*7 MEMORANDUM Presently before the court is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. Plaintiff originally filed this case in state court. Defendant Naewae Semiconductor Co., Ltd., with the approval of the other defendants, removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1446. Plaintiff contends that the petition for removal was late. I. Background In January of 1994, Plaintiff filed p...
Views: 0
*422 MEMORANDUM This case comes to the district court on appeal from a final judgment and order of the bankruptcy court. Below, Debtor/Appel-lee moved to reject certain franchise agreements and for money damages and equitable relief. The bankruptcy judge granted Appel-lee’s Motion to Reject Certain Franchise Agreements. After a hearing, the bankruptcy judge awarded money dama...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Regional Director”) petitions the district court to enjoin actions by the Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 122 (the “Union”). The issue arises from the Union’s actions directed at local beer and liquor retailers. The Regional Director contends that such actions amount to a violation of the National Labor...
Views: 0
*70 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Pro se plaintiff Vincent F. Zarrilli (“Zarrilli”) filed this action in August of 1994 seeking, inter alia, to enjoin the construction of the Central Artery depression portion of the Boston Central Artery-Third Harbor Tunnel Project (the “Central Artery Project” or the “Project”). Zarrilli’s suit named forty defendants, including various municipal, state, a...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Plaintiff, Daniel Drinker, is nine years old and suffers from Down’s Syndrome and cerebral palsy, conditions that qualify him as an “exceptional” child, see 22 Pa.Code § 14.1. In Count II of their complaint, he and his parents seek a permanent injunction requiring defendants, the Colonial School District and others (whom we shall coll...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case is before me for all further proceedings upon consent of the parties. Defendant, Leon County, moves for summary judgment for lack of standing accompanied by a memorandum. Docs. 308 and 309. Defendant also seeks summary judgment on the merits. Docs. 310 and 311. Plaintiffs’ responses are docs. 329 and 330, and doc. 338 is...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 8 (1995) John MENDOZA, Plaintiff, v. UNION STREET BUS COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 93-10397-MEL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 10, 1995. *9 *10 Harvey A. Schwartz, Schwartz, Shaw & Griffith, Boston, MA, for plaintiff. Arthur J. Caron, Jr., New Bedford, MA, Walter Smith, Burke and Smith, James B. Ross, North Dartmouth, MA, for defendant. LASKER, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Mark H. Jordan filed this action in the small claims part of Troy City Court, Troy, New York, on October 14, 1993. Defendant Retirement Committee of the Contributory Retirement Plan at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute removed the action by notice of removal filed November 3, 1993. Pursuant to an order by Magistrate Judge Ralph W. Smith the parties h...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM On October 341,1994, this court conducted a nonjury trial in the captioned action. Three counts of the complaint were disposed of at the summary judgment phase, and three counts remained for trial. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the parties requested permission to submit post-trial briefs to summarize the evidence and argue the issues. The court acquiesced to their request. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This detinue and conversion action is in reality yet another chapter in a lengthy criminal forfeiture saga. The saga grows out of the payment of $103,800 of attorneys’ fees to Moffitt, Zwerling & Kemler, P.C. (the “Law Firm”) by a client who obtained the money through drug trafficking. 1 Until now, the government’s forfeiture efforts have relied solely on the...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this criminal action charging defendant Daniel O. Teyibo, a/k/a “Daniel O. Teyido,” a/k/a “Richard K. Gant,” a/k/a “Samuel O. Ajao,” a/k/a “Jack Renfro” (“Teyibo”) with nine counts of wire fraud and eight counts of securities fraud, Teyibo moves for an order suppressing all evidence, dismissing the indictment and releasing the grand jury minutes. The Go...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Defendants have moved this Court to dismiss the instant action for a number of reasons that include improper venue, lack of standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This case arises out of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) Order A-863, which establishes minimum milk prices in PMMB Area # 1. Area # 1 consists of Sou...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. On September 20, 1994, plaintiffs, who are tenants in a low-income housing project, brought suit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Macon Housing Authori...
Views: 0
ORDER: (1) DENYING DOCUMENTS 13 AND 31; (2) GRANTING DOCUMENT 22 AND DENYING DOCUMENT 29 REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S “JUST CAUSE” AND RETALIATION CLAIMS; (3) STAYING A RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIM; AND (4) ORDERING THE POSTAL SERVICE’S COUNSEL TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH TRANSCRIPT CITES RELATIVE TO THE MERITS OF THAT LATTER CLAIM . This is a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant, F. William Sawyer (“Sawyer”), has moved this Court to exclude from evidence his allegedly privileged communications with in-house counsel of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Hancock”). More specifically, Sawyer seeks to suppress evidence relating to two conversations that he had with Hancock Attorneys, *296 Richard Scipione and ...
Views: 2
ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs motion for an award of attorney fees brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the factors relevant to such an award, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 28, 1992, alleging among other things that conditions imposed upon it ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Anthony Jones (Jones), an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, brings this pro se § 1983 action against defendant Charles Banks (Banks), a correctional officer stationed at the Stateville Correctional Center. Jones seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Before this c...
Views: 5
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS 1 Plaintiff Michael Shanahan brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the consent decree entered in Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315, 1356-59 (N.D.Ill.1979) (“Shakman decree”) alleging that he was demoted in viola*537tio...
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION By Opinion and Order dated July 14, 1994 (the “Opinion”), I confirmed an Opinion and Interim Arbitration Award dated July 1,1993 of Impartial Arbitrator John E. Sands (the “Award”) in favor of Respondent, New York Typographical Union No. 6 (the “Union”). The Corporate Printing Company, Inc. v. New York Typographical Union, 1994 WL 376093 (S.D.N.Y. July 14,...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 40), plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket No. 49), and the respective supplements to their motions. Plaintiff, Gilberto Arvelo, filed the instant ease alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement and violation of ...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 326 (1995) CAMBRIDGE PLATING CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. NAPCO, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 90-11605-WAG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 7, 1995. *327 *328 *329 Joseph M. Kaigler, Office of the Sol., Cambridge, MA, Brendan M. Hare, David B. Chaffin, Hare & Chaffin; and Kevin P. Sweeney, Cuddy, Lynch & Bixby, Boston, MA, for plaintiff. Peter Alley, Willi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Charles Bokis, has brought this products liability action against defendant, American Medical Systems, Inc. (“AMS”), based on an allegedly defective penile prosthesis manufactured by AMS and implanted in plaintiff. This matter is currently before the Court for consideration of defendant’s motion for summary judgment which urges dismissal of plai...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter-is before the court on motion of the plaintiffs, Wallace G. Wilkinson and Russell C. Weaver, for issuance of a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 65(a). The court heard oral argument on the motion on *920 January 20, 1995. This memorandum opinion shall constitute findings of fact and conclusi...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 7, 1994, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant, F. William Sawyer (“Sawyer”), charging him with fifteen counts of mail fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, eight counts of interstate travel with intent to commit bribery and one count of conspiracy. Pending before the Court are the following motions of the defendant: 1) eight motio...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs are inmates at the Potosi Correctional Center (“PCC”). Plaintiffs have filed suit against various prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs now seek an order determining whether this case may be maintained as a class action on behalf of plaintiffs and on behalf of all other persons si...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER Presently before the court is a motion by the defendant, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. [“S.C. Johnson”], seeking enforcement of a purported settlement agreement. In its motion, the defendant claims that it reached an oral settlement agreement with the plaintiff in this action, and that the plaintiff refuses to abide by the terms of such agreement. I. BACKGROUND On ...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER In a November 1,1994, decision and order, I ordered the respondent, Quad/Graphics, Inc. [“Quad/Graphics”], to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s [“EEOC’s”], December 28, 1993, subpoena requesting various employment records from the respondent 868 F.Supp. 1078. Quad/Graphics was ordered to comply with the subpoena within eight weeks of the date of the decis...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER On May 13,1993, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the United States and twelve individual defendants in both their official and personal capacities, with the filing of an eight-count complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, and in an order dated December 22, 1993, I dismissed numerous counts of the original complaint. Kau fmann ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FACTS Charles D. Barton and Nanette A. Barton, husband and wife, held a one-third interest, as tenants by the entirety, in a parcel of property (“the property”) registered with the Land Court of the State of Hawaii (“Land Court”) pursuant to H.R.S. § 501. Associates Financial S...
Views: 0
OPINION In this maritime tort action plaintiff, Richard Viator, seeks damages for personal inju *371 ríes he sustained while piloting a barge on Bayou Teche between St. Martinville and New Iberia, Louisiana. Viator was injured when an excavator operator, who was operating an excavator from the bow of the barge, accidentally struck the plaintiff with tree limbs that protruded from the excava...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket No. 241), third-party plaintiffs opposition (docket No. 279), and the respective supplements to their motions.1 The motion for summary judgment is predicated on issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel. After careful consideration of the arguments presented, and substantially for the same...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER The Court has before it defendant’s two motions for partial summary judgment (docket Nos. 121, 122), plaintiff’s oppositions (docket Nos. 131, 136), and the respective supplements to their motions. 1 The case at bar is a diversity action filed by Taber Partners I (“Taber”) against Merit Builders, Inc. (“Merit”) 2 for the alleged breach of three co...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER On January 31, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a twelve-count complaint against the defendants asserting counts based upon breach of contract and quantum meruit. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning on January 17, 1995. Presently before the court is the plaintiffs’ “motion in limine re extrinsic evidence of contingenc...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the undersigned on motion of the defendants to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff brings this action in federal court alleging violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. The plaintiff also includes supplemental state claims of medical malpracti...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter was heard before the undersigned on motion of the defendant to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in that the statute of limitations bars the action, and that the plaintiff has not stated a cause of action under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are defendant-objectors’ motion to alter or amend this Court’s January 24, 1995, 874 F.Supp. 200, memorandum opinion and order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), motion for leave to supplement the motion to alter or amend, and motion to stay the Court’s remand order pending further proceedings in this matter. As set forth below, the motions are granted ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. no. 81) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. no. 83), Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. no. 101), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. no. 95) 1 . Defendant has requested *1079 oral argument on the motion. However, the Court finds that the issues raised in the motion have been fu...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Electro-Jet Tool & Manufacturing-Company’s [“Electro-Jet”] motion for [partial] summary judgment (Doc. 45), Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition thereto (Doc. 48), and Defendant Electro-Jet’s reply. (Doc. 50). In addition, the Court will consider Defendant Electro-Jet’s motion to dissolve preliminary injunction (Doc. 53), Plaintiffs memo*164r...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny defendant’s motion. 1 *1144 I. Plaintiff Americhem Corporation (“Ameri-chem”) blends, repackages, and sells industrial solvents, chemicals, and lubricants. From 1975 to 1980, Barrels, Inc., reconditioned containers for Ame...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendant A.B.D. Tank & Pump Company’s and Defendant Xerxes Corporation’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Agricultural Excess and Surplus Insurance Company’s and Delta Sonic Automatic Car Wash Systems’ Amended Complaint. ALLEGED FACTS Plaintiffs Agricultural Excess and Surplus and Insurance Company (“AESIC”) and Delta Sonic Auto...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it the Motions of the Defendants for Admission Pro Hac Vice and To Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Change of Venue. The Court, having considered the Motions, response, and supporting memoran-da, grants the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, denies the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and denies the Motion for Change of Ven...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on an appeal from an order entered on November 4, 1991 by the Honorable Barry S. Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge. Henry Joseph Ketchum (“debtor”) appeals from the bankruptcy court’s decision that his tax liabilities to the IRS for the years 1982 through 1986 are non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The facts are not disputed....
Views: 0
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE’S REPORTS AND AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Magistrate’s December 16, 1994 Report and Recommendation regarding entitlement to attorney’s fees and the Magistrate’s January 16, 1995 Report and Recommendation regarding the proper amount of fees to be awarded. Defendants filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s December Report and Recom...
Views: 2
OPINION This is a patent case. Johns Hopkins University and its co-plaintiffs Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Becton Dickinson and Company allege CellPro is willfully infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,965,204, which is owned by Johns Hopkins. CellPro denies liability and has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, not infringed and unenforceable. The case is scheduled t...
Views: 1
876 F.Supp. 1278 (1995) AMERICAN INVESTORS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WEBB LIFE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and Jack L. Elledge, individually, Defendants. No. 94-8376-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. January 26, 1995. *1279 Judith A. Ripps, Harnett, Lesnick, Ripps & Kahn, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, for plaintiff. Leigh E. Dunson, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Pa...
Views: 0
*724 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT Appellants, Linda Hastings and Carol Henley, (“judgment creditors”) appeal a final judgment issued by the Bankruptcy court in favor of the appellee, Robert C. Furr, chapter 7 trustee, ordering that they did not have a lien on the debtor’s stock in Trodglen Paving, Inc. (“TPI”) and that the unencumbered stock was...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Laerdal Medical Corporation (hereinafter “Laerdal”) instituted this litigation against defendant Ambu, Inc. (hereinafter “Ambu”) for infringement of Laerdal’s patent covering a cervical extrication collar, willful infringement of that patent, unfair competition and patent mismarking. Defendant Ambu has counterclaimed, asserting unfair competition/trade disparagement by Laerdal. Previousl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for clarification of the Court’s Order of December 9, 1994, 871 F.Supp. 475, or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment entered on that date pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, plaintiffs request the Court to clarify or amend its Order by setting aside as void ab in...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is opened before the Court upon the appeal of defendant Raphael Hernandez from the Order of Magistrate Judge Hedges denying a reduction of his bail. The Court has heard the oral arguments of counsel and reviewed their written submissions. For the reasons given below, the Court will deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Magistrate. DISCUSSION Defen...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff David H. Lyle brings this action through counsel under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2005(c), and Ohio common law. Defendant Mercy Hospital Anderson is an independent acute care hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. This matter is before the Court upon Mercy Hospital’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 7), plaintiffs memorandum in opposition (doc. no...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 11, 1994, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in which he alleged *97 discrimination by the Department- of the Navy in denying him a promotion to the position of WG-10 Electrician in December 1991. Plaintiff seeks the promotion and back pay. On October 14,1994, Plaintiff amended his complaint to request court costs, puni...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS AND AFFIRMING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER GRANTING ATLANTIC GULF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE EXECUTORY CONTRACT, DISCHARGE AND INJUNCTION PROVISIONS OF PLAN AND CONFIRMATION ORDER, AND DENYING MOTION FOR EX PARTE RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY, DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1993 BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Granting Atlantic Gulfs Motion to En...
Views: 2
ORDER AND REASONS This is a suit for declaratory relief and damages arising from the plaintiffs’ investment in a proposal to purchase-.and relocate the Minnesota Timberwolves franchise in New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiffs seek relief based on Louisiana law and the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. All defendants, except The Louisiana Stadium and ...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 263 (1995) STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, v. Nimrod STEPHENS, Jr., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-A-1143-E. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division. February 14, 1995. Ronald L. Myers, Opelika, AL, Yvonne Annette Henderson, James H. Evans, Office of the Atty. Gen., Montgomery, AL, for State of Ala. David L. Allred, Kenneth E. Vines, Redding Pitt, U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorne...
Views: 0
OPINION In this patent case, Molex, Incorporated contends it inadvertently produced during discovery copies of documents that would otherwise be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. It has moved for an order directing Berg Electronics, Inc. to return the documents. Berg has declined to return the documents, contending the disclosure is a waiver of the privilege and ...
Views: 0
*5 MEMORANDUM OPINION IN AID OF SENTENCING On May 20, 1994 the defendant, Darius Hart pled guilty to distribution of 50 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). This Court sentenced the defendant to 78 months in prison on November 7, 1994. The statutory minimum penalty for the offense the defendant pled guilty to is 10 years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The Cou...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Christine Evans, brought this civil action against her employer, Technologies Applications & Services Company (“TAS”), alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (count III) and sex and age discrimination under the Montgomery County Code (counts I and II respectively). She alleges that...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Background This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgement and plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff (JAC) seek collapse loss coverage for five parking garages in the District of Columbia under an insurance contract with the defendant. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is complete...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING REMAND This is a personal injury suit in which Plaintiff Gail Gray (“Gray”) alleges that she was injured by being directed by Barbara Bennett (“Bennett”) to lift boxes of shortening at the Long John Silvers Restaurant (“Long John Silvers”) where she worked. Plaintiff originally brought this suit in the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, and Defendants removed...
Views: 0
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an action brought by Plaintiffs Elton E. Dotson and Alrethia Dotson (“the Dotsons”) against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the refund of income and social security taxes formerly paid by the Dotsons and now claimed by them to have been paid on a nontaxable settlement amount. Before the Court now are Cross-motions for Summary Judgment...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. 1 At issue is petitioner’s contention that his guilty plea to a drug trafficking crime should be set aside because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer wrongly advised him on the law. For the reasons stated, the petition must be deni...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action by Dorothy H. Martin against ITT Commercial Finance Corporation (ITT), Equilaw Incorporated (Equilaw), and the American Arbitration Association (American Arbitration) for the stay of arbitration proceedings pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-581.02(B). Since the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000 and Martin is a citizen of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I This litigation involves controversies between E.R. Squibb & Sons (“Squibb”), a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and a number of its insurers in connection with product liability claims against Squibb arising out of injuries incurred by users of the product diethylstilbestrol (“DES”). This case has generated three decisions on motions concerning the merits. A memorandum order dated...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-OPINION I. Introduction Plaintiff Jamari Salleh was a career (tenured) Foreign Service Officer with the Department of State (hereinafter “the Department”). In 1989, the Department first proposed to separate her from the Foreign Service. In May of 1992, the Foreign Service Grievance Board (hereinafter “the Board”) concluded that good cause had not been established for her termination....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Presently before the Court is defendant Thomas Heald’s (hereinafter “defendant”) motion for reconsideration made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 of this Court’s November 11, 1994 Order, which had denied his motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Heinrich Von Ritter (hereinafter “plaintiff’). I. The factual background for this case was discussed i...
Views: 0
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM On January 26,1990, David Kwong sent an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York a booby-trapped briefcase. The device was rigged so that when opened, a sawed-off Marlin 70-P rifle would fire a single .22 caliber, Stinger, high-velocity, high-power round. Fortunately for the Assistant United States Attorney, a NYPD detective assigned to th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 694 PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................................. 695 STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED............................... 696 *693 FACTS ................................................................... 697 A. THE RECORDKEEPIN...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the Court are two motions made returnable December 23, 1994. The first motion is brought by defendants William Canny and Dorothy Conlon for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) and (6). The second motion is brought by the plaintiff against all the defendants, excepting defendant Joseph Fletcher, for summary judgment mad...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case presents the important and (surprisingly) novel question concerning the extent to which a foreign diplomat and his spouse may rely on their diplomatic immunity to escape civil liability for debts incurred and laws violated in the United States. I. Plaintiff Corazon Tabion, a Philippines national, left her country in 1989 and began working in Jordan a...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER This is a ease seeking damages and equitable relief for infringement of a registered trademark. The court’s jurisdiction is predicated upon 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. §. 1338(a). I. The Libman Company (Libman) manufactures brooms, mops and brushes and sells them in the national market. On April 6, 1993, Libman’s ma...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS Eduardo Leal and three other defendants, Felix Ernesto Solis, Ignasio Ramirez, and Raul Garza Tijerina, are charged with conspiracy to possess and to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Solis is a fugitive and Ramirez and Tijerina have entered guilty pleas and are awaiting sentencing. Leal has moved the court to suppress the statements he made to Il...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, Dr. Daniel Tripodi, brought this suit for wrongful discharge arising out of his employment at defendant, Therakos, Inc. (“Therakos”) from January 1, 1988 to July 24, 1989. In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff advanced many causes of action, but all except a “Woolley ” claim were dismissed prior to trial on a summary judgment motion. The Woolley...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Wayne M. Turner’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (#20), filed November 9, 1994. The Defendant the United States (the “Government”) filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (# 24) on November 23, 1994. Plaintiff filed a Reply (#25) on December 6, 1994. Also before the Court is the Defendant United States’ Motio...
Views: 0
*1345 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This action arises out of plaintiffs Marvin and Mary Klehr’s purchase of a Harvestore silo in July, 1974. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants misrepresented material facts with respect to the characteristics of the Harvestore silo, causing the Klehrs damage. Before the Court is Defendant A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.’s ...
Views: 1
ORDER This is a “reasonable accommodation” action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994). Plaintiff allegedly suffers from panic attacks and severe anxiety and distress, and seeks modification of his employment in a manner consistent with his disability. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction .(# 7), filed ...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER This proceeding is before the Court upon a petition for injunctive relief filed on June 10, 1994 by the Acting Regional Director of Region 24 of the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 149; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(j) (“the Act”). The injunctive relief herein requested, if granted...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Cross-Defendant United States of America brings its Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Motion to Dismiss on the cross-claim asserted against it by Cross-Plaintiffs Clifton and Lillian Coleman. Having considered the Motion, the supporting and opposing memoranda and the attached exhibits, the Court finds that th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. William F. Schierholz and his wife filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), challenging the decision of a pension plan administrator to deny him certain retirement benefits. The record establishes the following. Schierholz was employed by Chem...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PANT AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. Plaintiff represents himself in this matter. After reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. BACKGROU...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case arose out of a two-vehicle accident that occurred on December 4, 1987 at approximately 1:25 p.m. on Route 17K in Newburgh, New York. Deborah Contini was driving her 1987 Hyundai Excel. Her infant son, Thomas, was seated behind her in the back seat in a Fisher Price child restraint seat. The Continis’ Hyundai was struck from the rear by a Mercedes truck, owne...
Views: 1
ORDER The above-captioned matter came before the Court on January 9, 1995 for oral argument on defendant County of Alameda’s (“County’s”) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Having carefully considered the oral and written arguments submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for the reasons explained below. I. BACKGROUND The facts relevant ...
Views: 2
OPINION ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This case, as filed, included claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article 1, Sections 8; 9 and 11 of the New York State Constitution; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §...
Views: 2
*4 MEMORANDUM OPINION President and Mrs. Clinton established the Presidential Legal Expense Trust to help defray their personal legal expenses. Plaintiffs allege in Count 1 that the Trust is subject to, and has violated, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Plaintiffs allege in Count 2 that the Office of Government Ethics improperly responded to their request under the Freedom...
Views: 4
*1177 MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund (collectively “Central States”) sued Marine Contracting Corporation (“Marine”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) to recover employer contributions. Defendant Marine moves to d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Rhone-Poulene, Inc. (“Rhone-Poulenc”) sues International Insurance Company (“International”) and International Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Surplus”) for breach of contract and a declaration of insurance coverage obligations in connection with five contaminated Rhone-Poulenc sites in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Jurisdiction is b...
Views: 0
OPINION In this diversity action for wrongful death, third-party defendant moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the third-party complaint. For the reasons set out below, R & Ws motion will be denied. The Parties Plaintiffs Delores Comer (“Delores”), wife of Michael Comer (“Comer”), the deceased, and Patricia Edelson (“...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM After plaintiff presented his case-in-ehief (which included testimony by defendant Sylvia Kinard), defendants moved for judgment on the ground, among others, that none of the statements plaintiff alleges to have been the cause of his termination related to matters of “public concern.” Higher courts have ruled that the judge rather than the jury must decide whether the statements we...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel on the basis of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(the Ethics Rules). The Ethics Rules have been adopted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Local Rule 14(IV)(B). Plaintiff Maia Caplan has sued her former employer, the law firm of Feliheimer Eichen Braverma...
Views: 0
DECISION This Title VII case was tried before this Court in a non-jury trial on November 7-9, 1994. The plaintiff is Wesley Smith, a black male who alleges that he was terminated by the defendant, Chevron, USA (“Chevron”), on account of his race. The parties have submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the matter is now ripe for decision. Accordingly, the Court ma...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 706 (1995) Juan A. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al., Defendants. No. 94-CV-2139. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 17, 1995. *707 Juan A. Rodriguez, pro se. Brian Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER, District Judge. We address today the Motion for Summar...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are the following motions of third-party defendant Northern Telecom Inc. (“NTI”): (1) motion to dismiss, and (2) motion to stay discovery proceedings. Defendant and third-party plaintiff Medical Review of North Carolina, Inc. (“MRNC”) filed a response to the motion to dismiss and NTI replied. As the issues have been fully briefed, the matter is now ripe for disp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) under the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On January 17, 1990, the plaintiff, Robert W. McKeon (“McKeon”), filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“t...
Views: 0
OPINION Trial of this matter was held before Judge Nauman S. Scott on December 2, 1994 in Lafayette, Louisiana. In this case we are called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Leon Chastant (“Chastant”), is entitled to terminate two leases with Headrick Outdoor, Incorporated (“Headrick”). In the event we find that the leases are no longer valid, we are also asked to decide who own...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this declaratory judgment action *1244 all move the Court for summary judgment. Having considered the motions of the parties, the responses, the supporting and opposing memoranda and the relevant exhibits, the Court rules that the Motion of Plaintiff Audubon ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are the following motions: (1) The motion of defendant W.R. Peele Company, Incorporated (“Company”) to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; (2) The motion for summary judgment of defendant Madeline S. Peele (“Madeline”); (3) The motion for summary judgment of plaintiff State of North Carolina (“State”); (4) The motions of def...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER The matter before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, Kenneth A. Hendershott, to compel discovery (#55). *130Hendershott moves this court for an order compelling the defendants to produce injury reports and complaints involving the use of excessive force by the named defendants from 1991 to the present. On December 21, 1994, the court ordered the defendants to submit the do...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Having heard the oral arguments of the parties and having reviewed the briefs, the applicable law and the record, the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs initially filed this “Class Action Complaint” on March 29,1993 (R.Doc. 1) and filed a “First Amended Class Ac...
Views: 4
ORDER I. BACKGROUND This matter is before the court on motions by the defendants to dismiss or abstain from exercising jurisdiction. The motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for decision. The issues before the court can be best discussed as consisting of two distinct parts. The first part concerns plaintiffs first through fifth claims in which it is seeking a dec...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on remand from the Federal Circuit and on Ogilvie Mills, Inc.’s (“Ogilvie”) motions to deny or retax costs (Doc. 1354), to file reply briefs (Does. 1367, 1368 and 1371), and for final judgment (Doe. 1377). The court has examined the Federal Circuit’s instructions on remand, as well as the parties’ motion...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER “Puerto Rico is the beneficiary of two great legal systems [: civil and common law]. Out of the interaction and synthesis of these systems, but without eclipsing or banning one or the other, a new Derecho Puertorriqueño can and does emerge.” Diaz Irizarry v. Ennia, N.V., 678 F.Supp. 957, 962 n. 5 (D.P.R.1988). Before the Court is defendant Flav...
Views: 0
*125MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Morton Zuber and Zuber Corporation (hereinafter collectively “Zuber”) and Burlington Northern Railroad Company (“Railroad”) have moved (Filings 1 & 3) as non-parties to litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama to quash various subpoenas issued under the authority of this court and s...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, William M. Lea, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), for refund of a civil penalty allegedly erroneously assessed and collected by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) under 26 U.S.C. § 6701. Before the court is a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the United States. Plaintiff has respon...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Narciussus Dellamore (“Dellamore”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), alleging that corrections officers at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility (“Woodbourne”) violated his constitutional rights during a strip search. Defendants seek to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim, as well as on qualified immunity gr...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff (the Government) brought this action to recover unpaid income taxes for the tax years 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980. The Government seeks to set aside allegedly fraudulent transfers of real and personal property; to foreclose federal tax liens on the fraudulently transferred property; and to obtain judgment for any tax liability not sati...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. BACKGROUND The underlying cause of action in this case arises from the handling of estate funds of which Plaintiff is the sole beneficiary. 1 Plaintiff Malvina D’Orange is a senior citizen who resides in Queens, New York. (¶ 4.) 2 The estate involved is that of Plaintiffs late sister, Clarette Otalera. (¶ 4.) Defendant Charles M. Feely is t...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RÉMAND This -slip and fall case is presently before the court on plaintiffs motion to remand to Macomb County Circuit Court. Plaintiff argues that removal of this case to this court was not timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and therefore this action should be remanded. Defendant argues that this action was timely removed and therefore should not be remanded....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On November 14, 1994, this court denied plaintiff U-Haul International, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 16, 1994, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration in light of newly discovered facts. On December 28, 1994, the court issued an order for defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ motion for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The government and the New York City Police Department (“NYCPD”) move to quash four subpoenas served by defendant Gregory Cherry upon the NYCPD pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The subpoenas variously seek the production of arrest reports, aided cards, unusual occurrence reports, complaint reports and complaint follow-ups 1 conc...
Views: 2
ORDER This action is before the court on claimant Mark Anthony Cort [Cortj’s motion that “forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the *1285 Eighth Amendment” [# 27-1]. As claimant files this motion after a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, United States of America, the court will interpret Cort’s request as one for judgment as a mat...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action arises from the sale of common stock by In-Store Advertising Co. (“In-Store”). Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who purchased In-Store common stock. There are three groups of original defendants (the “defendants”), and KPMG Peat Marwick (“Peat Marwick”) was brought into the instant action, as an additional defendant, in July 1998. Peat M...
Views: 4
ORDER FROM DECEMBER 19, 1994 HEARING THIS MATTER comes before the Court on several motions which were heard by the Court on December 19, 1994. Four of the motions are discussed below. Because the Court overruled the Defendant’s only remaining objection on which it based its motion for protective order, that motion was denied, and the protective order was entered by the Court on December 1...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 198 (1995) CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. William VANDERWOUDE, et al., Defendants. No. 2:94 cv 205. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division. February 9, 1995. *199 John E. Hughes, Hoeppner Wagner and Evans, Valparaiso, IN, for Indiana Ins. Co. Paul O. Watkiss, Leahy Eisenberg and Fraenkel, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Country Mut. Ins. ORDER MOODY, District ...
Views: 0
876 F. Supp. 809 (1995) BROADNAX MILLS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, Defendant. Civ. No. 3:94CV603. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 21, 1995. *810 *811 Michael Randolph Shebelskie, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA, George H. Gromel, Jr., Edmunds & Williams, Lynchburg, VA, Virginia H. Hackney, Richmond, VA, for plaintif...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On December 1, 1994, defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on plaintiff U-Haul International’s first amended complaint. On January 31,1995, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding several new factual allegations and state law counts. 1 The second amended complaint also...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Joseph Moses, an Illinois state prisoner, has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §. 2254. Petitioner Moses presents five reasons why a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Petitioner argues that: • (1) he was denied his right to due . process when the trial court sentenced him to consecutive periods of imprisonment; (2) he wa§ denied his righ...
Views: 0
ORDER In this civil action, plaintiff Susan K. Dou-kas seeks relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (Supp.1994), and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631 (1977 & Supp.1994), as a result of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (MetLife) denial of her application for mortgage disability insurance. Presently before the court...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA AND DISMISS INDICTMENT The court heard Defendant’s motion on January 30, 1995. Ignacio R. Garcia. Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant; Beverly Wee Samashima, Esq., appeared on behalf of the United States. After hearing argument and reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court DENIES Defendant’s motio...
Views: 1
178 B.R. 659 (1995) In the Matter of FOXCROFT SQUARE COMPANY, Foxcroft Management Corporation, Debtors. Civ. A. No. 93-4880. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 17, 1995. *660 *661 Kenneth E. Aaron, Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corp., Philadelphia, PA, for debtors. Vincent J. Marriott, III, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Federal N...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Today we rule on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The litigation arises under the 1st, 5th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of *37 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 2000i 2000e-17 (1994). Norman L. Johnson has sued his former employer, Resources for Human Development (RHD), claiming that h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a prisoner’s civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which was tried to the Court on February 9, 1995. For the reasons that follow 1, the Court finds in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on June 28, 1993 without Plaintiff paying the required filing fee of $120.00, and the Court subsequently granted pro se Plaintiff BLACK in ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief, filed March 11, 1994; Plaintiffs’ Response and Brief in Support, filed May 13, 1994; and Defendants’ Reply, filed May 31,1994. After carefully considering the motion, briefs, supporting evidentiary submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that no issues of material fact e...
Views: 0
OPINION Before this Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a brief, filed by defendants Daniel C. Carneval, D.O., and Presque Isle Orthopedic Group, Inc. (Pres-que Isle), and plaintiffs’ brief in opposition. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny this motion. I. Background Plaintiffs Mai'garida and David Youngren have brought this action agains...
Views: 0
OPINION In this patent case, the defendants have moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b). The facts of this case are more fully set forth in the court’s Opinion of February 10, 1995, 876 F.Supp. 582, on defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. The parties have briefed the issue and this is the court’s decision on def...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a patent case. GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. (“GNB”) is the owner of U.S. Patents 4,645,725 (“the ’725 patent”) and 4,701,386 (“the ’386 patent”), which cover specific configurations of dual-terminal batteries. On July 18, 1988, GNB filed suit against the defendants claiming infringement of both the ’386 and ’725 patents. Defendants denied infringement and alleged that bo...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM The Court now considers eight (8) motions for summary judgment. The Montgomery County Association of Realtors, Inc. (“MCAR”), a plaintiff herein, filed six of these motions. 1 Shannon & Luchs Co. (“Shannon” — now known as “REBLC Inc”), a counterclaim-defendant herein, and Realty Photo Master Corporation (“RPM”), a defendant herein, each filed one motion for summa...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Introduction A non-jury trial of this case was held on January 17,18, and 19,1995. The court now finds in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Plaintiff was employed by General Motors Corporation (“GM”) from June 1965 until he was fired in April 1990. While employed by GM, Plaintiff participated in General Motors Savin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Joseph Calzerano brought this suit against Defendants Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II and the Police Commissioner, as Chairman of that fund (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his civil rights by failing to provide adeq...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the court is defendant Secretary’s motion to dismiss, based upon three theories: jurisdictional abstention, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that no federal question is presented, or failure to state a claim. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case-law, and the record as a whole, the court issues the followi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on two Motions for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Strike. On January 13, 1995, Defendant, Rhodes Financial Services Corp. and Rhodes, Inc. (collectively “Rhodes”) submitted a Motion' for Summary Judgment. On that same date, Defendant, Beneficial National Bank USA (“BNBUSA”) filed its own Motion for Summary Ju...
Views: 1
ORDER ON APPEAL This cause comes before the Court on appeal from the orders, of the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Florida, denying Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order for Turnover of Monies entered by the Bankruptcy Court on June 7, 1994, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 158. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court functions as an appellate court in reviewing t...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Docket No. 15) filed November 16, 1994, and Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 26, 1995. A trial court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, must accept all material allegations of the complaint as true, and must construe the compla...
Views: 0
HADEN, Chief Judge. Pending are Third-Party Defendant United Mine Workers of America, AFL-CIO’s (“UMWA”) motions to dismiss the third-party complaints. Third-party Plaintiffs Lake Energy, Inc. (“Lake Energy”) and Cline Brothers Mining Co., Inc. (“Cline Brothers”) have responded, and the UMWA has replied. 1 The motion is ripe for adjudication. I. The plaintiffs are cert...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER What’s in a name? That question, rhetorically posed by Shakespeare’s Juliet, 1 is at the heart of the present case. The defendant, East Cambridge Savings Bank (“the Bank”), obtained consumer reports on the plaintiff from two consumer reporting agencies, TRW, Inc. (“TRW”) and Trans Union Corporation (“Trans Union”), after an individual with a name similar to...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court took under advisement the defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, summary judgment will be granted to defendants on the federal claims and the pendent state law claims will be dismissed. Background David and Cathy Maynard have a son, J.M., who is autistic. The Maynards live in Gr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Chance Management, Inc. (Chance) is a South Dakota corporation whose majority stock ownership is held by plaintiff William A. Sanders (Sanders), a Wyoming resident. SDCL § 42-7A-43 restricts licenses for video lottery machine operators (machine operators) to South Dakota residents, or partnerships or corporations whose majority ownership is held by S...
Views: 1
876 F.Supp. 826 (1995) Sandy GROVER, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL BENEFITS NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., and Carl Grover, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 3:94-0020. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division. February 2, 1995. *827 Neil Bouchillon and Mark F. Underwood, Fredeking & Fredeking, Huntington, WV, for plaintiff. R. Kemp Morton, Huddleston, Bolen, Beatty, Porter & Cop...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is prisoner Modesto Arroyo’s pro se Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, his petition must be denied. I. BACKGROUND FACTS On October 16,1990, Arroyo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess and to distribute cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. On January 11, 1991, this Court sen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This complaint stems from the decision of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to convert the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky (“FMC Lexington”), which has been an all-female institution for the past several years, to an all-male institution effective in January 1995. When this action was filed on April 7, 1994, the following thirteen (13) fem...
Views: 0
ORDER Appellant Doran Shubert appeals a decision of the Bankruptcy Court and files a brief in support of his appeal. Thomas J. Carlson, trustee for the estate, has filed a brief in opposition to the appeal. Appellant Shubert filed a reply brief. Appellant Shubert has also filed a motion for stay on appeal and suggestions in support of his motion. For the following reasons, the decision of the...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT...........................................................325 I. Relevant Market Definition..................................................325 A. Industry Overview......................................................325 B. Relevant Geographic Market.............................................326 C. Relevant Product Market.............
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: This case arises from a bankruptcy proceeding initiated by plaintiff EDP Medical Computer Systems, Inc., when it filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. An adversary proceeding was initiated by EDP when it filed a complaint seeking to enjoin permanently the United States from pursuing a civil action in the United States D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ellsworth J. Hill brings this four count complaint, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as state law claims of battery and respondeat superior. Presently before the court is defendant Timothy Miller’s motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II. For the *115 ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and the reasons stated below, the court denies plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment. BACKGROUND This lawsuit involves alleged contamination to certain properties located in northeast Minnea...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is a class action initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 on behalf of all persons who have, since the date of commencement of this action, applied for, or may in the future apply for, assistance from the Vermont Department of Social Welfare (“DSW”) under either the Food Stamp or Ad to Families with Needy Children (“ANFC”) programs. 2 *...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING BANKRUPTCY JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANTS MICHAEL C. DAILY, TERRI DAILY WILCOX, AND LILI-PUNA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; AND DISSOLVING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THIRTY DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF ORDER After reviewing Plaintiffs objections and Defendants’ response to those objections, the court ADOPTS the Bankruptcy Judge’s Re...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Richard Cosimini (“Cosimini”) was injured at his job site and collected workers’ compensation from his employer, Subcontractor Rusco Steel Company (“Rusco”). Plaintiff subsequently sued the general contractor, Atkinson-Kiewit Joint Venture (“Atkinson-Kiewit”) who in turn filed a third-party complaint against Rusco. This ...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleges the wrongful discharge of plaintiff by the General Electric Company (“GE”). Plaintiff alleges sexual discrimination in the denial of certain terms and conditions of her employment as well as breach of her employment contract. Defendant moves for summary judgment pu...
Views: 0
*620 ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Acme Sanitary Service, Inc., July 26, 1994, (Docket No. 577) and Plaintiff’s response thereto, filed August 3, 1994 (Docket No. 579). STANDARD OF REVIEW This circuit clearly holds summary judgment is only entered when the moving part...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Defendants to perform alleged non-discretionary duties. 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. They claim they were excluded from the “scoping” process conducted by the Defendants in conjunction with Appalachian Power Company...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Plaintiffs charge that defendant AMR Services Corp. (“AMR”) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., when it closed its Security Department at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport in the Spring of 1993. All relevant evidence has been produced by dis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND In an indictment dated April 20, 1994, defendant David A. Jones is charged with three counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1342 and 1343, and ten counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)© and (b)(2) (Case Number 94^CR-143). In a separate indictment dated September 30, 1994, defendant is charged with two coun...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Defendant Lacy, Katzen, Ryen & Mittle-man (“Lacy”) moves pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs Dean and Catherine Beeman cross-move for summary judgment on liability pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs commenc...
Views: 0
ORDER Application by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (“Westinghouse”) for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, for a new trial, is denied. Moreover, the application of Abraham & Straus Corporation (“A & S”), the third-party defendant, for the same relief, is denied. However, A & S’s application for ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT HONGKONG BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS This matter came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 9, 1995 before the Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, United States District Judge. This Court has fully considered all legal points and authorities, and arguments and now makes and enters its ORDER. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, MTC ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIE...
Views: 0
OPINION At the pre-trial conference held on January 18, 1995, the Court and the parties agreed that the Court would decide three issues in advance of the trial scheduled for March 6, 1995. These issues, on which the parties have submitted memoranda of law, are: choice of law, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and whether the statute of limitations has ...
Views: 0
*91 OPINION This is Section 1983 action by an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility of the New York State Department of Correctional Services against various officers and officials at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility, where plaintiff formerly was incarcerated. The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The amended complaint and some of the voluminous moti...
Views: 2
*1014 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the court is defendant William E. Craven’s (“Craven”) motion to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff, Sherwood James (“James”). The motion is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, Craven’s motion is...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is Plaintiff First Commonwealth Corporation’s “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Memorandum in Support.” Having reviewed the record in this matter, the evidence presented at trial and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion. Background This matter was tried before a jury previously. At the conclusion of the trial but prior to the jury’s ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT *1343 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..........................................1343 II. THE MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION...................................1346 A. Purpose Of And Standards For Preliminary Injunctions...................1346 B. Preliminary Injunctions In § 1983 Cases...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter comes before the Court on motion of plaintiffs to compel, seeking an order “compelling the defendant to produce its expert witness, Ray Taylor, for deposition and have Mr. Taylor respond to plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions.” Mr. Taylor is defendant’s expert and is expected to testify at a February 28,1995 trial concerning whether a fire, which destroyed plaintiffs’ m...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM Today we decide two contested motions to intervene as parties defendant. This case arises out of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) Order A-863, which establishes minimum milk re-sale prices in PMMB Area # 1, which covers Southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. 31 Pa. Stat. § 700j-201 (1958 & Supp.1994). Two parents of children attending schools in the School Distr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff in this case, an investor in two investment vehicles controlled by defendant Larry Nick, claims that Nick and his wife have embezzled large sums of money from a substantial number of Nick-dominated entities. They bring a host of State law-based claims, including claims of fraud and conversion, purportedly on behalf of a class of all investors in Nick-con...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 6, 1995, the Court ordered Worcester County to adopt the electoral system described in the Court’s Opinion. 1 The plaintiffs filed a motion for modification of the judgment and the defendants (“County”) filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. A stay pending appeal is appropriate if the party seeking the stay can show that: 1) it will likely prevail on the m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves allegations of securities fraud brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77(k)(Count I); Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (Count II). State law claims alleging common law fraud are also pled under principles of...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, two infants who sue by their mother and next friend, filed a motion for jury trial more than five months following the filing of an answer by defendant, and almost four months following the initial pretrial conference. Defendant has filed an objection. This action was filed originally by plaintiffs with their mother, a law student, acting as their attorney. Upon mo...
Views: 0
KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge. This is a motion to vacate a finding of contempt against Joseph Smukler, a lawyer who had been engaged in the trial of George G. Santa Maria v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 91 Civ. 1239 (KTD) which commenced on January 23, 1995. The facts underlying the contempt are fairly simple. All counsel who regularly appear in the Southern District of New York are aware ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding brought by New York State’s Special Prosecutor for Medicaid Fraud Control (“the State”) to have debts owed by defendant Abraham I. Sokol, M.D. (“Sokol”) declared nondischargeable. In 1992 a New York State Supreme Court jury convicted Sokol after a lengthy trial of violating N.Y. Penal Law § 155.40, grand larceny in the ...
Views: 1
Opinion on Contempt Purging FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In this court’s opinion and order dated March 25, 1994 (“March Opinion”), 155 F.R.D. 440, defendant New Line Cinema Corporation (“New Line”) was held in contempt of the Final Consent Decree (“Decree”) entered in this action on May 17,1993. Pursuant to the Decree, New Line was enjoined from using Stephen King’s name in connection with the film “The L...
Views: 0
*477 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before me is defendants’ motion to compel discovery of plaintiff’s diary and plaintiff’s motion for a protective order against discovery. I must decide whether the diary is relevant and nonprivileged, and if so, whether disclosure will cause undue annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. Since I conclude that the diary is relevant and nonprivileged and that disclosure ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before me is plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint. I must decide whether plaintiffs proposed amendment alleges a viable claim for retaliation under Title IX. Since I conclude that plaintiffs proposed amendment alleges a viable claim for retaliation, I will grant plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a claim of re...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Joe D. Lloyd (“Lloyd”) appeals the final decision of the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (“Secretary”) denying Lloyd’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. Both parties move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56....
Views: 0
*250 OPINION AND ORDER In an Opinion and Order dated January 5, 1995,1 partially granted plaintiffs Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”) and Robert L. Bartley’s (“Bartley”) motion for summary judgment, enjoining the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”).from withholding circulation of copies of a torn-up note (the “Note”) written by former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster prior to hi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The issue before the Court is whether a question appearing on the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners’ “Applicant’s Character and Fitness Questionnaire” addressing an applicant’s history of mental or emotional disorders violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (1994). Following a preamble explaining that the Virginia Board of Bar E...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Wayne Smith, acting pro se, 1 brings the instant action against Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 28 (“Local 28”), the Local Union 28 Joint Apprenticeship Committee (the “JAC”), Joseph Casey, Murray Liebowitz, Arthur Moore, Christine Ratliff and CW Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (collectively “defendants”). 2 In this action, Smith...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These two consolidated cases involve claims of fraud and conversion arising out of the financing of an oil trading program. The plaintiffs, Bank Brussels Lambert (“BBL”), Swiss Bank Corporation (“Swiss Bank”), Banque Indosuez (“Indosuez”), and Skopbánk, now move pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a protective order requiring defendants Credit...
Views: 2
ORDER Plaintiff Charles Sweatt charges in this lawsuit that the defendants — Andalusia Chief of Police Jerry Williamson and police officers Chuck Bailey and Robby Messick in their individual and official capacities — intended to deprive him of his right to freedom from physical abuse, coercion, and intimidation guaranteed by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 (West 1981), 18 U.S.C.A. § 245 (West 1969...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Cantrade Private Bank Lausanne Ltd. (“Cantrade”) against Maria S. Torresy, a/k/a Mary S. Tor-resy (“Torresy”), seeking payments allegedly due on three loans made to corporations controlled by Torresy. Plaintiff asserts that defendant personally guaranteed repayment and granted a security interest in cooperative apartments owned by her. Pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Roberta Boxer Levi initiated the present diversity action on December 28, 1992. On April 1, 1993, Defendants Herman Finesod, Jackie Fine Arts, Inc. (“Jackie”), Art Masters International (“AMI”), and Second Edition Fine Arts (“Second Edition”) moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By a memorandum and order dated Decem...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND In this action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has alleged numerous violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The SEC seeks equitable remedies consisting of permanent injunctions and disgorgement of wrongfully obtained proceeds. The three remaining defendant...
Views: 0
On Appeal from the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands OPINION OF THE COURT Both Eldro Rabsatt and Paul Shack, II ("appellants") in this consolidated appeal challenge the Territorial Court's rejection of two independent instruments executed by the deceased Margarita Ziri Savain, each purporting to be her Last Will and Testaments pursuant to V.I. Code Ann. tit 15, § 13. For the reasons stated h...
Views: 0
This action arises from a series of events alleged to have occurred at the annual Tail-hook Conventions held at the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel (“the Hilton”) in September 1990 and September 1991. The important issue before this Court is not, however, whether the events alleged by Plaintiffs occurred at the Tailhook Convention. Nor is the Court called upon to determine whether Plaintiffs may have vi...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1548 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1551 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1553 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1554 A. The Statute Of Limitations For § 1983 Claims.1555 1. The Applicable Statute.1555 2. Accrual Of A § 1983 Claim.1556 3. Tollin...
Views: 0
ORDER The Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen filed on March 16, 1994 in the above-captioned matter is accepted pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1). REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LOVEGREEN, United States Magistrate Judge. Before this court is defendant, MAR Incorporated’s (“MAR”), motion for summary judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56. ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Norberto Quiles Colón, brought this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq., to recover money damages for physical injuries he sustained on March 29,1990, at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, (“Hospital”). Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on some food that a Hospital employee negligently spilled and left lying on the corri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 3) and Defendants Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community (the “Community”), Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community Business Council (the “Business Council”), Stanley R. Crooks, Kenneth Anderson, and Darlene McNeal’s Motion to Dismiss (Doe. No. 9). ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Jessie Riggins (“Mr. Riggins”), applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on February 13, 1992. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration by State agency personnel. After a hearing on the matter, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Edward B. Pappert found that Mr. Riggins was not disabled. The App...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, National Health Laboratories, Incorporated (“NHL”), filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against defendants, Upstate Testing Laboratory, Inc. fik/a OmniLab, Inc. (“Omni”) and the law firm of Coffield, Ungaretti & Harris (“Coffield”). The complaint sought a declaratory judgment with respect to disbursement of funds under an Escrow Agreement that ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action involves a claim of breach of a lease under which plaintiff, PacifiCorp Capital, Inc. (“PacifiCorp”), leased computer equipment to defendant, Tano, Inc. (“Tano”). Pending before the Court are plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is grante...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This ease involves resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for liquidated damages in the amount of untimely paid overtime, attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). James Dominici filed this representative action on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (“Board of ...
Views: 3
ORDER After consideration of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 9, 1995, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be GRANTED. Summary judgment is appropriate only where the record reflects that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. A review of the record in this...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THE COURT This ease presents various state and federal claims growing out of the death of Richard A. Vine while in police custody. Now before the Court are several motions by defendants for dismissal or for summary judgment. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 7,1992, at approximately 10:45 a.m., defendant Deputy Richard Whitmore, of the Ingham County Sheriff Department,...
Views: 0
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART BANKRUPTCY COURT’S MEMORANDUM DECISION AND JUDGMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1994, AND REMANDING CASE TO BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS, AND AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT, DATED MARCH 9, 1994 BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the (1) Bankruptcy Court’s Memoran ...
Views: 0
Pending before the Court are a series of motions in the instant action which arise in connection with the winding up of the Karide Realty Company [hereinafter “KARIDE”], a New York limited partnership that is presently in dissolution. KARIDE’s sole asset is a fee simple interest in a parcel of real property located in Queens, New York, which KARIDE has leased to the Oeeanview Nursing Home since...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS 1 On June 6, 1992, Defendant Officer David Jarmusz (“Jarmusz”) shot and killed Joseph Chlopek (“Chlopek”). Plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988, and various state law claims. I...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant J. Baker, Inc. (“J. Baker”) for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court denies defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND This case concerns various systems used to conne...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION Plaintiff John T. Oglesby, II filed suit against defendant The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Penn Mutual”) in Delaware state court. Oglesby alleged breach of contract for failure to pay benefits under a disability insurance policy and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Specifically, he averred that from August 1990 to the present, he ha...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me is the motion of Plaintiffs Jack L. Davoll, Deborah A. Clair and Paul L. Escobedo to certify this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and to bifurcate this action into two trial phases pursuant to Rule 42(b). I deny the motion. I. Facts and Procedural Background Plaintiffs bring this action seeking monetary damages, declar...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER This case is before the Court for consideration of the defendant-intervenors’ request for a permanent injunction prohibiting the plaintiffs from constructing a housing complex without first obtaining the various permits and approvals mandated by state law and local ordinances. In passing on that request, the Court is required to address the extent to which a state’s...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of the defendant, USTNET, Inc., for enlargement of time (#41-1) and for reconsideration (#41-2). *132BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Larry R. Upchurch, is a former employee of the defendant, USTNET, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (USTNET). On June 14,1993, Upchurch filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, ...
Views: 0
FINAL ORDER REVERSING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER OVERRULING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION, DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1994, AND REMANDING CASE TO BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS, AND AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT, DATED MARCH 9, 1994 BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the (1) Bankruptcy Court’s Order Overruling Trust...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by plaintiff, the United States of America, against defendants, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”), et al. This settlement was embodied in a voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (“the Consent Decree”). Pursuant to paragraph 0 of the Rules and Procedures for Op...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal on the grounds that this action is barred by the five year statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. *17I. Background The activities at issue in this ease date back to the 1985-1986 congressional campa...
Views: 0
*890 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S MEMORANDUM OPINION ENTERED ON JANUARY 31, 1994, AND THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S FINAL JUDGMENT ON TRUSTEE’S COMPLAINT TO AVOID PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER ENTERED FEBRUARY 11, 1994 The appellant, Irving Gennet, trustee in bankruptcy for the debtor PC Systems, Inc., appeals from (1) the Bankruptcy Court’s Memorandum Opini...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause are public entities organized and located in Alabama that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water, sewage, and swimming pools. Defendant chemical com*1509panies either distribute or repackage chlorine1 within the flow of interstate commerce.2 The sale and distribution of chlorine between these buyers and sellers is...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, an alcoholic beverage wholesaler licensed in the District of Columbia, seeks a preliminary injunction against defendants to prevent enforcement of a provision of the District of Columbia Wholesale Liquor Industry Storage Act of 1986 (the “Storage Act”) and a “come to rest” policy, both of which require plaintiff to maintain warehouse facilities in the District of...
Views: 1
FINAL ORDER (1) AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REHEARING, DATED DECEMBER 8, 1993, AND (2) AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S FINAL JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DATED JANUARY 4, 1994 BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the (1) Bankruptcy Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing, dated December 8, 1993, and (2) Bankruptcy Court’s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Emily Hsu and Timothy Hsu, students at Roslyn High School, through their parent and guardian Dr. Chin-Ching Hsu, bring this action against defendants Roslyn Union Free School District No. 3 (the “School District”), the President, Vice-President and the other members of the School District’s Board of Education (the “School Board”) in their official capac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) wilfully violated an automatic stay. As a result of said violation, the Bankruptcy Court granted an award of attorney’s fees to the debtor, Midway Industrial Contractors, Inc. (“Midway”). The United States appeals that order. For the reaso...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Hector Rene Gomez-Rodriguez is charged by indictment with illegal reentry into the United States after deportation and conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Now before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that his prior conviction is not an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §§ 132...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER The Estate of Denny Bernaldes (“Plaintiff’) has brought this suit for a wrongful death allegedly caused by the failure of three Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) inspectors to discover safety violations at a mining operation. The Defendants argue that the “discretionary function exception” to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), mand...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Albert Landfair brings this pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michael Sheahan, Sheriff of Cook County, J.W. Fairman, Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, Ernesto Velasco, Superintendent of Cook County Jail, Officer Yvette Houser and Paramedic Marla Flood (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants have moved ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”), filed a complaint against defendants, William P. Rosenthal, Esq. and Rosenthal & Schanfield, P.C., an Illinois professional corporation, alleging that defendants committed legal malpractice in performance of their duties as legal counsel to Skokie Federal Savings and Loan Association (“Skokie”), a federally chartered ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CHOICE OF LAW I. INTRODUCTION This action involves claims of intentional tort, negligence, violation of statutory duty, and breach of contract predicated upon events that allegedly occurred in two different states — Michigan and Wisconsin. Specifically Plaintiff alleges that while he was a student at the St. Lawrence Seminary in Mount Calvary, Wisconsin, from 1...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Daido Steel Co., Ltd. (“Daido”) brings this appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio authorizing the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) to continue its retention of specified counsel in Chapter 11 proceedings regarding CSC Industries, Inc. and the Copperweld Steel Company. This Court has ...
Views: 1
ORDER This is a wrongful death action brought by Pamela Martin, as executor of the estate of James E. Christopher. Christopher was driving on the Ohio Turnpike when a tractor-trailer rig owned by defendant Daily Express crossed the highway, leading to a head-on collision in which Christopher was killed. 1 Martin was appointed executor by a probate court in Illinois, where C...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Nature of the Case This action arose when plaintiff bit into a portion of a peach pit contained in a can of peaches she purchased from defendant, causing injury to her teeth, mouth, and throat. Plaintiff claims that the presence of the pit was a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for human consumption made by defendant as a retailer. Plaintiff originally filed ...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Ceres Marine Terminals [“Ceres”], defendant, has filed a motion to dismiss this action filed by Virginia International Terminals, Inc. [“VIT”], plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The action was filed in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk in September 1994, and was removed by Ceres to this Court. In accordance with the provisions of '...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Carol Robinson originally brought this “hybrid § 301/fair representation” case against both her ex-employer, Central Brass Manufacturing Company (“Central Brass”), and her union, Local 1196 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“the Union”). Robinson claimed that she had been discharged imprope...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the Court on plaintiffs and counterclaim defendant’s motion to compel answers to David Green’s deposition. Also raised at the hearing, by permission of the Court, was a request by defendant to compel answers to the deposition of witness Colletti. The record reflects numerous instances of improper instructions to witnesses not to answer questions by attorneys Lobenfeld and...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Nisa Sharieff (“Sharieff’) has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying Sharieffs application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). The Secretary has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to R...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on the defendant, Pasco-Hemando Community College’s (hereafter Pasco Community), motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support thereof (Docket Nos. 61 and 66) and response thereto (Docket No. 76). The action arises from the termination of the plaintiff’s enrollment as a student at the police academy of Pasco Community. ...
Views: 0
Plaintiff pro se Donald R. Jermosen (“Jermosen”) has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., claiming that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action brought against several employees of the Correspondence Clerks’ Office (the “correspondence clerks”) at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”) and various offic...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff Debra Anderson’s personal injury claims. For the reasons set forth below, I grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s as moot. I. Background In December 1989, Defendant Wilderness Venture, Ltd. obtained a Special Use Permit from the Forest Service, United States Department of Agricu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Interactive Target Systems, Inc. (Interactive) moves to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), for a change of venue based on improper forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, or for a transfer of venue for inconvenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. I find that Interactive does not have sufficient contacts with ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated herein, this motion will be granted. 1. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Uma Viswanathan brought an action for employment discrimination against the above named defendants. Since that time she has filed a plethora of motions.1 The magistrate judge issued an order regarding discovery. At the time o...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER I In this age discrimination case brought under 29 USC 626, plaintiff, born on May 2, 1923, claims that his discharge along with a large number of other employees upon the acquisition of 21 Brands, Inc. (an importer of wines and spirits) by defendant Remy Martin Amerique, Inc., (the “employer”) was discriminatory. The employer has moved for summary judgment dismissing the complain...
Views: 0
ORDER Mitchell Williams brought this lawsuit to enforce an arbitration award that his union secured on his behalf. Williams alleges that *1242 United States Steel [“USS”] has not paid him all the money he is due under that arbitration award. Williams filed suit in state court. Relying on § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, which grants federal courts original jur...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendants Frye Copysystems, Inc. (“Copysystems”) and Wheelabrator-Frye Co. (“Wheelabrator”) have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. against William Kern (“Kern”) and Dorothy Kern (collectively the “Kerns”). For the reasons discussed below, Wheelabrator’s motion with regard to the claims against it for breach of warranty and strict products liabi...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action for securities fraud violations. Plaintiff, RMED International, Inc. (“RMED”), is a Colorado corporation. 1 Defendant, Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc. (“Sloan’s”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant, John A. Catsimatidis (“Catsimatidis”), is and has been the chairman of the board, chi...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of In Personam Jurisdiction [Doe. #2] filed by Defendants Louis Furlong and Marjorie Furlong (the “Furlongs”). Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiffs Billy A. Hodges and Judy Hodges (the “Hodges”) for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The Court held a hearing on this matter on...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT In this action plaintiff General Accident Insurance Company (hereinafter, “GAIC”) seeks a judgment declaring that provisions of a personal auto insurance policy issued to defendant Louis I. Gonzales exclude coverage for an accident that occurred December 8, 1992, because Gonzales was carrying persons “for a fee.” Three cross-motions for summar...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is presently before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the above-styled action to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, filed November 7, 1994. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to remand on November 16, 1994. On November 21, 1994, ALFAB, Inc. replied to Defendants’ response. For reasons set forth ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS This cause is before the Court on appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s order entered on February 28, 1994, which granted Samuel C. Campagna’s (Plaintiff-Appellee’s) motion for entry of default judgment against the Saloman Weingarten, Debtor-Appellant, and denied the debtor a discharge under Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Appellant-Debtor contends that the Bankruptcy Court er...
Views: 0
ORDER CONSTRUING § 553 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE Before the Court are two consolidated actions arising out of a bankruptcy case that began under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy *494 Code (the “Code”) and was subsequently converted to a case under Chapter 7 of the Code. 1 One is an action filed by the United States of America on behalf of the Maritime Administration, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendant City Foods’ (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND This action was filed to seek delinquent contribution payments pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is presently before the court on 1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Stay or, in the Alternative, Transfer to the United States District Court for Massachusetts, filed November 28, 1994; and 2) Plaintiffs, National Union Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter “National Union”), Motion to Remand the above-styled action to the Circuit Court of Lownd...
Views: 0
*1146 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendant City of Montgomery Parks and Recreation Department’s motion for summary judgment filed August 29, 1994. 1 Defendant contemporaneously filed a brief and tendered evidence in support thereof. Plaintiff filed a brief and evidence in opposition on September 22, 1994, to which defendant responded on September 29, 19...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is presently before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed August 26, 1994. Defendants filed a supporting brief contemporaneously with said motion. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on September 12, 1994. For reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due ...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 597 (1995) Jamie PRICE, Plaintiff, v. ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Sylvia Parrish, et al., Defendants. ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. James Lee WITT, Third-Party Defendant. Civ. A. No. 95-D-0019-S. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division. February 6, 1995. *598 Jere L. Beasley, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Montgomery, AL, Joseph W. Ada...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Trustees (“Trustees”) of the Redall Industries Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Redall Plan”) and plaintiff Redall Industries, Inc. (“Redall”) filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security A...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Steven Daniels, George Daniels, the Daniels Furniture Pension Plan and Trust, the Daniels Furniture Retirement Plan and Trust, and the Eleetra Acceptance Corporation (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring this action against National Employee Benefits, Inc. (“NEBS”), Bruce Kosinski, and Beka Agency, Inc. (collectively “defendants”), pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), 28 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff was awarded a judgment following a bench trial in the amount of $150,000. Pursuant to the outcome of the case, counsel has filed a motion for the award of an appropriate fee. The Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), and Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), ...
Views: 1
877 F. Supp. 602 (1995) Calvin GROOMS, Plaintiff, v. WIREGRASS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Alabama Corporation; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2152, Defendants. No. CV94-D-836-S. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division. February 17, 1995. *603 Malcolm Rance Newman, Dothan, AL, for plaintiff. Edward M. Price, Jr. and Elizabeth B. Glasgow, Dothan, AL...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff Mannington Mills, Inc. (“Mannington”), a manufacturer of vinyl flooring, operates a 325-acre manufacturing facility in Mannington Township, Salem County, New Jersey (the “Mannington site”). Defendants, officials of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (“DEPE”), 1 are sued in both their individual and official capacities. Plaint...
Views: 0
OPINION ON REMAND This case was removed from the 229th District Court of Texas in Starr County as a federal question because of the effect of numerous federal regulations on the operation of nursing homes. This case arose when a patient of a home in La Grange was assaulted by another patient. The Care Inn, an assumed name of Texas, Inc., owns and operates the home in La Grange, which is in Fa...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Bernard DePaoli brings this civil rights action against various officers of Shasta County under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure to state a claim was granted on March 23, 1992 and plaintiff was granted leave to amend. The case is now before the court on defendants’ alternate motions to dismiss the First A...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress an alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that between March 17,1993 and March 26,1993, an unknown physician gave him an improper medical classification at the time of his initial processing at Field Unit number 30. Am. Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION These matters are before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand each one to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, from which they were removed by the defendants. The motions have been fully briefed. No oral hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6, D.Md. These cases concern the alleged lead paint poisoning of one Allen Wright, bom in 1979, and the alleged ...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendant, the State Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not respond in opposition to the motion. Although the motion is deemed confessed pursuant to Local Court Rule 14(A), the Court shall render a decision on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS defendan...
Views: 0
BENCH OPINION (EDITED) Introduction On December 23, 1994, this Court rendered its bench opinion in this case. A transcript of that opinion was prepared and filed by the court reporter pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiff. Since that time, the Defendant has suggested that the opinion of the Court is worthy of publication because it deals with issues of first impression under t...
Views: 1
878 F.Supp. 153 (1995) Michael MAUZY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. MEXICO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 59, et al., Defendants. No. 2:94CV00008 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division. February 28, 1995. *154 Mark A. Ludwig, Carson and Coil, Jefferson City, MO, for plaintiff. Terrance J. Good, Vice-President, Nelson G. Wolff, Lashly and Baer, St. Louis, MO, John B. Morthland, Partner, Was...
Views: 0
ORDER This action came for hearing before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), or in the alternative for an order transferring venue to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In addition to oral argument heard on January 3, 1995, this court consider...
Views: 3
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER The court heard Plaintiff’s motion on January 5, 1995. Eric Seitz, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; Mark Helper, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. After reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. *510 ...
Views: 0
The matter before the court is the motion of defendants, Kenneth H. Smith, Robert Dene Bateman, William H. Dalton, Jack C. Darley, Stanley N. Hammer, and Robert B. Lorence, for modification of this court’s order of January 11, 1995 to certify for immediate appeal (# 52-1) and for stay of proceedings (# 52-3). BACKGROUND Defendants are former directors and officers of Family Federal Savings & Loan ...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 468 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Alberto MEDINA-REYES, Jesus Bahena-Carreno, Miguel Angel Rodriquez and Lourdes C. Bahena, Defendants. Crim. No. 94-97. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa. February 28, 1995. *469 Clifford D. Wendel, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Des Moines, IA, for plaintiff. Cynthia M. Moisan, Roehrick Hulting & Moisan, Des Moines, IA, for defenda...
Views: 0
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This cause came on regularly for trial before the Court sitting without a jury, on February 9, 1995. The attorneys for all parties were present. After considering the pleadings, the evidence, and the argument of counsel, in addition to the findings and conclusions announced from the bench, at the end of trial, the Court makes its fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a product liability case arising out of injury allegedly sustained by Denise Rubel as a result of her mother’s use during her pregnancy of diethylstilbesterol. The case is scheduled for trial on March 9, 1995. The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ application, dated March 1, 1995 and made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(3)(E), for leave to read in evidence the 1...
Views: 1
OPINION I. The Court considers whether Plaintiff who, without leave of court, served her complaint on Defendant more than 120 days after filing of the complaint, had “good cause” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) to delay because of psychological distress, based in part on the fact that her daughter was murdered in the interim. Reluctantly, the Court is unable to find “...
Views: 0
ORDER On March 15, 1993, Grand Slam U.S.A., Inc. (Estate) filed a Petition for Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which listed (1) assets (i.e., batting cages, related accessories, and a variety of concession items, such as cash registers, telephone systems, and popcorn makers), all of which were encumbered by liens, includ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hugh D. Sosebee, Harold G. Clarke, Charles H. Jones, Joyce Ivey Johnson, and C.L. Johnson. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. FACTS In 1981, Convalescent Centers, Inc. (“CCI”), the parent corporation of three ...
Views: 0
885 F.Supp. 1068 (1995) Shirley ROSSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PIPEFITTERS UNION LOCAL 392 and Robert Sullivan, Defendants. No. C-1-88-473. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. February 16, 1995. James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Helmer Lugbill Martins & Neff, Cincinnati, OH, for Shirley Rosser. Virginia Conlan Whitman, Cincinnati, OH, for Fred Harper. Harold George Korbee, Wo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION These matters come before the Court upon to limine motions raised at the Final Pretrial Conference on December 13, 1994. First, Defendants, New Jersey Transit and the individual Princeton employees, seek an order from this Court that the trial be trifurcated into liability, damages, and indemnification phases. Plaintiff opposes'this motion on the grounds that such trifurcation w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the court is a petition by Francis W. Hoeber, Acting Regional director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), for interim injunctive relief under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S. § 160(j), pending administrative adjudication by the Board of an unfair labor practices complaint.1 The Board issued the com...
Views: 0
*485 MEMORANDUM Pending before me is the joint motion of the settling parties for an order establishing a second notice and opt-out period for class members who have requested exclusion from the class, in order to remedy improper communications by counsel opposing the settlement (“settling parties’ joint motion”) (Dkt. No. 807).1 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In these consolidated actions for securities fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (“RICO”) and related state claims, defendants1 move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaints. In the alternative, defendants move for summary judgment pursua...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 17,1994, plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), issued an Order Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions in In the Matter of Stratton Oakmont, Inc., et al., 1994 WL 91289 (1994) (“SEC Order”). The SEC Order, inter alia, mandated that an Independent Cons...
Views: 0
*41 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action by plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) for violation of the Commodities Exchange Act. 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Defendant Yua-nyi Lao (“Lao”) now objects, pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to an order entered by Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann: (i) directing Lon-go & Bell, the for...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an action to compel insurance coverage, in which the Plaintiff, Advance Watch Company (Advance), and the two Defendants, Kemper National Insurance Company (Kemper) and Travelers Insurance Companies, Inc. (Travelers), filed motions for summary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, on October 12, 1994. 1 For the reasons that have been set forth below, Kemper’s motion wil...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This lawsuit arises out of the lengthy and ultimately fruitless efforts of plaintiffs to secure the necessary permits, zoning approvals, and regulatory clearances from various agencies of the District of Columbia government in order to begin construction of a 56 megawatt cogeneration facility on the campus of Georgetown University. Plaintiffs allege that various rep...
Views: 0
OPINION Jeffrey Warren, Sr., was a passenger on a bus operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) when the window beside him shattered and he was injured by flying glass. The window was damaged by the impact of an unknown object from outside of the bus. Mr. Warren filed this personal injury action against WMATA in the Superior Court of the District ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-OPINION I. Introduction and Procedural History Plaintiff Margaret Dong brings this action under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, against her employer, the Smithsonian Institution for damages due to Defendant’s alleged breach of its statutory obligations regarding the collection of employment information under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(e)(2). 1 Plaintiff f...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, William T. Ricks, has sued his employer, Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”), for employment discrimination on the basis of an alleged disability and also on the basis of his age, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Xerox has mo...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is a motion by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 3). The FDIC contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against it because plaintiffs failed to file a timely administrative claim pursua...
Views: 0
On Appeal from the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands OPINION OF THE COURT This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Territorial Court in an action brought pursuant to the federal civil rights statute, 42 *200U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 33, §§ 3401-16 (1994) ("VITCA"), and the common law. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal arose ...
Views: 0
On Appeal from the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands OPINION OF THE COURT The Estates of Enfield Green Owners' Association, Inc. ("appellant" or "the Association") contends that the Territorial Court *246abused its discretion in denying its request for mandatory injunction against Nigel Francis ("appellee" or "Francis"). For reasons set forth below, this Court will reverse the Territorial Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claim for Lack of -Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. #10). *191I. Background. In 1982, Dan Ernzen and his wife Shirley Ernzen purchased farm land from the Frances Ernzen Estate. Their purchase complied with 26 U.S.C. § 2032A (1994), thereby qualifying the estate for “special use” valuation and savi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This declaratory judgment action was tried to the court on December 12, 1994. Plaintiff Mid-West Conveyor Company, Inc., (“Mid-West”) seeks a declaration that a license agreement entered into between Mid-West and defendant Jervis B. Webb Company (“Webb”) grants Mid-West and its affiliate, Dearborn Fabricating & Engineering Company, a non-exclusive, worldwide license to manu...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This ease involves various claims brought by plaintiff David Arnold against defendants Air Midwest, Inc.; A.R. Paquette; the Air Lines Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”); and John G. Sehleder arising out of plaintiffs termination from his employment as a pilot for Air Midwest. Plaintiff has asserted state law claims against Air Mid...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER On October 11, 1994, the plaintiff, Joseph Miller, commenced this action in which he alleges that the defendants, Laura Coyhis, *1264 Arnold Tousey, William Moede, Harvey Martin, and Gordon Burr, deprived him of his First Amendment right to free speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongfully terminated his employment and committed an assault and batter...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . This matter comes before the court on the motion of N.J. Phillips Pty., Ltd., for an order for recovery of excessive costs and fees from counsel for plaintiffs (Doc. # 218). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. I. Background In 1992, ■ Phillips USA, Inc. (“Phillips USA”), one of the two plaintiffs in this action, filed suit against N.J. Phillips Pty., Lt...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is presently before the court upon plaintiffs motion for a new trial. Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, the court is now prepared to rule. On November 16, 1994, a jury found for the defendant on plaintiffs breach of express warranty claim, the remaining claim in this case. Prior to the verdict, the court had entered judgment ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This memorandum and order addresses defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff filed this complaint against several defendants. These defendants include the Cleveland Psychiatric Institute (“CPI”), Michael Hogan, the Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health in his individual capacity, Sandra Rahe the Acting Chief Executive Officer of CPI...
Views: 0
OPINION This case came before the Court for argument on January 20, 1995, on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment On Counts I, II, III, VII, VIII, IX and X of the Amended Complaint. The Court finds that there are *31 no genuine disputes as to any facts material to the disposition of these counts and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. B...
Views: 0
OPINION Joel D. Webb served as an agent of the United States Secret Service from December 14, 1970, to June 14, 1979. He alleges that between 1980 and 1993 he attempted to seek employment with other local and federal government agencies, but has been consistently denied employment because of allegedly false statements about his employment history made by the Secret Service. Mr. Webb f...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants have moved for summary judgment. The motion was opposed, argued and submitted for decision. The court has reviewed the moving and opposing papers, the extensive factual record submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, the arguments of counsel, the record in the case, and the applicable authorities. The court concludes that...
Views: 3
*338 OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Marvel Dukes (“Dukes”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), for false arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights. Plaintiff sues certain named police officers and the City of New York (the “City”) in this action. 1 Defendants now move for summary judgment on the followin...
Views: 2
Opinion Regarding Plaintiff’s Proposed Order I. Background This case is the latest in a line of waste water rate-making disputes in the City of Detroit (Detroit) metropolitan area. I first confronted this matter in 1979 when I issued an order placing all rate-making challenges under this court’s continuing jurisdiction. Order Regarding Rate Challenges, October 4, 1979 United, States v. S...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 330 (1995) Nancy Miles PERKINS, Individually and as Next Friend of Milocy Miles, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 2:94cv26. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. January 11, 1995. *331 Rex Alton Nichols, Sr., Rex A. Nichols, Jr., Nichols & Nichols P.C., Longview, TX, for Nancy Miles Perkins. Vic Houston Henry, Storey Armstrong Steger &...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, in fading to promote her, discriminated against her on account of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Plaintiff also asserts that she was discharged on account of her sex. Defendant has moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. This Court has...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 1, 1994, a grand jury returned a twelve-count indictment charging defendants Larry G. Meadows, Andrew K. Peay and Leonard Meadows with various violations of federal narcotics and firearms laws and District of Columbia firearms and theft offenses. All three defendants subsequently moved to suppress the physical evidence against them and any statements the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Andre Rodriguez brings the instant pro se petition to vacate his sentence upon the ground that the Court misapplied the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”), and upon various grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied. BACKGROUND At all times pe...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by pro se Defendant, Robert M. Levine, on April 25, 1994. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED IN PART, ruling is DEFERRED IN PART, and all proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED. *119 BACKGROUND This is a wrongful death and personal injury a...
Views: 1
OPINION This is an action by pro se plaintiff Robert N. Stanton (“Stanton”) against defendants Rich Baker Berman & Co., P.A. (“RBB”), Rosenberg Druker & Company, P.A. (“RD”), RD/RBB Certified Public Accountants, P.A. (“RD/RBB”), Alvin P. Levine (“Levine”), Barry D. Kopp (“Kopp”), Nicholas Truglio (“Truglio”), Frank S. LaForgia (“LaForgia”), Kalman A. Barson (“Barson”...
Views: 9
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated from her employment as a bus driver. The defendants are her former employer, Unified School District No. 437, and her former supervisor, Edward E. Lignitz. This matter is presently before the court upon defendants’ motion for jud...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the court’s Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. The court, *572 having received responses from the parties, is now prepared to render its decision. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 1, 1993, plaintiffs Leona Buchanan, Eva Carter, and Daniel E. Bilquist filed this action naming Donna White...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is now before the court upon plaintiffs’ motion and supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. As defendant concedes, the controversy over plaintiffs’ motions is not whether plaintiffs recover their attorneys’ fees and costs, but how much should be recovered. A prevailing party in a case brought under federal civil rights law is entitled to recover his or ...
Views: 1
ORDER What follows is another chapter in the horrifying story of Jeffrey Dahmer. The result of this chapter is that a jury trial will be held to sort out whether, on May 27,1991, Konerak Sinthasomphone’s right to the equal protection of the law was violated based on race, sex, and sexual orientation by two Milwaukee police officers and by the customs and practices of the Milwaukee Pol...
Views: 0
ORDER The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Love-green filed on December 19, 1994 in the above-captioned matter is hereby accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). I especially note the recommendation for the issuance of the narrow injunction as worded in the Report and Recommendation. I find that it is entirely appropriate and comports with the teachings...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This ease comes before the court on an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court dismissing the appellants’ involuntary bankruptcy petition and denying the appellants’ motions for entry of an order for relief and to strike the appellee’s answer to the involuntary petition. For the reasons explained below, the decision of the bankruptcy court to dismiss the appe...
Views: 0
OPINION In the matter before the court, defendant Wilbur-Ellis Company appeals from the final judgment of the bankruptcy court entered on September 22, 1994. The undisputed facts are set forth in the opinion of the Honorable Donal D. Sullivan, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Oregon, filed on September 22, 1994. The undisputed facts are as follows: Wilbur and Helen Stoller sold t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff North American Specialty Insurance Company requests summary judgment (Doc. # 44) on its complaint seeking a declaration that no coverage exists for claims against an aircraft insurance policy issued by plaintiff to defendant Miller Aviation, Inc. Plaintiff contends that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the claims against the policy and tha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the following motions: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 55), and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 54). For the reasons discussed below, the court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #55) should be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 54) sho...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This is a negligence case in which plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy public sidewalk located on the west side of defendant’s premises. The matter is currently before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 19). Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because, under the facts of this case, it had no ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doe. 8) and defendant’s motion for order affirming the Secretary’s decision and in response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10). The court has examined the record and is now ready to rule on the motions. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 25,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now before the court are Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment in the consolidated cases brought by Flowoptic Sensors and David Hoppe. Because the cases were consolidated (Docket No. 21, July 7, 1994) after some of the papers pertinent to these motions were filed, there is occasional coincidental overlap in docket numbers. The following documents relating to d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on petitioner’s MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BOND TO SEEK MEDICAL TREATMENT (Doc. 62), and respondents’ response thereto (Doc. 64). Petitioner is currently incarcerated in El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. Petitioner seeks his release to his parents’ home in Olathe, Kansas, for the sole purpose of receiving medical care for his pr...
Views: 0
877 F. Supp. 948 (1995) GLAZIERS AND GLASSWORKERS UNION LOCAL 252 ANNUITY FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEWBRIDGE SECURITIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 90-CV-8101. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 6, 1995. *949 *950 Ira B. Silverstein, Leslie M. Gerstein, David B. Snyder, Lisa A. Carney, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien and Frankel, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs. Elizabeth Hoo...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on motion of Defendant, Union Memorial Hospital, Inc., filed January 13, 1995, for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) claims. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on January 27, 1995. The Court has reviewed the motion for summary judgme...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on Major General James F. Rueger and Chief Warrant Officer Richard E. Cordwell’s motions to be dropped as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 (Doc. 47) and to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Doc. 66) and the Secretary of the Army’s (“Secretary”) motion for summary judgment (Doc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this Section 1983 case, plaintiff, pro se, alleges a violation of his civil rights under the United States Constitution, including violations of his “4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights, that are secured under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Complaint at 1. Plaintiff names as defendants the United States Department of Justice; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Interna...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendant’s motion to bar the expert testimony of Drs. Dunlap, Hessl, and Sehonfeld pursuant to Fed. R.Evid. 702. For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted. Facts Plaintiff, Arthur E. Schmaltz (“Mr. Schmaltz”), was employed by defendant, Norfolk & Western Railway Company (“N & W”), as a carman. On May 1,...
Views: 5
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 1995, upon consideration of defendants’ Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or, In The Alternative, For A New Trial and plaintiffs response, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff Estenich brought this action pursuant to Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (the “LMRDA”), ...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss *211 for Lack of Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter (Dkt. 27). I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Simon Holdings PLC Group of Companies U.K. (“Simon Holdings”) and Vacations U.S.A., Inc. initiated the instant action by filing with t...
Views: 1
*675 MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action brought by Sharon E. Mack (“Sharon Mack”) and David G. Mack, Snr. (“David Mack”), against Metro North Commuter Railroad, (“Metro-North”), John Herrlin, M.D. (“Herrlin”), and Inez Vasquez (“Vasquez”). Plaintiffs originally brought the instant action in state court, and defendants removed it to federal court. Sharon Mack seeks damages for...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER We address today a Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Jackel Services Corporation and Kathryn A. Graveley (the “movants”). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in this action are a number of labor unions, trust funds, and employee benefit plans representing roofers and sheet metal contractors, as well as their trustee. On May 2...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Today we decide Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts of this case are somewhat confusing to relate, due to the fact that each Plaintiff’s cause of action for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994) is against different Defendants and stem from different events, each taking place at a different time. In addition, one Plaintiff also brings a sex discrimina...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court today on motion of the defendants, which seek an award of summary judgment as to the plaintiffs complaint. For the reasons that follow, the- defendants’ motion will be denied.1 I. BACKGROUND There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. The plaintiff is Healthcare Resources Corporation (“HRC”), a Pennsylvania company that operates the Hom...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The court has now considered the testimony that has been presented in this case and is prepared to make its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff Nancy M. Scarinci (“Scarinci”) is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was an employee of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (“AT & T”) a...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 464 (1995) In re ESTATE OF Charles L. TABAS, Deceased. Petition of Harriette S. TABAS, Richard S. Tabas, Nancy C. Tabas and Gerald Levinson, Executors of the Estate of Charles L. Tabas, Deceased, for a Citation to Show Cause Why Daniel M. Tabas Should Not be Removed as Managing Partner and a Receiver Appointed in His Stead, to Preserve and Manage Tabas Enterprises. Civ. A. No. 94-7682...
Views: 1
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS On July 14, 1994, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment against defendant, Darrel Bullins, charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Before the court are defendant’s motions to suppress, by which defendant seeks to exclude evidence of certain statements he made to law enfo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant Sunday Oboh’s second Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. I. BACKGROUND On April 15,1994, defendant Sunday Oboh, pursuant to a written plea agreement, entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the indictment, charging him with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute approximately 2...
Views: 0
*1558 ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3), Plaintiffs Motion for Waiver of Posting a Security Bond in Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 6), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15). I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Plaintiff, in accordance with her religious beliefs, prays for, encourages, and a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff 'WMW Machinery Company, Inc. (“WMW-Delaware”), a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of distributing grinding machines and related equipment, brought this action in New York State Supreme Court against defendants Koerber AG (“Koerber”), a German corporation, and three of Koerber’s subsidiaries, United Grinding Technologies, Inc. (“United”), K.A.K....
Views: 3
OPINION On October 13, 1994, following an eight-day trial in this employment discrimination and retaliation case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “Port Authority”) on the claims of discrimination and in favor of plaintiff Stanley Altman (“Altman”) on the claims of retaliation. The jury awarded Altman $15,000 in damag...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER The present case comes before the Court on Norton Company’s motion for withdrawal of reference, abstention and remand of an adversary proceeding to the state court. These motions arise out of C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership’s bankruptcy proceedings now pending before the bankruptcy court. I. On June 6,1988, Norton Company (hereinafter “Norton”) and C-TC 9...
Views: 1
ORDER The Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen filed on December 7, 1994 in the above-captioned matter is accepted pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1). REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LOVEGREEN, United States Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS 1 On May 26, 1992, Radomir Radie (“Radie”) filed suit against the CTA, his former employer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Radie claims that he was not returned to work after disability leave in retahation for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The instant action brings for resolution before this Court a petition for removal by Defendants MD-Individual Practice Associates, Inc., t/a MD-IPA and Mid Atlantic Services, Inc. (collectively “MD-IPA”), a motion to remand by Defendant Dr. Barry Roseman (“Dr. Roseman”), and a motion to remand by Plaintiff Merle Jackson (“Jackson”). MD-IPA has filed an opposition to Jackson...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the court are post-trial motions by plaintiffs Abdallah Bseirani, AGB International Management Corporation and Pittcon Preinsulated Pipes Corporation (“plaintiffs” or “Bseirani parties”), and defendant George T. Mahshie. The motions were presented orally to the court on November 9, 1994. THE FACTS The instant action stems from...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Brian J. Kaminski (“Kaminski”) alleges that Whitewater, Wisconsin, police officers Timothy Gray (“Gray”) and Edward Parker (“Parker”) violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause, failing to conduct a timely probable cause hearing following the arrest, subjecting him to an inherently suggestive identification procedure, depriving him of counsel d...
Views: 0
DECISION AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT ON FEBRUARY 3, 1995 AND WRITTEN ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1995 DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION I. INTRODUCTION In this civil rights case, children who allegedly are or should be in the Milwaukee County foster care system have sued the Governor of Wisconsin,...
Views: 2
ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in the above-styled civil rights action pro se, seeks to pursue his remedies in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order entered December 19,1994, the Court directed plaintiff to particularize his complaint and to identify the relief requested. On December 27, 1994, plaintiff submitted a two-page handwritten document, with appropriate copies,...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Steven Todd O’Patka (“O’Patka”) claims that his employer, the Menasha Corporation and Menasha Color Division (together, “Menasha”) discriminated against him and harassed him based on his sex, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. Me-, nasha has moved to dismiss O’Patka’s complaint, which the court shall do. 7. ALL...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are three pretrial motions filed by defendant Rufus Sims 1 : Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Prior Statements of Elaine McCord, Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Prior Statements of William Contos, and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Statements of Stevon Sims. *831 I. INTRODUCTION All three motions involve the admissibility of prior statements o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (‘WARN”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101, et seq. This legislation requires, inter alia, that employers of more than 100 persons provide a minimum of sixty (60) days written notice before “the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment, or one or more facilities...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the petition of Walter Stewart (“Stewart”) for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, the petition is denied. I. BACKGROUND The Circuit Court of Cook County sentenced Stewart to death for two murders, an attempted murder, and other violations committed during a February 10, 1980, armed robbery of a jewelry store. He is curr...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court is the motion of defendant, Irving Z. Friedman, Executor of the Estate of Stanley Rothenfeld (“defendant” or “executor”), for summary judgment. The motion presents an issue of first impression, to-wit, whether Ohio’s nonclaim statute, § 2117.06 of the Ohio Revised Code, which bars all noncontingent claims against an estate that are not presented within...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION ■ THIS CAUSE is before the Court for judicial review of a jeopardy assessment made by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) against Plaintiffs Christa Karin Mueller and Rein-*1061hard Mueller, for the 1986 tax year. In lieu of an evidentiary hearing, the Court required the parties to submit evidence relative to their respective burdens in this proceeding. Upon review of the sub...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This suit involves a slip and fall in February of 1993 on the premises of the Defendant, Brookdale Resort, Inc. (“Brookdale”). Presently pending are Brookdale’s motions for summary judgment, (Dkt. Entry #9), and to strike the affidavit of Plaintiff Janet Meddick, (Dkt. Entry # 16). Brookdale contends that Janet Meddick’s affidavit is too conelusory and not based on personal knowledge...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s issuance of a “certificate of probable cause” (“CPC”) incident to the denial of convicted murderer Steven Duffey’s request for a stay of execution pending the preparation of a counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Congress has provided that “[a]n appeal may not be taken...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Petruzzi’s, Inc., the named plaintiff in the above-captioned anti-trust class action, has moved for approval of a proposed partial settlement involving only one of the two remaining defendants in this protracted litigation. The proposed settlement purports to extinguish the potential liability of Moyer Packing Company (“Moyer” or the “Settling Defendant”) for all cla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the July 14,1992 arrest of plaintiff Brett S. Sendobry (“Sendobry”). In his complaint filed on July 12, 1994, two days before the statute of limitations expired, Sendobry alleged, inter alia, that defendants Thomas Scales and Mark Michael, members of the Pennsylvania State Police, employed excessive force in effect...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM On January 24, 1992, Roy Alleyn, a.k.a. Andrew Edward Muldowney, presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution, Smithfield, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His pro se petition challenges the validity of his 1988 conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvan...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an appeal by Bell Atlantic Tricon Leasing (“Bell Atlantic”) from the United States Bankruptcy Court’s Opinion and Order dated March 14, 1994, 166 B.R. 595, which determined that funds in the account of Mountain Cleaners, Inc. were actually the assets of the individual debtors, Robert Mass and Yvonne J. Mass (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Mass”). Bell Atla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants (Document No. 278) and Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The class is comprised of women members of Wildwood Golf Club and women spouses of Cl...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE MJ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This case is before the court on review of a Report and Recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge (MJ) that all of the defendants be dismissed with prejudice (tab 64). Following a review of the record, the MJ’s recommendation and applicable law, it is this court’s conclusion that the MJ’s recommendation be ADOPTED in fu...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING LINCOLN NATIONAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM This matter comes before the Court on Defendant and Counterclaimant Lincoln National Insurance Company’s (“Lincoln National’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment on its counterclaim. 1 For the reasons given be *845 low, Lincoln National’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs filed this action against TJX Operating Companies, Inc. (“T.J. Maxx”) and Police Officers Michael J. Torrey, Joseph Valiquette, Jr., and David Mesiek as well as the Town of Colonie (referred to collectively as “the Town Defendants”) on November 25, 1991. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint and a second amended c...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Counts I and III of the Complaint. Count I alleges Defendant engaged in several instances of racial discrimination against the Plaintiff that are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Count III alleges Defendant tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs existing and potential contractual relationships with third par...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local No. 6 (the “Union”), seeks a confirmation of a labor arbitration decision awarding the Union damages for Thermo-Guard Corporation’s (the “Employer”) violation of collective bargaining agreements between the parties. Jurisdiction exists under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relatio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pro se plaintiff Gregorio Rosario claims that his constitutional rights were violated by defendant Massachusetts State Trooper Joseph L. Brooks in *767connection with plaintiffs arrest and conviction in federal Criminal Action No. 88-246-WD. In particular, plaintiff alleges that on August 11, 1988, defendant forcibly entered plaintiffs apartment with...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is the latest front in a scientific and legal war, now into its second decade, over the production and purification of erythropoietin (“EPO”). 1 EPO is a human protein that stimulates the production of red blood cells and is used primarily for the clinical treatment of anemia, particularly anemia caused by renal disease. 2 The parties to this action are tw...
Views: 0
On January 6,1991, the Comptroller of the Currency declared the Bank of New England Corporation (“BNEC”) insolvent. The plaintiffs — all former employees or spouses of former employees of BNEC — are beneficiaries of two BNEC-sponsored retirement funds: BNEC’s pension plan (the “Pension Plan”) and a Supplemental' benefit plan (the “Supplemental Plan”) created by the Bank of New England, N.A. (“B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Pending before the court is a motion filed by Douglas Fitzgerald (“the respondent”) for stay of order pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 16). For the reasons given below, the motion is granted. Procedural Background. The record reflects the following. On October 13, 1993, the government filed a petition to enforce three IRS summonses previ*377ously issued to and served upon th...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs bring this action for damages caused by a skiing collision between Plaintiff Claudia Sklar and Defendant’s employee. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendant. Plaintiffs now move for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. BACKGROUND On February 15, 1992 Plaintiff Claudia Sklar was skiing on the Sapphire Trail at Okemo Mountain. Defend...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Emmett F. Mun-ley’s Renewal of Motion for Judgment After Jury Trial, or, In the Alternative, Motion for New Trial on Issue of “Responsible Person” (# 125, filed July 8, 1994). The Court has considered the motion, Munley’s Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities (# 133, filed July 22, 1994), the government’s Opposit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the court is Defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Docket No. 70, filed March 29, 1994), with supporting memorandum (Docket No. 71), and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto (Docket No. 77, filed April 12, 1994). ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Tina Johnson, Steve Johnson, Tracy Johnson, Rose Johnson and Jilda Johnson Lewis (collectively “Johnsons”) have moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 56(c) for a summary judgment on the issue of liability against the remaining nondefaulted defendants in this action: on Counts I through VI against defendant William Smith (“Smith”) and Brian Emberton (“Brian”) a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today, we consider three motions of the Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. (PNI) regarding the above captioned litigation. PNI seeks, first, to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of seeking access to judicial records. Second, PNI seeks to immediately unseal the docket solely to permit its Motions to appear on the public docket, and last, PNI seeks to unseal the entire record...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Mark Joseph Brosso has brought this diversity action against his former employer, defendant Devices for Vascular Intervention, Inc. (“DVI”), alleging, in Count I of the complaint, that DVI terminated Brosso in retaliation for his failure to relinquish ownership in a medical device he designed. DVI has moved to dismiss this Count pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction On September 7, 1994, plaintiff Mary F. Shrader (“Mary”) filed an eleven-count complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, naming Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., Thomas Dugan, and Allen H. Shrader (“Allen H.”) as defendants, and Allen R. Shrader (“Allen R.”) as a nominal defendant. The complaint relied exclusively on state law. ...
Views: 0
*1568 MEMORANDUM & ORDER On March 16, 1992, Plaintiff filed this suit, claiming intentional or, alternatively, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a vaguely stated general negligence claim. By Order of January 17, 1995, the Court rejected the notion of an independent tort for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, but allowed Plaintiff to proceed on claim...
Views: 0
*654 ORDER This cause is before the court upon Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Mandamus, doc. 1. Plaintiff has also filed an affidavit of indigency, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. Leave to so proceed should be granted. In his petition, the Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to the issuance of a court mandate compelling the Defendant to issue subpoenas purs...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from the Amended Final Judgment of Default entered on December 2,1993, by United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Baynes, Jr. Jurisdiction over appeals from the final judgments, orders, and decrees of the Bankruptcy Court is vested in the Federal District courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW Findings of fact by the Bankruptcy Co...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from a discharge of debt entered on July 14, 1994, by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Alexander L. Paskay, in an adversary proceeding in connection with a Chapter 7 proceeding, 166 B.R. 455. Jurisdiction over appeals from the final judgments, orders and decrees of the Bankruptcy Court is vested in the Federal District Courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 158...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Patlex Corporation has moved this Court to Dismiss the Complaint against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). The litigation arises out of a contract made on October 1, 1984 between Patlex and its wholly owned subsidiary, Refae Technology Development Corporation, Refac International, Ltd., and a company...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer filed by the defendant Marco Manufacturing Co. (“Marco”) on December 23, 1994. The parties completed briefing the motion on January 26, 1995. For the following reasons, Marco’s motion to dismiss will be denied and Marco’s motion to transfer will be granted...
Views: 1
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court upon the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation dated February 16, 1995. All parties have been furnished copies of the report and recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto timely filed ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed on November 28, 1994. The court held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress on December 2, 1994, after which the court ordered both parties to file briefs. Defendant Krzeminski filed his Memorandum in Support of the Motion on December 22, 1994; the Government filed its Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion o...
Views: 0
ORDER The parties have agreed to voluntarily settle the matter, but settlement is contingent upon this court vacating its prior Orders and declaring its prior opinions null and void and *55 of no precedential value. On February 27, 1995, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Vacatur. 1 The Plaintiff moves the court “to vacate the preliminary injunction, opinion and order previously issued in t...
Views: 0
OPINION We deal here with Amendment 506 to the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Defendant has filed a Pro se Motion For Resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 506. I. BACKGROUND This Court sentenced Scott Sheppard to 294 months in prison after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 846) and distribution of ...
Views: 3
OPINION This case is revisited. Defendant has asked the Court to alter or amend its Opinion of May 20, 1994, Illinois Conf. of Teamsters v. Steve Gilbert Trucking, 853 F.Supp. 1091 (C.D.Ill.1994), granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The facts were set forth there and will not be repeated here. Procedural History The Court found Defendant had waived the affirmative defense of fra...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs, James W. Rayfield, Sr. and Margaret T. Rayfield (“the Rayfields”) on December 15, 1994. 1 The Rayfields originally filed this action on October 13, 1994, in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama. The Rayfields allege breach of contract, ne...
Views: 0
OPINION The difficult issue of attorney disqualification. The Government asks the Court to reconsider its denial of the Government’s Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel Gregory K. Harris and all members of his law firm of Giffin, Winning, Cohen and Bodewes, P.C. The Government contends that because Attorney Harris previously represented a potential government witness — Jame...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER After certain agents of the United States obtained and executed a search warrant at the business premises of the plaintiffs, and the criminal investigation of the plaintiffs was dropped, Plaintiffs sued the United States, various agents of the government and private individuals. The basis of Plaintiffs’ complaint was multi-faceted. In Jones v. United States, 869 F.Supp....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on debtor Leonard 0. Parker’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan. Debtor’s appeal was set for hearing on January 18, 1995, but was submitted on the briefs. For the reasons stated herein, the order of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Debtor owns real p...
Views: 2
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On December 1, 1994, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the federal defendants named in plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed, and the United States be substituted as the sole defendant in this case, and that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted; that the plaintiffs’ motion fo...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a “Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants, Fleet *73Mortgage Corp. and Patrick Gillock,” which was taken under submission on an earlier date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Background Plaintiffs are former employees of Fleet Mortgage...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The instant appeal arises out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Carl M. Mazzocone, debtor and appellee. Appellant Lewis Kates appeals from an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dated June 2,1994 dismissing the bankruptcy case. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). For the foll...
Views: 2
ORDER On December 28, 1994, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the motion of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton to dismiss on the grounds of presidential immunity. The Court found, however, that trial of the entire matter should be delayed until after President Clinton leaves office. In spite of ordering a delay in setting the case for trial, the Court found that disco...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING REMAND This is yet another breach of contract and Declaratory Judgment Act case brought by Plaintiff Larry Hurst (“Hurst”) against Defendant Regis Low Limited (“Regis Low”) and a truly staggering number of international insurance companies in what appears to be the interminable litigation concerning liability for a state-court judgment entered in favor of the estate of J...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-captioned case is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Based on the parties pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will enter an Order of even-date herewith DISMISSING the above-captioned case as frivolous and GRANTING the Defendants’ Motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendant Banana Republic, Inc.’s (“Banana Republic”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 11). De *1035 fendant seeks summary judgment on Rehnee Aikens (“Aikens”) claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Having reviewed the motion...
Views: 1
ORDER REJECTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY 29, 1994 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITIONER’S 28 U.S.C. § 2254 MOTION The court, pursuant to Ride 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2) (E.D.Mich. Jan. 1, 1992), has reviewed the magistrate judge’s July 29, 1994 report and recommendation as well as respondent’s August 3, 1994 object...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The above-named Petitioner was convicted in the Lake Superior Court, Criminal Division, Crown Point, Indiana, of first degree premeditated murder and first degree murder in the commission of a robbery. Judge James Clement of that court imposed a life sentence. A direct appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Indiana, and that court, unanimously, speak...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES This action is before the Court on Defendant Mike’s Septic Tank Service, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 11 Fed.R.Civ.P., (Docket No. 594) filed November 17, 1994 and Plaintiffs response thereto, filed December 2, 1994. STATEMENT OF FACTS This case is one involving the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 12). Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff Maurice H. Udell’s (“Udell”) claims of wrongful termination, violations of article I §§ 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and common law libel, slander, and defamation. Having reviewed the motion, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before me is defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this class action brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) that confers a private right of action on any person whose business or property is injured “by reason of’ another’s violation of that Act. The principal issue to be decided here is wheth...
Views: 0
DECISION GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTERPRETING EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE COVERAGE LIMIT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY INTRODUCTION This is an insurance coverage case requiring a judicial interpretation of a liability limit in an insurance contract. Plaintiffs Bertram P. Adler and Barbara L. Adler (“Adlers”) are suing Western Home Insurance Company...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER During the evening hours of February 20, 1992, the plaintiffs, Willard Huffman (“Huffman”) and Helen Huffman, were at their home at 28621 Edgewood, in Cary, Lake County, Illinois. At approximately 7:50 p.m., defendant Nikolai Baibus (“Baibus”), on duty as a sergeant of police for the Village of Fox River Valley Gardens," stopped a vehicle driven by David Schultz (“Sc...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is William Johnson’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated below, the Petition is denied. BACKGROUND On April 10,1992, William Johnson (“Johnson”) pled guilty to five counts. Counts I, II, and V charged Johnson with being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Count III charged ...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Wlodek Jan Lech (“Lech”) moves to sever his trial and the counts charged against him in superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) filed in this action pursuant to Rule 8(b), or in the alternative Rule 14, of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to sever under Rule 8(b) is granted. Background The seven count Indictment in this ac...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This longstanding school desegregation ■ lawsuit was reopened last year when the plaintiffs — black school children and parents representing a class of people similarly situated — -and plaintiff-intervenor United States filed motions for further relief alleging that defendant Randolph County Board of Education and its officials had violated prior desegregation orders and feder...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Howard Peters III (“Peters”) in his individual capacity and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), alleging violations of plaintiffs due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is defendants’ motion for judgment on ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before Court are the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, as well as the supplemental motion for summary judgment of defendants Guest Services, Inc. (“Guest Services”), Harry Hanson, and Holly Burke. 1 After carefully reviewing all of the parties’ submissions and hearing oral argument on these motions on February 10,1995, the Court finds that...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”), John Herman-son, First Commercial Financial Group, Inc. (“First Commercial”), Buff Hoffberg, Echo Trading, Inc., and Dennis Trompeter alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) (Counts I —...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff/appellant South Division Credit Union (the “Credit Union”) appeals from the decision of the bankruptcy court that it may recover only the $3,500 it lent to defendant/appellee and debtor Dorothy McFarland (“McFarland”) on the basis of a false financial statement, rather than the entire amount *88 McFarland owed to the Credit Union. For the reasons set f...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the motion of the defendant, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. (“TMM”), for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Pamela McKay, filed this action on December 14, 1993. In her complaint, McKay alleges that her employment with TMM, a manufacturer of automobiles, was termi...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff has brought suit against Fleet-guard, Inc., and its parent corporation, Cummins Engine Company. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated because of honestly held religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (1991) (“Title VII”), and in violation of the Tennesse...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1973, United States District Court Judge Carl A. Muecke entered a consent decree judgment in the case of Hook v. State, CIV 73-97 PHX CAM. This consent decree judgment resolved a suit brought by inmates of the Arizona state prison against the Arizona Department ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant J. Baker, Inc. (“J. Baker”) for a new trial pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. J. Baker contends that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. J. Baker also seeks a new trial on the issue of patent validity based on newly discovered evidence. Based on a review of the file, ...
Views: 0
DECISION AFTER COURT TRIAL, FIXING DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, INCLUDING SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM This matter came on regularly for Court Trial on January 17, 1995, and continued daily until January 20, 1995, before the Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, United States District Judge. Upon conclusion of this non-jury trial the case was taken under submission for decision. The Court has ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND NOW, this 15 day of February, 1995, upon careful consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and after a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of Thomas J. Rueter, United States Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification filed on May 23, 1994 is DENIED. REPORT and RECOMMEND...
Views: 2
ORDER Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. *799 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket #8. STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant Fairways Villas Condominium Association (“the Association”) is a non-profit corporation formed pursuant to O.R.C. § 5311.08 for the purpose of administering t...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court in this declaratory judgment action are cross-motions for summary *241 judgment posing the narrow question whether a number of retirees were, on July 20, 1992, “receiving benefits” from a certain United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) benefit plan. The answer to that question will determine which of two new UMWA funds will provide health care cover...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction Plaintiff Ben C. Maibach III (Maibach) is chief executive officer and principal owner of plaintiff BRB Printing, Inc. (BRB). Plaintiffs are residents of Michigan. Defendant Vernon G. Buchanan (Buchanan), a Florida resident, was formerly chief executive officer of American Speedy Printing Centers (American Speedy). American Speedy provides printing,...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERTS I. INTRODUCTION This matter is presently before the Court on two motions in limine filed by Defendants, one submitted just before trial and one submitted during trial, to preclude or limit the scope of the testimony of Plaintiffs psychological experts, including Dr. Caro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Union members brought this action under section 101(a) of the Labor-Management Re *887 porting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a), and section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), claiming that their local union unlawfully obtained ratification of a proposed collective bargaining agreement, and that thei...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Taurus International Incorporated (“Taurus”), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages against defendants Titan Wfiieel International Inc. (“Titan WTieel”) and Titan Tire Corporation (“Titan Tire”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges infringement of the TAURUS bull logo trademark and TAURUS word trademark in violation of Se...
Views: 2
OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Eduvigis A. Genao (“Genao”) is a New York City school teacher who was assaulted by intruders while teaching in her classroom. Genao brings this negligence action under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction seeking damages in excess of $50,000 from defendant Board of Education of the City of New York (the “Board”). Before this Court is the Board’s motion for summ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Defendant Philip Biscardi, who pled guilty before this Court to distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, has filed a motion asking the Court to reduce the time period within which he is disabled from participating in the affairs of his union and further provide that he is no longer prohibited from such participation by 29 U.S.C. § 504. The United State...
Views: 0
David Friedland has moved for reconsideration of his sentence pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. Rule 35(b) and has also petitioned the court for a writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Friedland argues that (i) the government failed to honor a commitment to move for a reduced sentence based on his substantial cooperation in pursuing other criminal investigations and ...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION Presented here is the question whether a standard uninsured motorist provision of a Virginia automobile insurance policy provides coverage for an incident in which an insured is abducted in a stolen vehicle, transported to an isolated location, and sexually assaulted within the automobile. More specifically, the question is whether the insured’s injuries in these circum...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on appellants’ appeal of the United States Bankruptcy Court’s order denying confirmation of appellants’ Chapter 13 plan. Two issues are presented on appeal: (1) Did the Bankruptcy Court err in determining that an adversary proceeding was necessary to determine the value of appellee Commercial Credit Corporation’s claim; and (2) did the Bank...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization (“ILGO”) seeks an injunction compelling the Police Commissioner and the City of New York to issue ILGO a parade permit to march from 42nd Street to 86th Street on 5th Avenue beginning at 8:30 a.m. on Friday March 17, 1995, St. Patrick’s Day. The City has denied ILGO’s application for a permit. ILGO maintains that this denial vio...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(e). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. I. Background This case was brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (hereinafter “ADA”). On June 25, 1988...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, filed December 27, 1994, Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed January 13, 1995, Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence and Reply to Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed January 20, 1995 and the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Amended M...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION IN THIS action, plaintiff Charles William Fleming contends that his rights to procedural due process were infringed when his former employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, acting pursuant to state law, suspended his benefits. This Court has previously denied the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and granted Fleming leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. ...
Views: 0
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 1995, upon consideration of the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Facts Plaintiff Lawrence G. Quinn is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. The defendants are four officials responsible for the management of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. (“EPIC”) and the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), a federally-protected species, have brought suit against defendant Pacific Lumber Company (“Pacific Lumber”) to permanently enjoin the implementation of Timber Harvest Pla...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THREE-JUDGE COURT In this legislative reapportionment case under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the plaintiffs seek additional majority-black seats in the state senate for west Tennessee. In a previous decision in this case, reported as Rural W. Tenn. African-American Affairs Council v. McWherter, 836 F.Supp. 453 (W.D.Tenn.1993), vacated, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2775...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of defendant Liberty National Life Insurance Company (“Liberty National”) in the above styled and numbered cause for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b) 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant contends that it is entitled to a dismissal of plaintiffs claim because under Mississippi law the plai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff alleges violation of his rights under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Equal Protection clause, the Due Process clause, and Connecticut law. Defendants move to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that plaintiffs claim does not permit his recovery, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the state law claim is ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the petition of Willie Earl Brown by which he seeks to vacate or modify his sentence in Criminal No. 3:90-cr-64W pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 Earlier, a federal grand jury indicted Brown on two counts of cocaine possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)-(1). On April 3, 1991, Brown entered a plea of guilty to Count I pu...
Views: 0
ORDER AND INJUNCTION This matter is before the court on plaintiff Susan M. Maxwell’s motion for injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. Defendant J. Baker opposes the motion and, in the event such relief is granted, moves for a stay pending appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court grants pla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION The evidentiary hearing which was conducted from February 13, 1995, until February 17, 1995, was first considered because of some unresolved factual issues which arose in connection with the parties’ various motions for summary judgment. However, in light of the scheduled trial of Mr. Rudd’s cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief...
Views: 0
ORDER Based on the jury verdict returned in her favor, plaintiff Susan M. Maxwell (“Maxwell”) moves for entry of judgment and award of treble damages, attorney fees and prejudgment interest. In exercising its discretion on these matters, the court brings to bear its familiarity with the case and the competing policies of the patent laws being enforced. Based on a review of the file, recor...
Views: 0
*904 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, Tiffany Horton, to remand this matter to the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County where the case originated before defendants Scripto-Tokai Corporation (“Scripto”) and Sysco Corporation d/b/a Cochran-Sysco Food Services (“Sysco”) removed it here under Title 28 U.S.C. 14...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of Shopko Stores, Inc. (“Shopko”) for summary judgment and dismissal. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, the court grants Shopko’s motion for summary judgment. 1 BACKGROUND This case concerns various systems used to connect shoes which do not have lace holes, buckles or other apertures through...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are the separate motions of the defendants, the City of Meridian Police Department, Attorney Thomas Goldman, and The Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, all asking this court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) — (6) 1 to dismiss all of plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff Elius Reed, previously convicted of and sentenced for the criminal offense of armed robber...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Sunburst Bank pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 1 asking this court to remand this lawsuit to the Mississippi state court where it originated. Defendant Summit Acceptance Corporation removed this lawsuit from state court to this federal forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) 2 and 1332, 3 ...
Views: 2
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of the defendants, Ridgeview Glass, Inc. and Bonnie J. Canter, to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction (# 8-1) or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to a more convenient forum (# 8-2). BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Dual Lock Partition Systems, Inc. (Dual Lock), an Oregon corporation, filed this action for breac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 4, 1994, Hall-Kimbrell, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas, commenced this breach of contract diversity of citizenship action against the Archdiocese of Detroit (Archdiocese), an ecclesiastical corporation established and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. On March 16,1994, HallKimbrell filed an amended compla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION The court has before it plaintifficlaimant’s Motion for an Order Confirming Arbitration Award, For Entry of Judgment and For Award of Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion to Confirm”) and defendants/respondents’ Motion to Vacate, Modify or Correct Arbitration Award (“Motion to Vacate”). For the reasons discussed hereafter, the court grants the motion to confirm an...
Views: 0
RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF DEFENDANTS’ POLICIES’ POLLUTION EXCLUSION CLAUSES Plaintiff EDO Corporation (“EDO”) commenced this declaratory judgment action against primary insurers, Newark Insurance Co. (“Newark”) and Aetna Insurance Company (“Aetna”) and against excess insurers Burnhope and Companies (“Burnhope”) and American Insurance Company (“American”) (collect...
Views: 1
ORDER On August 10, 1992, William E. Mineey, III (“Mineey”) resigned from his position as a rural mail carrier with the United States *569 Postal Service (“Postal Service”). Over a year and half later, Mincey filed this wrongful discharge/fair representation action’ against the Postal Service and the South Carolina Rural Letter Carriers’ Association (“SCRLCA”). See ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment as well as other motions. Jackson Howard and Phillip Lowry of Howard, Lewis & Petersen appeared for plaintiff Neis Andersen. David B. Thomas and H. Hal Visick represented defendant Brigham Young University (“BYU”), and Anthony Eyre of Kipp & Christian represented defendant Dr. Joseph...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of defendants Todd David Mehlbrech and Lois Ann Jubb for summary judgment (# 39). BACKGROUND On November 22, 1994, this court granted the motions of the plaintiff, Prudential Insurance Company of America, for interpleader and for summary judgment on the counterclaim of defendant Gloria G. Mehlbrech for breach of contract. The remaining parties in ...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 91 (1995) Neal PARNAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. 4:94CV02356 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. March 9, 1995. *92 Kenneth E. Dick, Donald S. Singer, Edwards and Singer, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs. Robert E. Tucker, Doster and Robinson, St. Louis, MO, Marcia M. Kull, Bowman and Brooke, Minneapolis, MN...
Views: 0
*42ORDER AND REASONS This matter was set for trial on this date. Prior to trial, counsel for plaintiffs sent a letter to the Court via facsimile, which is attached hereto, indicating that he had executed a Motion to Dismiss. On the morning of trial, neither plaintiffs nor their counsel appeared for trial. Counsel for defendants appeared. He conceded that plaintiffs’ attorney had executed a joint m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Joseph H. Kessen, was a plumber who in 1991 began receiving a pension under the Plumbers’ Pension Fund, Local 130 U.A. In 1993, Mr. Kessen’s pension was suspended on the ground that he was continuing to do plumbing work in violation of the terms of the Plan. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Mr. Kessen filed the present lawsuit, cont...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This product liability case comes before the court on two motions.1 The plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his failure to warn claim. (Dk. 68). The defendants Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co. (“Murray”) and Walmart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”) move to strike the statement of Chris Duffee. (Dk. 84). On February 21, 1992, at approximately 6:50 p.m., the plaintiff, Shane Duffee, a...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS, GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT, AND FINDING THE CURRENT SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT The question before the court is whether Wisconsin’s current “Milwaukee School Choice Program” (“Choice Program”), which reimburses private nonreligious schools for the tuition of eligible chi...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs Liberty Cable Co., Inc. (“Liberty”), Sixty Sutton Corp. (“Sixty Sutton”), and Jack A. Veerman seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that 47 U.S.C. §§ 522(7) and 541(b) are unconstitutional. Before me now is their motion for a preliminary injunction against agencies and officials of New York State (the “State”) and the City of New York (the “City”) and ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff ICD Industries (“ICD”) was insured under a policy issued by Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) which, inter alia, afforded coverage resulting from an advertising injury. ICD has brought this declaratory judgment action claiming that it is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending against a patent infringement action. Currently ...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Each party has moved the Court for an order granting summary judgment. The complaint seeks information about several Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Prior to commencement of this action, the plaintiff, Gary Triestman, sought this information by administrative means, beginning in November, 1993. He seek...
Views: 0
OPINION These three actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Each arises out of the employment relationship between plaintiff Leroy Ladson and defendant Ulltra East *27 Parking Corporation (“Ulltra”). Ladson claims that his employment was wrongfully terminated and that Ulltra is indebted to him for certain allegedly unpaid benefits. The matters are before th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is a § 2254 petition. Petitioner is Anthony Papa (“Papa”). He contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief on the grounds that out-of-court statements of his co-conspirator were admitted against him at trial in violation of his federal constitutional right to confrontation and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal from his conviction. T...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER In the instant consolidated action, defendants are the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT” or “Union”) and IBT General President Ronald Carey (“Carey”). Plaintiffs are the Central Conference of Teamsters, the Eastern Conference of Teamsters, the Southern Conference of Teamsters, the Western Conference of Teamsters (“the Conferences”), and various officers who represent...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an appeal brought by Constant Limited Partnership (“Landlord”) of an order, dated June 20, 1994 (the “Order”), by James L. Garrity, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The Order authorized the appellee, Jamesway Corporation (“Debtor”) to reject its lease, dated July 27, 1...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an appeal brought by John Alden Life Insurance Company (“Alden”) of an order (the “Order”) by the Honorable Burton R. Lifland, Bankruptcy Judge for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). On April 13, 1994, Con Am Grand-view Associates, L.P. (the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief, pur...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM: OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Yoaman Smith seeks entry of a protective order or preliminary injunction to prevent Union Pacific (UP) from requiring him to attend a “back-to-work” physical examination by UP doctors or from disciplining him pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement for failing to do so. In the alternative, Smith seeks an order in limine p...
Views: 0
ORDER This action came for hearing before the court on January 17, 1995, on Defendants Trident Systems, Inc. and Sierra Pacific Industries’ Motion1 for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to liability to the individual Plaintiffs, Calhoun W. Umphlett and Virginia Umphlett. Because this court finds that the claims of the individual Plaintiffs are not separate and distinct from those asserted b...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PROCEEDINGS TO DATE Alaska Properties and Investment, Inc. (“API”) seeks reconsideration at Docket No. 87 of an Order at Docket No. 83 dismissing its third party claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and paving the way for remand of this case back to superior court. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 28 U....
Views: 0
RULING ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY ORDER The debtor-appellant, Darwin E. White (“White”), brings this appeal pro se from orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. 1 "White first contends that the bankruptcy court erroneously overruled his objection to the Internal Revenue Service’s (the “IRS”) proof of claim, (see Mem. and Orde...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This ease was filed in 1993 to reduce to judgment certain outstanding federal tax assessments against defendants Harold and Floyd Pottorf, to foreclose federal tax hens on certain parcels of real property owned by those defendants, for court ordered sales of the real property, and for deficiency judgments against the defendants. Defendants Carolyn Pott...
Views: 1
878 F.Supp. 1286 (1995) KOCH ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Plaintiff, v. GIBRALTAR CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. and International Insurance Company, Defendants. No. 89-0624 C 5. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. March 10, 1995. Rex G. Beasley, William E. Shull, N. Sue Allen, Thomas J. Meek, Benjamin L. Burgess, James M. Armstrong, Foulston & Siefkin, Wichita, KS, Thomas H. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Memorandum and Order will resolve two outstanding motions filed in this civil rights matter. The first is Plaintiff William Moser’s Motion to Vacate this Court’s Order of January 4, 1995, in which we granted the defendants’ unopposed motion for the sanction of dismissal. The second motion was filed by the defendants, Officer Francis Bascelli, the Ridley Towns...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Mildred Robinson’s motion for reconsideration and to set aside summary judgment entered for defendants will be denied. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Local Rule 20(g). This is a Title VII action claiming race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as amended, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Record No. 54]. The plaintiff having responded, the motion is ripe for decision. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. This is a civil rights action for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other state laws alleging that the defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent to...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Appeal of the Final Judgment entered May 20, 1993 which granted sanctions against the Internal Revenue Service for violation of the automatic stay in the amount of $635.00. This amount included a $50.00 bank charge, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $585.00 *162incurred in resolution of the levy placed on the bank account of Appellants. The Court ha...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After a bench trial of this case on January 10-12, 1995, and after considering the testimony of the witnesses, the admitted exhibits and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1 Findings of Fact A. The Request For Proposals 1. On December 29, 1988, defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — OPINION I. Introduction and Procedural History Plaintiffs pro se Marielle Kronberg and Richard Welsh bring this action against Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiffs contend that the DOJ has been and is withholding certain records and information requested by Plaintiffs which...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Sue A. Bosley appeals from a decision of the Defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services which granted her disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., from October 11,1989, to October 31, 1991, but denied benefits thereafter. Ms. Bosley applied for disability insurance benefits on October 25, 1991. The a...
Views: 0
*1136 MEMORANDUM DECISION A non-jury trial was held before the Court on November 14-16, 1994 and November 29, 1994. The Court, having considered the merits of the case, makes the following finding of facts and conclusions of law. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Third-Party Defendant Vernon Hysell is Third-Party Defendant Steven Mead’s (“Mead”) step-father. In March of 1991, Mead approached Vernon Hysell ...
Views: 0
INJUNCTION ORDERING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND GOVERNOR PETE WILSON TO COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993 I. INTRODUCTION This action questions whether the National Voter Registration Act, an otherwise laudable attempt by Congress to promote nondiscriminatory voter registration standards, is nevertheless unconstitutional because it invades powers reserved to the stat...
Views: 0
Currently before the court are (1) a motion by third-party defendant City of Niagara Falls (“the City”) to dismiss the amended third-party complaints of Solvent Chemical Co., Inc. (“Solvent”), Item 179, Mader Capital, Inc. (“Mader”), Item 181, and ICC Industries, Inc. (“ICC”), Item 183 (Item 266); (2) a request by the City that if the court finds the amended third-party complaints sufficient to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. BACKGROUND This suit by plaintiff against the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), its chairman and several of its agents arises from an insider trading investigation of plaintiff by the agency. Plaintiff asserts a Bivens claim against John Heffernan, an SEC investigator who allegedly violated plaintiffs constitutional due process and priva...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This ERISA action arises out of a class action lawsuit brought by former employees of the Individual Insurance Products Division of CIGNA Corporation (“IIP”). The instant matter comes before me on defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on Counts I and VI of plaintiffs’ amended complaint. For the reasons stated below, their motion is granted. I. FACTS Defend...
Views: 0
ORDER Elliott Rosado, Omega Farris, Gary Farris, and Sherry Farris (plaintiffs) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, 18 U.S.C. §§ 872, 876, and 1001, and 26 U.S.C. § 7214 against Joseph V. Curtis (Curtis), Patricia E. Dorman (Dorman), Roslyn A. Russell (Russell), Joe F. Roach (Roach), Margaret A. Weiss (Weiss), *1540 Orland D. Smith (Smith), ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, Jerri Lynn Hensley, Larry Hensley and Riteway Beauty Supply, Inc., have presented an amended motion to remand their above-entitled ease to the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, from whence it was removed by defendants, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and Linda Baird, based on defendants’ allegation that the complaint is “related to” an “emplo...
Views: 0
OPINION This action involves an appeal from the bankruptcy court. The Debtor, Holly’s, Inc. (Holly’s), is requesting a reversal of the bankruptcy court’s order granting the City of Kentwood’s (“Kentwood”) motion for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court held that “it had subject matter jurisdiction to render a final judgment on the Debtor’s real property tax liability to Kentwood for the yea...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is before the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties having consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. Currently before the court is defendant Duff Motel, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss filed January 6, 1995. 1 The amended complaint alleges that on December 5, 1993, the plaintiff, an African-American, attempted to secure a room for himself and two...
Views: 0
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 1995, upon consideration of defendant’s Emergency Motion To Rescind The Order Issued Ex-Parte Commanding The Production Of Defendant’s Records Maintained With The Division Of Gaming Enforcement and the government’s response, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s Motion is DENIED and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement shall deliver t...
Views: 1
OPINION I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS This is a civil action for review of an administrative decision denying Plaintiffs claim for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court on June 2, 1994. [Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1]. On August 12, 1994, in response to Plaintiffs Complaint, the Government filed a Motion for Remand. (D.I. 7). In...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 743 (1995) Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 80-73581. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 14, 1995. *744 Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for plaintiffs. David G. Edick, Kim G. Harris, Asst. Mich. Attys. Gen., Lansing, MI, for defendants. OPINION FEIKENS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The ca...
Views: 0
879 F. Supp. 752 (1995) Mary GLOVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Perry JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. No. 77-CV-71229. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 14, 1995. *753 Deborah A. LaBelle, Detroit, MI, for plaintiffs. Susan Przekop-Shaw, Asst. Mich. Atty. Gen., Lansing, MI, for defendants. OPINION FEIKENS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The case of Mary Glover, et ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION . AND ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth E. Seber (“Seber”) seeks declaratory and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983' against the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“D.E.A.”), unidentified D.E.A. agents John and Jane Does (the “Doe defendants”), the Cook County Sheriffs Office 1 and Seber’s former attorney, Michael A. Unger (“Un-ger”) in connection w...
Views: 2
OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Goldie Blanksteen seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining an election to be held by the defendant New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) on March 21, 1995 to select the chairman of its board of directors and to select five of the board’s member *365 directors. The NYMEX board consists of a chairman, a. vice-chairman, fifteen member directors, and fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is denied, plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and the case is remanded to Diversified Benefit Plans, Inc. for a new determination of Mr. Ross’ claim. Facts Plaintiff, Andrew Ross (“Mr. Ross”), works as a greaser-me...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and, more specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Plaintiff was a construction worker disabled *24as a result of an injury sustained on October 28, 1989. He claims that the defendant’s denial of his application for union disability benefits was improper and seeks to recover the benefits claimed...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Constantine and Carla Panos and Robert and Aida Wohl bring this action against Island Gem Enterprises (“Island Gem”), Bankers Life Insurance Company of Nebraska (“Bankers Life”), 1 Yorkshire, N.V. (‘Yorkshire”), Chase Manhattan, N.A. (“Chase”), International Sales Management, Ltd. (“International Sales”), and various individual defendants (the “...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Twenty-nine years ago, Dr. Karl Menninger described the conditions endured by pretrial detainees in this nation’s jails and lockups as “miserable, overcrowded, crime- and-disease-breeding.” 1 Among the jails Dr. Menninger examined was the Cook County Jail (the “Jail,” the subject of the instant ease), which he toured with the then executive dire...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Hans Van Blyenburgh brings this four count action, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of age, national origin, and disability, and claiming that defendants violated the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 el seq. Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I of the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs have moved this Court for Summary Judgment. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue of material fact, and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The c...
Views: 0
ORDER AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 1995, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice. In conjunction with this order I make the following findings: 1. This case arises out of bankruptcy proceedings concerning 641 Associates, of which plaintiff, Jeffrey Chodorow, was the preside...
Views: 0
ORDER In this action, Plaintiff, Robin D. McCoy (“McCoy”), a white female, claims that Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (“Johnson Controls”), discriminated against her because of her sex and race in violation of Title VII of The CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. McCoy also brings several pendant state law claims. McCoy allege...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This action was brought by plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“The Act”), Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *425 for unlawful discrimination in the provision of services, programs and/or activities by a public entity. It is prese...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. Background In June of 1987, plaintiffs Aiad Barakat and Naim Sharif applied for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1255a (“IRCA”). Legalization under IRCA is a two-step process. First, the Attorney General grants temporary resident status to any alien who establishes: (1) that he has maintained a continuous, u...
Views: 0
ORDER In this action, Plaintiff, ABC Home Health Services, Inc. (“ABC”), contends that its fiscal intermediary under the Medicare program, Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), sought to destroy ABC through the Medicare audit process. Specifically, ABC claims that Aetna’s audit decisions were biased, thereby depriving ABC of its right to a fair and impartial intermediary. As relief, ABC has r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s pretrial motions, which include a motion to suppress evidence (Dk. 20), motion for Rule 404(b) disclosure (Dk. 21), and a motion to compel disclosure of existence and substance of promises of immunity, leniency or preferential treatment (Dk. 22). The government’s response (Dk. 27) opposes all three motions. On November 30...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This product liability case comes before the court on two motions. The defendants Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co. (“Murray”) and Walmart Stores, Inc. (‘Walmart”) move for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs failure to warn claim (Dk. 83) and for summary judgment (Dk. 136) on the plaintiff’s remaining claims. On February 21, 1992, at approximately 6:50 p.m., ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s motion to certify the court’s order filed May 3, 1994, for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Before going to the merits, the court will explain its reasons for waiting until now to decide this pending motion. A brief procedural history to the case will help one to understand those reasons. In Janu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Currently before the court is the motion of RLI Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant in this cause, for an entry of Summary Judgement in its favor. After careful consideration, this court finds the motion well taken, and it shall be granted. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The United States Government, through the Office of Thrift Supervision, placed Delta Fede...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on plaintiff Malikah Glover’s motion to remand and on defendant L.V. Donnell’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Defendant The National Youth Sports Program Fund (NYSPF), a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas, has responded in opposition to plaintiffs motion to rem...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Several matters are presently pending before this court for consideration, as follows: (1) plaintiff Thomas L. Deron’s objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint; (2) defendant King’s Daughters Hospital’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) the motion of defendant Louie Wilkins, ...
Views: 0
ORDER The Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen filed on December 7, 1994 in the above-captioned matter is accepted pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1). REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before me is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I have reviewed the petition and the resp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Dixie Lee Honey has responded to the motion and the court, having considered the memoranda of authorities, together with attachments, submitted by the parties, concludes that the m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this ERISA action, plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on *373 Count II of their amended complaint. 1 For the reasons stated below, their motion is granted. I. FACTS Plaintiffs’ amended complaint arises out of a class action lawsuit brought by former employees of the Individual Insurance Products Division of CIGNA Corporation (“IIP”). Defendant, ...
Views: 2
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE comes to this Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on De- *687 eember 1,1995. After requesting and receiving two extensions of time, Plaintiffs filed a response on February 3, 1995. I.Factual Background On or about June 4, 1992, Defendant Government of Honduras entered into a contract with Pla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is third party defendant Dong Dao’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). After considering the motion, this court finds that the default was not wilful; that setting aside the default would not prejudice the third party plaintiff; and that the third party defendant presented a meritorious defense to the claim. ...
Views: 0
*970 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A routine traffic stop of a vehicle on Interstate Highway 10 ultimately revealed approximately 35 ounces of crack cocaine. The Defendant, Anthony D’Andre Scott (Scott), has moved to suppress the crack cocaine. Having conducted a hearing on the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the motion to suppress should be DENIED. I. The Court makes the following findi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Fine and Trout brought this action in admiralty under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1333 seeking a salvage award in the amount of $38,024.00 for their efforts in the February 21, 1992 incident with the M/V “Lion’s Whelp.” *308 I. FINDINGS OF FACT At approximately 3:10 pm on February 21, 1992, the M/V “Lion’s Whelp” entered the ch...
Views: 0
Counterplaintiff Barth Industries, Inc. (“Barth”) alleges that, had it not been fraudulently induced into contracting to build a machine, it could have used the funds expended on the contract to pursue other, more gainful business opportunities. Counterdefendant BMC Industries, Inc. (“BMC”) moved to strike this claim, requiring the Court to decide whether Florida law permits recovery of lost oppor...
Views: 0
ORDER This bankruptcy appeal addresses the circumstances in which shareholders can pursue a derivative action after a corporation has filed for bankruptcy reorganization. *337 I. Factual and procedural background Appellants are shareholders of the defunct General Development Corporation (“GDC”). In March 1990, Appellants commenced a derivative action against former GDC ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are: Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed July 29, 1994; Defendant’s Response and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed August 16, 1994; Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Response, filed August 31, 1994; Defendant’s Response, filed September 20, 1994; and Plaintiffs Rep...
Views: 1
*53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Execution of two state felony arrest warrants issued for Defendant, Robert Earl Segeada (Segeada), uncovered a handgun in the possession of Segeada. Segeada has moved to suppress both the gun and statements he made that the gun was in fact his. Having conducted a hearing on the matter, the court is of the opinion that the motions to suppress should be DENIED. I. ...
Views: 0
OPINION Before the Court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant The May Department Stores Company (May) in response to the second amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Mary L. Metzke and Designs by Metzke, Inc. The second amended complaint has four counts: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Count I), trademark infringement and unfair ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Plaintiffs, Kris Mortensen and Leslie Mortensen Huntington, are the surviving children of Alfred M. Mortensen (Mortensen). Mortensen, an employee of the Defendant, Maxwell House Coffee Corporation, was allegedly exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment. Mortensen died on January 6,1994. On June 20,1994, Plaintiffs filed this action in state court alleg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Corbett Rich, was injured while aboard the M/V ALEUTIAN COMMAND. The MTV ALEUTIAN COMMAND is owned and operated by Defendant, Southern Gulf Operators. At the time of the injury the vessel was leaving dock from Eugene Island, which is located off the coast of Louisiana. The MW ALEUTIAN COMMAND regularly works off the coast of Louisiana and its home po...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Defendants Carmelo Panzera and Salvatore Seiglitano were detained by order of Magistrate Judge Smith after a pre-trial detention hearing held on December 24, 1994. Panzera and Seiglitano now come before the court seeking review of Judge Smith’s detention orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). I. Background: Both Defendants have been charged in the indictment with Conspira...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND This action was terminated by an order entered on November 25, 1994 and a corresponding judgment entered by the clerk on November 28, 1994. In its order, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this decision. II. DISCUSSION A. Stand...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Presently before the Court is petitioner John A. Graves’ motion for a modification of *411 his sentence made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The petitioner alleges prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds for his motion. I. BACKGROUND On November 28,1992 the petitioner, John Andrew Graves, (hereinafter “Grav...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Methacton School District, and Defendants Gerald Raske, John Klock and J. Russell McConnell (the Methacton Defendants), each of whom is a current or former employee of the Methacton School District, move this Court for dismissal of all the claims against them in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. This motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Methacton ...
Views: 0
ORDER On January 11, 1994, Frederick M. Anderson filed a motion for an “arrest of judgment.” Although the rule pertaining to arrests of judgment is found at Fed.R.Crim.P. 34, he brings this motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). In this motion, Anderson reasserts one of the arguments he raised in his § 2255 motion, that he was illegally sentenced as a “career criminal,” and states that the co...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on removal from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Oneida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The respondent seeks dismissal and sanctions. The petitioner requests that the matter be remanded to the state court. BACKGROUND The petitioner, Laura Bradigan, was appointed Director of the Greater Utica Displaced Home...
Views: 0
ORDER On September 22, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion (Doc. # 117) that this action be maintained as a class action. For the reasons stated below, this Court hereby denies plaintiffs’ motion. I. This action is brought by a number of women who claim they have suffered damage to their reproductive systems due to their exposure in útero to diethylstilbestrol (DES) between 1949 and 1962. The p...
Views: 4
*435 DECISION AND ORDER This is an insurance coverage dispute involving three fires that destroyed “organic fuel”, primarily straw, during the construction of a California power production facility in the summer of 1990. Plaintiffs filed this action on March 5, 1992 in the Supreme Court for Onondaga County and the out-of-state defendant removed it to this court on May 19,1992...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION No one is surprised that more than one case based on alleged ERISA super-preemption simultaneously finds it way from a state court to this court. The ERISA removal knees continue to jerk. The court refers the reader to the opinion entered on March 10, 1995 in Hensley, et al. v. Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, et al., 878 F.Supp. 1465 (N.D.Ala.1995). Much of what this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER , On March 10, 1992, Noddings Investment Group, Inc. (“Noddings”) filed its complaint against defendants Brian D. Kelley (“Kelley”) and Kelley Capital Management, Ltd. (“KCM”) alleging false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Defendants filed their answer on April 30, 19...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and its Trustee (collectively “Fund,” treated as a singular noun1) seeks to modify and vacate an arbitration award (the “Award”) in favor of SherwinWilliams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”) on Fund’s claim against Sherwin-Williams for complete withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Ac...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court are Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, filed January 13,1992; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition, filed February 13, 1992; Defendants’ Reply Brief, filed March 6, 1992; and supplemental briefing filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants on December 31, 1992. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have faile...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment filed on November 14, 1994. The plaintiff, Ford Prescott (“Prescott”) brought this suit on March 31, 1994 alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., commonly known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Specifically, pl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendant Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.’s (“Citicorp”) Motion for Summary Judgement filed on November 3, 1994. Defendant has filed a brief in support of its motion, along with affidavits and documentary evidence. Plaintiff responded to the defendant’s arguments on November 23, 1994, and has also filed affidavits, docume...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICT/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW I. INTRODUCTION This matter is presently before the Court on the Motion of Defendants Capuchin Province, St. Lawrence Seminary, Lloyd Thiel, Kevin Hoelscher, Myron Kowalsky, Werner Wolf and Ron Smith (the “non-abuser Defendants”) for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 11, 1992 on the grounds of Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin. On the date of the accident plaintiff Jon P. Bielema (“Sgt. Bielema”) was on active duty as a member of military reserves of the United States Department of Army. At the time of the accident Sgt. Bielema had received verbal permission from his superior ...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 94 (1995) Sheila CARTER, Plaintiff, v. LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. No. 4:95CV00006 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. March 15, 1995. *95 Sheila Carter, pro se, St. Louis, MO. Toni H. Blackwood, Gary E. Armbrust, Blackwell and Sanders, Kansas City, MO, for defendants. ORDER GUNN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a suit brought pursuant to a tenant’s insurance policy to recover the value of personal property allegedly stolen from Oussama Elbalah’s residence. It is presently before the Court for consideration of the defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Background Elbalah is a Rhode...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment 1 by Defendants Ismael Betancourt y Lebrón (“Betancourt”) and Carlos Flores (“Flores”) in this action for damages pursuant to section 1983. 2 At the time of the tragic incidents which give rise to this action, Betancourt was the Police Superintendent of Puerto Rico and Flores, a police officer, w...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein and for the reasons stated herein, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in this action operate landfills located outside the State of Minnesota and a transfer station located in Minnesota. 1 Each plain...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff Polyagro Plastics, Inc.’s motion to disqualify. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify on February 21, 1995, during which attorney Bruce Ginsburg, Carol Sherman, and Samuel Cespedes testified. Having considered both plaintiffs and defendants’ motions and the evidence and testimony presented during the evidentiary h...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above-entitled matter having come before the Court upon the parties’ motions for summary judgment and briefs in support of and in opposition thereto, and the Court having reviewed the materials on file herein, having heard argument from the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows: *1502 Bac...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff, Barbara Pelli (“Pelli”), brings this federal question action against Defendant, Stone Savannah River Pulp and Paper Corporation (“Stone”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. Pelli contends that she was denied employment as a mechanical maintenance electrician by Stone because of her gender. Pelli also alle...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Background. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel Scanlon, Jr. for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(e). The incarcerated plaintiffs claims stem from the New York State Department of Corrections handling and determinations of two separate misbehavior reports filed against him. In a Report-Recommendation dated April 22, 19...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION William Reid, Julie Reid and First Bank and Trust (appellants), appealed from the decision of the bankruptcy judge that denied confirmation of an amended Chapter 13 plan. *506 Appellants contend that the bankruptcy court erred by refusing to apply section 1322(b)(2) which permits the debtor to make direct payments to creditors outside the Chapter 13 plan. This court recogni...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER The amended complaint alleges seven causes of action. The first three counts are predicated upon breach of contract. Counts four and five allege fraud based on material misrepresentations and material omissions, while counts six and seven allege “waiver” and “estoppel,” respectively. Plaintiffs originally brought this action in New Jersey Superior Court. On the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendant Frank Velasco (“Velasco”) has moved to dissolve a stay of an order admitting him to bail. For the reasons stated below, Velasco’s motion is denied. Velasco was indicted on January 31, 1995, by a Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of New York, for his alleged involvement in a large-scale heroin smuggling operation. A Magistrate Judge in the Sout...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The debtors, Eastern Air Lines (“Eastern”) and Ionosphere Clubs, both filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”) on March 9, 1989. A trustee was appointed on April 19, 1990 to operate the debtors’ businesses and manage their properties. In January 1991, the debtors ceased all operat...
Views: 2
This social security appeal raises two legal issues: first, whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly refused to reopen two denials of benefits and, if so, whether plaintiff was so prejudiced by this failure to reopen that she is entitled to an immediate award of benefits. Background Plaintiff, Irene Rooney, is a fifty-nine-year-old woman who left school when she was sixte...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action brought by National Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd. (“Cristal”) against Velco Enterprises, Ltd. (‘Velco”) seeking to recover the price of fifteen alleged sales of titanium dioxide by Cristal to Velco. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration and to stay the present action. Defendant argues that the underlying action brought by plaintiff is subject to man...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TMs Memorandum and Order concerns the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Linda Nedig, Bernadine DeAngelo, Carol Kalimch, Sandi Mendinsky, and Barbara Schwartz (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Pending before the Court is Defendants Schuylkill County, Warden David J. Kurtz, Paul Sheers, Franklin L. Shollenberger, Maryann Conway, Sheriff Francis McAndrew, Claude A. Lord...
Views: 0
Plaintiff, Norman Peck is the owner of unsold shares and the holder of proprietary leases in nine rent controlled apartments located in a cooperative building at 325 West End Avenue in New York City (“325 West End”). Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Angelo Aponte, Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (“DHCR...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings the instant action pursuant to §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), to challenge a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying her request for a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of disability insurance benefits. Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil ...
Views: 0
This pre-FIRREA1 litigation presents questions concerning the rights of secured creditors of a failed national bank, and of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), with respect to a sale-leaseback transaction entered into by the creditors and the bank prior to its insolvency. The creditors seek to recover against the pledged collateral on the basis of contractual rights and obligations...
Views: 0
On January 26, 1995, Magistrate Judge Michael L. Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) in connection with the above-captioned matter in which he determined that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied in all respects. Petitioner, Woodrow Collins, filed a “Response to the Report and Recommendation” (Response) on February 6, 1995, in which he raised several objec...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 679 (1995) Henry MARANGE, Jr., v. Huel FONTENOT. No. 1:94-CV-76. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. March 16, 1995. *680 *681 Jay Tantzen, Orange County, TX, for plaintiff. Lauralee Vallon, Orange County Atty., for defendant. OPINION HINES, United States Magistrate Judge. Henry Marange, Jr., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Marange is incarcerated ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is a citizen suit brought by the City of New York (“the City”) under § 505 of the Water Pollution Control Act (“the Clean Water Act” or “the Act”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1386, against Defendants Anglebrook Limited Partnership, Somers Golf Associates, Mit-sui Fudosan (New York), Inc., Kajima Inter *901 national, Inc., Doe 1 and Doe 2 (“Defendants”)...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiff Wilmington Trust Company (‘Wilmington”) sues defendant Aerovías de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexieo”) for breach of a Lease Agreement (“Lease”) entered into on December 1, 1992. Wilmington claims that Aeromexieo is in default under the terms of the Lease, which is for a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, because it failed to make a requ...
Views: 0
ORDER The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Love-green filed on February 6,1995 in the above- *732 captioned matter is hereby accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ Joseph L. Munoz, Laurence L. Lampert and William R. Backman, Jr.’s motion to dismiss be denied; defendan...
Views: 5
OPINION This case came before the Court on March 9, 1995, for argument on plaintiff Meriden Community Action Agency’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff Campesinos Unidos, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which by stipulation of the parties is being treated as a motion for summary judgment, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that there ar...
Views: 0
JUDGMENT For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein and after an independent review of the record, and a de novo determination of the issues, and consideration of the objections filed herein, and having determined that the findings are correct under applicable law; it is ORDERED that the petition of Edward G. Robiehaux be and it is he...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff seeks to pursue his remedies in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants Ferguson and Keller, police officers employed by the defendant City of Belington, used excessive force during an unlawful arrest. Plaintiff has also alleged a cause of action against defendant City of Belington, based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. On December 15, 1...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs brought this action for negligence and strict liability for the alleged malfunction of the lead wires used to connect an Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (“AICD”) to Lyle LeMay’s heart. On October 12, 1994, a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin recommended that...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1328 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1329 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1332 A. Undisputed Facts.1332 B. Disputed Facts.1333 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1334 A. The ADEA Claim .1334 1. Administrative prerequisites to suit under the AD...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant Racine County adopted a zoning amendment in such manner as to deprive them of equal protection of the laws and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also bring a pendent state claim for violation of Wis.Stat. § 59.97, which sets forth proper procedures for the formation of zoning ordin...
Views: 0
*334OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs institute this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for injunctive and declaratory relief alleging they were deprived by the Defendants, the Major of Ponce and several Executives of the Municipality of Ponce in their personal capacity,1 of Civil and Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States. Purs...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This case is about Congress’ authority under the Constitution to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248, et seq. (“FACE”). More specifically, as charged in the Information, this case is about that portion of FACE which prohibits the non-violent physical obstruction of entrances to reproductive health services clinics....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff in the matter before the Court today is After Six, Incorporated (“After Six”), a manufacturer and distributor of men’s formal wear. After Six has filed a complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking contractual damages and collection of debt under 11 U.S.C. § 542(b). The defendants, Sharpe’s Formal Specialists...
Views: 0
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THIRD DISTRICT COURT STATE OF UTAH This matter is before the court on plaintiff Alliance Financial Services’ (“Alliance”) motion to remand this ease to state court. Alliance relies on -28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which states in pertinent part that: The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Thomas E. Davenport against John T. Casteen, III, and W. James Copeland, Jr., alleging that Casteen and Copeland infringed his liberty and property interests in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Davenport is a former employee of two private, nonprofit corporations, the Virginia Student ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of our trial ruling quashing a subpoena served on *459Dr. Wylie C. Hembree and precluding plaintiff from calling him as a witness. The motion for reconsideration is granted, particularly in light of additional information that has become available since our original statement on the trial record. We nevertheless adhere to our origin...
Views: 0
I. BACKGROUND...................................................................1351 A. CASE HISTORY PRIOR TO 1970 ............................................. 1351 B. THE 1970 DESEGREGATION ORDER........................................1352 C. CASE HISTORY SINCE THE 1970 ORDER...................................1353 D. INTERVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES..........................
Views: 3
AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON LIABILITY AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND ORDER ON REMEDIES I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................1319 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.............................1320 III. FINDINGS OF FACT ..................................................1321 A. Parties..................................................
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................ 1427 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES .......................................... 1428 A. DEFENDANTS ....................................................... 1428 *1424 B. UNITED STATES/PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS............................. 1428 FINDINGS OF FACT ADMISSIONS..............
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS *953 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................954 A. Procedural Background..........................................................954 B. The Amended Complaint...........................................................
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Janet Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals the decision by Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Secretary Donna Sha*1172lala (“Secretary”) denying Campbell’s claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423.1 As is usual in these cases, Campbell and Secretary have filed cross-motions for summary judgment u...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Issue These motions require the Court to decide whether an agency must provide a copy of a computer database containing the decisions of the United States Supreme Court to a requester under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 5 U.S.C. § 552. Because such a database is library reference mate...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation’s (“Conrail”) renewed motion for summary judgment. On December 18, 1992, this court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Subsequently, on February 15, 1994, Conrail’s motion for summary judgment was denied with l...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-styled and -numbered cause was tried to the Court. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court files this Memorandum Opinion in support of the judgment to be entered in this case. The Nature of the Case Western Greenhouses, a Texas General Partnership, Billy J. Cagle, Sheila J. Cagle, Norman W. Allen, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 19, 1994. Pending before the Court is the Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies, and Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and motion for default judgment. This matter was previously referred to the Honorable Maurice G. Taylo...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a dispute over proceeds due under a Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Policy issued *849 through Defendant CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter “CIGNA”) and its servicing agent, Defendant Rain and Hail Insurance Service, Inc. (hereinafter “Rain and Hail”). This action was originally brought in the Court of Common Pleas, Fourth Judicial Cir...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Port Distributing Corp. (“Port”), brought this action to compel payment of $560,000.00, together with 19% interest from October 1, 1991 based upon a guaranty executed by the defendant, William Pflaumer (“Pflaumer”). Port has moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposes this motion and has cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that Port impaired the...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Willie Boles, who is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, petitions pro se for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Boles was convicted in the Oneida County Court of robbery in the second degree on February 27, 1992. The court subsequently adjudicated Boles a persistent felony offender and sentenced him to an inde...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Letha Bunch seeks recovery of damages from defendants based upon a slip and fall accident that occurred in the parking lot of defendant Long John Silvers, Inc. (“Long John Silvers”). Long John Silvers contends that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of liability. Pursua...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before me on plaintiffs motion to compel defendant Town of North Smithfield (“Town”) to produce certain documents requested by plaintiff in a F.R.Civ.P. 34 request for production. Plaintiff requested the personnel files of defendants Ray and Senecal, members of the Town’s police department, from February 1,1988 to the present. The Town objected to plaintiffs r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner, a Bahamian corporation, moves to confirm an arbitration award rendered on October 31,1994 against respondent, a Peruvian corporation. The pertinent documents were mailed to respondent in Peru, but there is no proof of receipt. Respondent faded to appear. The issue is whether the petition should be granted. 1 Discussion Subject Matter ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Petitioners are an employer association and one employer member of that association. They bring this action to compel the respondent labor unions to arbitrate grievances brought by the employer under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).1 The employer filed ten grievances, but respondents declined to participate in the procedures to submit the grievance...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner Philip Senegal is a prisoner of the State of California. He was convicted by a state court jury of one count of murder and one count of attempted murder, and was sentenced to state prison. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he alleges several grounds of constitutional error. I. Petitioner and his codefendant William Chane...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Richard Wargowsky (“Mr. War-gowsky”), applied for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on December 2, 1991. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration by State agency personnel. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) John L. Mondi found that Mr. Wargowsky retained the residual functional capacity for ligh...
Views: 1
ORDER This action is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Final Default Judgment [6-1], (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer [7-1], (3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [9-1], and (4) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [12-1]. I. Plaintiffs Motions As a preliminary matter, the Court will address Plaintiffs various moti...
Views: 0
OPINION ON APPEAL A. Preliminary & Factual History The Appellant, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), filed claims for certain income taxes owed in the Debtor’s, Jerry Wayne Snow, Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On January 11, 1994, the Appellee, Trustee, filed an objection to the IRS’s proof of claims since they were not sufficiently documented to substantiate the claims. On January...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s September 13, 1994 order sustaining the objection of the trustee, Robert G. Mayer, to the claim of exemption by the debtor, Beverly B. Cordova. On March 19, 1993, Beverly B. Cordova filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, pursuant to Chapter 7...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this Lanham Act case to which common and state law claims are appended, one manufacturer of cigarettes sues another for alleged infringement of trade dress and seeks a preliminary injunction. Background Plaintiff Philip Morris Incorporated (“Philip Morris”) manufactures and sells cigarettes under the brand name MARLBORO. 1 In De...
Views: 20
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On December 8, 1994, plaintiff Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (“Merrill Lynch”) initiated this action by filing a complaint seeking injunctive relief against defendant Edward K. Masland. Masland was a customer of Merrill Lynch, a registered securities broker-dealer. Masland filed a statement of claim against Merrill Lynch before the Na...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Wisconsin Tool and Stamping Company (‘Wisconsin Tool”) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) on Counts IV, XIII, XIV and XX of its Adversary Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint (“Counterclaim”) against Raymond A. Mobile (“Mobile”) and R. Townley Rose, Jr. (“Rose”). Liability for the claims alleged, rather than damages, is the only issue rai...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff, Cleopatric Scott, seeks judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), of the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Sec...
Views: 0
ORDER On June 5, 1995, the Plaintiff, NALC Health Benefit Plan (NHBP) filed a motion for summary judgment against the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Vicki Lunsford. On the following day, another motion for summary judgment was filed against her by the Third Party Defendant, State Farm Insurance (State Farm). In Lunsford’s responsive pleadings, she has expressed her opposition to NHB...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Thomas C. Jorling, Trustee of New York State’s natural resources, move to strike the jury demand of Defendant Rocco Astrólogo, former owner and operator of a dry cleaning establishment in Bedford, New York. On March 12, 1993, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Defenda...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER When a sentencing judge has declined to depart below the Guidelines range, the judge either believed he or she did not have the *263 power to depart, or chose not to exercise that power. In a number of recent cases, the court of appeals has remanded when it was not sufficiently clear from the record that the sentencing judge was aware of the power to depa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Several pretrial motions pend in this patent infringement case set for final pretrial conference this date and for trial on March 20. All but one of the motions are fully briefed. In the interest of expediting the final pretrial conference, the court sets forth its rulings in this memorandum. The most significant of the motions deal with failures to meet dead...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause came before the court on February 10 for final hearing pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 65(b) on the motions for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff cities and one of the defendant railroads, and on the cities’ amended complaint for declaratory judgment. At issue are ordinances passed by the two cities prohibiting the sounding of train whistles or ho...
Views: 0
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM Stephen Shultz owned a business called Micromasters. In 1992, Mr. Shultz and Don Langenderfer used the business to launder about $21,000 Mr. Langenderfer had made in the drug trade. As a result, Mr. Shultz has tendered guilty pleas to two counts of aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(l)(B)(i), 2, as part of a plea agreement in which eight other cha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Lester Martin filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief. The defendants are Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) Commissioner H. Christian De-Bruyn, and nine officials of the IDOC or Indiana State Prison (“ISP”). Mr. Martin moved for summary judgment; the defendants have responded. For the reasons that follow, the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 20, 1994, the United States, on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, commenced this action by filing a petition for temporary injunctive relief against Electro-Voice, Inc. pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (the “Act”) 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The petition is based upon a complaint of unfair labor practice ag...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs are homeless mothers in their capacity as legal guardians for their school-age children. They seek timely provision of educational services, including transportation to and from school, for homeless children in the District of Columbia. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a cross-m...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement Exhibit #39 (Docket 80) and Defendant’s Motions for Rule 52(c) Judgment (Docket 90) and to Strike (Docket 92), as well as the various Responses and Replies to those Motions (Dockets 81, 82, 97, 99 and 101). The Motion for Judgment was filed at the conclusion of the Plaintiffs ease-in-chief...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 22, 1994, this Court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and issued an order declaring that the legislation creating certain additional judgeships in New York State did not have the purpose and would not have the effect of denying or abridging the right of racial minorities to vote. Defendant United States now moves this Court to reverse its g...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Ruling on Magistrate’s Recommendation for Remand, filed on February 1, 1995. Defendants American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories’ response was timely filed on February 23, 1995. A reply thereto was filed on March 6,1995, and a surreply was filed on March 9,1995. ...
Views: 0
*487 Memorandum Opinion This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision entered July 27, 1994, by United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. In its opinion, the Bankruptcy Court granted Ronald E. Payne’s Motion to Avoid in its entirety a judgment lien in favor of Crossroads of Hills-ville who now appeals that decision. This Court has jurisdiction...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Morris Thigpen (“Thigpen”), Jim Morrison (“Morrison”), Randall Lucas (“Lucas”) and Tommy Herring (“Herring”) (collectively “DOC Defendants”), on February 2, *1160 1995. 1 The court will also rule on the following motions: ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Washington Legal Foundation (“WLF”), a public interest law and policy center based in Washington, D.C., has filed suit in this court, alleging that the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has adopted a policy which violates the First Amendment right of certain members of WLF to receive *28 information concerning “off-label” uses of various dr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Christopher Askew (“plaintiff’) an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, James W. Fairman, the Superintendent, Benny Caldwell, Lt. Hopkins and Correctional Officer Stokes. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and seeks c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER I. Procedural History On September 21,1993, Sean Ryan Fowler pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 844. On December 2, 1993, the Court sentenced him, in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines, to eighty-seven months to be followed by a period of two years supervised release. Defendant Fowler did not appeal his sent...
Views: 0
OPINION AND FINAL ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. After oral argument from the parties, the case is ready for decision by the Court. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. I. Factual and Procedural History...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER On December 8, 1992, defendant Patrick Sewards pled guilty to one count of unlawful distribution of diazepam (valium) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 1 On April 7, 1993, we sentenced Dr. Sewards to three months incarceration to be followed by three years supervised release. He has now filed this habeas corpus petition to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea, vacat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest. By Memorandum Opinion dated December 19, 1994, the undersigned ruled that plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this matter in the amount of $88,121.81 on its contract claim, and that plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest and to attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in coll...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, this matter was referred to the Honorable Maurice G. Taylor, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to the court of his Findings and Recommendation. On January 12, 1995, Judge Taylor submitted his report, which recommended that the motion be granted...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Relators John Fallon, Robert Bradley, Jr., Pamela Carr, Kris Sheridan, Kelly Fallon and Atlantic States Legal Foundation commenced this action on behalf of the United States pursuant 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) alleging that defendants knowingly made false claims for contract payments in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (2) and (3). The matter is presently before the Court on d...
Views: 4
OPINION In November of 1992 a judgment in the above case was entered against certain of the defendants on causes of action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt. Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and fraud. The judgment, including interest, amounted to some $20,000,-000, very little of which has been collected by the judgment creditors. (The judgment was a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case arises from the Plaintiffs allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). No hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 1994). For the reasons stated below, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to proceed with her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2...
Views: 0
Plaintiff has filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion were violated because he was removed from the Attica Correctional Facility’s alternative diet and not permitted to attend services of the Jewish congregation in the prison. Plaintiff arrived at the Attica Correctional Facility in March of 1986 and stayed there until July 1988, wh...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER came on for consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed November 19,1993. The Court converts this motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment. After reviewing the motion and the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing oral arguments, the Court finds that the motion is well taken and will be GRANTED. The Relator 1 , ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case presents claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 1 Now before the Court are the par *777 ties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 2 The Court has reviewed the briefs and supporting documents and considered the arguments offered at ...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the court are the defendants’ motions against the complaint (# 11). The defendants, Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cenex AG, Inc., Cenex, Inc., and Ce-nex/Land O’ Lakes Agronomy Co., have filed their motions under Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs, Monte Carpenter, Mary Carpenter, Rodney Carpenter and Teresa Carpent...
Views: 0
The instant motion for summary judgment presents questions concerning the liability of a bridge bank arising from a loan commitment made by its predecessor, a failed national bank. Among the issues presented is whether 12 U.S.C. § 1821(n)(4)(I), a provision of FIRREA, 1 should be applied retroactively. I This is an action by plaintiff 5636 Alpha Road, a Joint Venture (“Alph...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Justin C. Westmoreland instituted this action against the City of Richmond, the members of the City Council, the City Manager, and Sheriff Andrew J. Winston in their individual and official capacities.. Westmoreland filed the action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. The defendants timely removed it to this court. The City ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM We are considering the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND This action was instituted by Earl and Kay Zinn, husband and wife, as a result of an accident involving Earl Zinn on January 29, 1992. At the time of the accident, the Plain-tiff 1 was an employee of Y/P Products, Inc. (‘Y/P”). Y/P was hired by the Defendant, Gichner Systems Group (“Gichner”), to ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1993) from the Bankruptcy Court’s Opinion and Order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The issue before the Court is whether the mark of “freight is prepaid” on the face of the debtor’s bill of lading is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the freight charges had in fact been paid prior to shi...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On January 23, 1995, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, came on before the Court for hearing. Having considered the parties’ written submissions, and the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Defendants’ and ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Arthur G. Cohen objects to a January 18,1995, Memorandum and Order of Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger ordering Defendant Cohen to produce his tax returns for the years 1987 through 1991. Defendant Cohen argues that Magistrate Judge Dolinger “either failed to apply or misapplied the proper test required in this district,” that the relevant tax returns are irre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Memorandum & Order is being reluctantly filed. Unfortunately, the history of this ease shows malfeasance on the part of the Plaintiff insurance company — perhaps sufficient to have their license to continue in the insurance business questioned and/or suspended in a number of states. Counsel for Plaintiff is fully aware of this, yet demands that I comply with an order of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Rufus Sims is to stand trial in this cause. Now before the court is the Government’s Proffer Regarding the Admission of Co-conspirator Statements (“Government’s Proffer”), submitted in writing pursuant to United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir.1978), summarizing the evidence that the government expects to adduce at trial to establish that a consp...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND In this action, plaintiff, a sixty-seven year old full professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work (“CUSSW”), alleges that defendant Columbia University and individual defendant Ronald A. Feldman, Dean of CUSSW, has discriminated and continues to discriminate against him because of his age. More precisely, plaintiff alleges that Columbi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jay C. Smith filed this section 1983 action 1 alleging the violation of his civil rights by defendants in connection with his April, 1986 murder conviction. Plaintiff was convicted of murdering Philadelphia school teacher Susan Reinert and her two children, Michael and Karen Reinert, and was sentenced to death for those crimes. Com...
Views: 7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on plaintiff Indeck’s motion to dismiss Count I of Defendant Smurfit’s counterclaim for strict product liability. For the reasons cited below, the motion is DENIED. *340 BACKGROUND Plaintiff Indeek Power Equipment Company (Indeek) owns and leases various types of power generating equipment, including large, trai...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND This action arises under section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) 1 and state common law. Plaintiffs challenge the receipt by Charles Greenawalt, former President of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 764 (Local 764 or the union) of “severance pay” which they allege to be improper and in ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL Defendant Jerry Curtis Davis was convicted by a jury of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 *70and 1346, on October 5, 1994. Defendant was sentenced by this court on January 11, 1995 to 18 months in prison. A notice of appeal was filed on January 11, 1995. The pertinent statute is 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), which prov...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the court are the motions of the plaintiff, Oregon Precision Industries, Inc. (Precision): (1) to deny the motions to dismiss of the defendants, International Omni-Pac Corporation (Omni-Pac) and Statco Engineering & Fabricators, Inc., dba Monroe Machinery & Supplies (Statco), because of their refusal to comply with Precision’s discovery requests (#20-1); (2) to compel t...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND The court, pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and LR 72.1(d)(1) (E.D.Mich. Jan. 1,1992), having reviewed the magistrate judge’s December 5, 1994 order granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and having reviewed defendant’s December 19, 1994 app...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Davis on December 7, 1994. Defendants, John G. Kinnard & Company, Incorporated and Gary Lefkowitz (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Motion”) or, in the alternative, a Motion for a More Definite Statement and Striking Allegations. For th...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION In 1987, plaintiff Elaine Gruet executed a personal guaranty on a loan made by the Boston Trade Bank (the “Bank”) to Kahn Converters, Inc. (“Kahn”). The Bank’s assets were subsequently transferred to defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). After Kahn defaulted on its obligation, the ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On December 9, 1994, Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier issued a Report and Recommendation advising the Court to deny Petitioner Anthony Cardinal’s request for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 The Magistrate rejected Cardinal’s claim that his state conviction was obtained in violation of his right to be present during jury selection, as secured by the ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERS These actions arise out of Plaintiff Grey-son’s termination from her legal secretary position with Defendant McKenna & Cuneo, a termination which Greyson alleges violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1988 & Supp. V 1993). McKenna & Cuneo asserts no evidence of age discrimination exists, and moves for summary judgment pursuan...
Views: 0
ORDER Currently before the Court is a Motion For Summary Judgment submitted by Defendant United Dominion Industries, Ltd. (“United Dominion”). Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“Metlife”) has filed opposition to the Motion. Factual Background This case involves the alleged failure of a fabricated curtain wall system at the Flagship Bank building in Miami, Florid...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT U OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Defendant Richard Morales (“Morales”) is charged in a thirty-eight count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (1988) (one count; racketeering), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (one count; racketeering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1959 (eight counts; violent crimes in aid of racketeering) (“VICAR”) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (one count; drug co...
Views: 3
*51MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff, Bobby J. Parker, brings this action against the United States Postal Service (USPS) alleging unlawful employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and infringement of his due process rights. Plaintiff held the position of Pos...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Wrongly believing he had to travel well over 200 miles with a bad back to attend a social security hearing, Gary L. Stiver (Stiver), who does not have a high-school diploma, waived his right to a hearing on his claim for social security benefits. He did so after receiving advice by telephone from a nonlawyer hired by an insurance company to represent him. Without hear...
Views: 1
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS Plaintiffs filed this action against defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) alleging violations arising out of EDS’s acquisition of a Raleigh-based company named Infocel, Inc. (Infocel) as well as from their alleged wrongful discharge. Instituted originally in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, the action was removed to this court based on diver...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioners are members of the Sibanda family — Eliakim (husband), Sikhatele (wife), Nomaqhawe (minor child), and Mthabisi (minor child) (collectively “Sibandas”) — natives of Zimbabwe. They have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (“District Director”). The Sibandas c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on the motion of third-party defendant Christie’s for reconsideration of this Court’s opinion of December 29,1993 (the “December Opinion”), denying Christie’s motion for summary judgment. While familiarity with that opinion is presumed, the sequence of events leading up to the present motion are sufficiently complicated that i...
Views: 1
Cross-claimant Opal Finance Corporation Ltd. (“Opal”) requests confirmation of an ex parte Order of Attachment on the monies previously held on account at Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York (“Bank Leu-mi”) 1 totalling approximately $261,139.43 in the name of the cross-claim defendant Istim, Inc. (“Istim”). The parties agree that Opal must first show that a cause of actio...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is a product liability action brought by Janice Richman (“Richman”) against W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”), seeking recovery for injuries allegedly resulting from an artificial ligament purportedly manufactured by Gore. Defendant now moves this Court for an order dismissing the action on the grounds that all of plaintiffs claims are preempted by federal l...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Charter Township of Bloomfield (“Bloomfield Township” or “Township”), along with the Oakland County Drain Commissioner, the City of Birmingham, and the City of Bloomfield Hills, is required, pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit Number MI0048046, authorized under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., to abate ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendants’, 909 Corporation, Franklin Financial Services, Inc., William Sorenson, and Resolution Trust Corporation, application for attorneys’ fees. Defendants contend that the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 38.001 entitles them to attorneys’ fees in this case. This court grants the defendants’ request in part and denies it in part. Fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Jeff and Alma Hayes (Plaintiffs) originally filed an action against Royala, Inc. (Royala) in state court requesting an accounting and a declaratory judgment for title to various properties held by Royala. Plaintiffs also sought damages for negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. After the Plaintiffs filed suit, Royala filed for reorganization under Chap...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Aljaf Associates Limited Partnership (“Aljaf’), alleges that its former tenant, Meritor Savings Bank (“Meritor”), failed to maintain and repair the building it rented from Aljaf as required by the sublease agreement between them. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed Meritor’s receiver pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(3)(A) prior to the ...
Views: 0
881 F.Supp. 162 (1995) Anthony ELLERBEE, Plaintiff v. UNION ZINC, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. CA 94-5589, CA 94-5893. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 24, 1995. *163 Peter M. Patton, Galfand, Berger, Lurie & March, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Arnold A. Foley, Marks, O'Neill, Reilly & O'Brien; Edward L. Mc Candless, Jr., Mc Candless & Associates; S...
Views: 2
PRECLUSION ORDER On September 2, 1994, Plaintiff Dov Avni Kaminetzky, et al. (“Kaminetzky”) filed cause *277number H-94-3055 against approximately 29 defendants alleging a multitude of claims pursuant to federal statutes. Kaminetzky also sought a judicial determination that defendants are “racketeers and conspirators,” and sought to recover monetary relief in the amount of $228,500,000.00. Kamin...
Views: 0
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case is a postscript to the Daikon Shield mass tort litigation, which involved approximately 400,000 claims and complex litigation in several courts. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Aetna”) was the products liability insurance carrier for A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (“Robins”), manufacturer of the Daikon Shield intrauterine...
Views: 1
OPINION In response to the efforts of the Yonkers Board of Education (‘YBE”) and the Yonkers Branch, NAACP (collectively, “plaintiffs”) to add as defendants the State of New York, the State Board of Regents, and various other State education officials (collectively, “the State”), as well as the Urban Development Corporation (“UDC”) and its director, this Court has held a number of hearing...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action for a balance allegedly due on goods sold and delivered. The case is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to increase the amount demanded and for summary judgment. Defendant opposes plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and asserts that the undisputed facts warrant judgment in its favor. Facts Defendant, a retail clo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 89 (Local 89) (Dkt. 26). The defendants, Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co. (D & M) and Provincial American Truck Transporters (PATT), filed a response thereto (Dkt. 28). The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to summary judgme...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION, RULING GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiffs Scott Gonyo, Bill Blauvelt, Rob Steger, Shawn Pippert and Joe Block, former members of the Drake University wrestling team, bring this action against Drake University, Drake President Michael Ferrari, and Drake Athletic Director Lynn King. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that, in recruiting plaintif...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.2 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS. A. Improper Captions. B. Irrelevant And Impertinent Defenses. 1. Qualified immunity. 2. “Good faith” as an element of qualified immunity. 3. The “objectiv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Joseph Spurio, proceeding pro se, brought this suit against Choice Security Systems, Inc., a distributor of home security systems that formerly employed him, alleging that Choice contravened federal and state tax laws by classifying his employment status as that of an “independent contractor” rather than an “employee” and thereby committed civil rights ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court for decision in the above-styled and numbered action is the motion of defendant Intex Aviation Services, Inc., (“Intex”) for summary judgment. After considering the motion, the brief in support thereof (“Brief’), the response, as amended, 1 of plaintiff, Raul Brito, (“Brito”), the reply thereto, the applicable authorities, and other pertinent pa...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the court on the appeal of the State of Illinois Department of Revenue (“Department”) from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In re Stoecker, 151 B.R. 989 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993) (Squires, J., presiding). The principal issue in this case is whether Rule 3002 of the Federal Rules of Bankrupt...
Views: 0
ORDER Currently pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket #21). Plaintiff, Catherine Darnell, instituted this action to recover from her former employer, Northern Can Systems, for its allegedly sexually discriminatory failure to hire her as a packer after layoff as a quality assurance inspector. I. BACKGROUND From Spring 1989, until her layoff on April 16, 1993,...
Views: 0
*452 OPINION Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Unisys Corporation (“Unisys”) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., when it unilaterally modified its retiree medical benefits plans. On October 26, 1994, the court approved a partial settlement (“the settlement”) as to Sperry and Burroughs incentive retir...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Evgeni Reznik is a Ukrainian national residing in Odessa. Plaintiff Genrietta Reznik is his mother and a lawful permanent resident of the United states, now living in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs challenge a denial by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) in Moscow of Mr. Reznik’s application for a waiver of an applicable ground of excludability from the Unit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff William Tizer Va Basin Street Floors has brought this action against defendant The American Insurance Company in order to recover the proceeds allegedly due to plaintiff under an insurance policy issued by defendant. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is in...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The law firm of Corash & Hollender, P.C. of Scarsdale, New York, and local counsel, Gerber & Koestel of Reading, Pennsylvania (“Petitioners”), have moved the Court for leave to withdraw from representation, in this action, of Defendant Island Kitchens, Inc. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law and the affidavit of Paul Hollender, a partner in Petitioner ...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The City of Allentown (“Defendant” or “City”) has moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. I. BACKGROUND Sandra Young (“Plaintiff’), proceeding pro se, began this action by ñling a complaint on...
Views: 0
MODIFIED MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER This matter arises from allegations that Sears Roebuck and Company’s (“Sears”) “Big Ticket Severance Allowance Plan” (“the Plan”) offered to certain sales employees violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this action against Sears asserting that the Plan viol...
Views: 1
ORDER This action is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [# 47-1]; defendant Max Cleland [Cleland]’s motion for summary judgment [#45-1]; and defendant/intervenor Alex Poitevint [Poitevint]’s motion for summary judgment [# 44 — l]. 1 The motions are opposed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff David Duke ran for the Republican nomination for President...
Views: 0
ORAL OPINION BY THE COURT The Court is in session to announce its decision in a civil case styled Diane G. Emery and Patricia L. Young v. Caravan of Dreams, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-0985-H on the Court’s docket. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against Caravan of Dreams under § 302(b)(2)(A)(i) of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S’.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i), which I ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a private action for recovery of response costs brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. Plaintiff and defendants move this Court to allocate costs to be incurred from the clean up of hazardous substances at plaintiffs facility in Joliet, Illinois...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Amgen Inc. and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. have been involved in arbitration proceedings in Chicago since 1989. The Honorable Frank J. McGarr, former chief judge of this court, has acted as arbitrator throughout those proceedings. There have been two extended trials, and a third trial is scheduled to commence in May 1995. In connection with t...
Views: 1
879 F.Supp. 645 (1995) Tom BLAKENEY, et al., v. LOMAS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. Civ. A. No. 3:94-CV-1525-G. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. March 14, 1995. *646 Durwood D. Crawford, Goins Underkofler Crawford & Langdon, Dallas, TX, for plaintiffs. Franklin Eastwood Wright, Winstead Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX, for defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER FISH, District Ju...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Clement Messino has served five substantially identical subpoenas on Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Schneider, lead trial counsel for the government; the Regional Director, Drug Enforcement Administration; Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Michael Priess; Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Ivan Harris; and Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms Special...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment by plaintiff, Island Associates, Inc., and defendants, ERIC *201 Group, Inc. and ERIC Syndicate, Inc. (“ERIC”). 1 Plaintiff commenced this declaratory judgment action on March 22, 1994, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 133...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Venture Associates Corporation (“Venture”) originally brought this action against Zenith Data Systems Corporation (“Zenith”) for breach of contract, but on remand from the Seventh Circuit we are left with only a claim that Zenith breached a preliminary agreement to bargain in good faith. Presently before us is Zenith’s motion for summary judgment on the is...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT This is an action for violations of section 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78r(a), gross negligence under Missouri and New York state law, and violations of the Missouri Uniform Securities Act brought by plaintiffs to recover damages suffered allegedly as a result of their purchase ...
Views: 0
*735 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the court denies the plaintiffs motion and grants the defendants’ motion. FACTS Plaintiff Phipps alleges that he is an orthodox Hasidic Jew. In early 1994 Phipps was forced to receive a “burr” haircut while in the segregation unit at Kentucky State Penit...
Views: 1
ORDER ON A STIPULATED RECORD This case presents the always difficult question of which innocent party must bear the unavoidable consequences of a third party’s wrongful acts. Fidelity Guarantee Mortgage Corporation (“Fidelity”), the original lender, caused much of the loss underlying this lawsuit. Fidelity, however, has been adjudged bankrupt and is judgment proof. The loss, therefore, must fal...
Views: 1
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a challenge to Maine’s policy against granting a driver’s license to someone who must use bioptic or telescopic lenses to see adequately. Because the plaintiff has failed to allege that he is qualified to drive and because his own expert testified at deposition that with the vision problems he described in his license application he was unfit ...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an action based on three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act; and (3) Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) violations, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 89-5-10 et seq. The matter is before the court on (1) Defendant Quorum Health Resources, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Quorum”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (2) Defendant Ho...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER PENDING MOTIONS This civil rights lawsuit arises out of Maine’s airborne marijuana eradication program. The Maine Department of Public Safety, Drug Enforcement Agency, Army National Guard, and county sheriffs’ offices and local law enforcement agencies have cooperated to find and destroy marijuana crops growing illegally in Maine...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND II.STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. III. FINDINGS OF FACT. A. Undisputed F...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Ross Fuller, as trustee of the International Association of Entrepreneurs of America Benefit Trust (Benefit Trust), and Great Oaks Management (Great Oaks), commenced this action against the defen *470 dants Gale Norton, the Attorney General of Colorado, and John Ehnes, Director of the Colorado Division of Insurance (CDI). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and...
Views: 2
*739 OPINION Plaintiff brought this in rem maritime action against the BRADLEY T for personal injuries sustained while working aboard that vessel. Tolen Marine, Inc. (“Tolen”), as owner of the vessel, has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is denied. BACKGROUND Gammill was employed by Merchants Transportation, Inc. (“Merchants”)...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF- FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. 1. The parties to this proceeding, the Defendants, Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Company (D & M), and General Drivers, Ware-housemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 89 (Local 89), are parties to a national multiemployer, multi-union collective bargaining agreement known as the National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement (Agreement), which expires May 21, 1...
Views: 0
ORDER At issue are the Motion for Default Judgment of Plaintiffs, Melinda Jo Willis-Gomez (“Plaintiff Willis”) and Rogelio Gomez-Arauz (“Plaintiff Gomez”); and the Motion to Dismiss Complaint of Doris Meissner, Commissioner, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“Defendants”). This Court has jurisdiction to consider the issues presented by the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1361,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Arthur Arenson, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Sol Arenson, brought this putative class action against Whitehall Convalescent and Nursing Home, Inc. (‘Whitehall”), and its president Paul Mulder (“Mulder”) under the Racketeer Influenced *1206 and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and supplem...
Views: 0
*116FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Introduction and Findings of Fact The Court held a hearing on February 27, 1995, on defendant’s motion to suppress and his motion to dismiss Count I, (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 13), and after due consideration makes the following findings of fact: On December 27, 1994, at approximately 1:30 P.M. the defendant, Grantly Morris Clarke, was stopped while dr...
Views: 1
The court approves and adopts the March 24, 1995 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees is denied and defendants’ motion for bill of costs is allowed. In lieu of filing objections, a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief may be filed within ten days of this order. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ASHM...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs are Daryl Cook, an inmate at a state correctional institution, and his wife Juanita Cook, who is not incarcerated. The plaintiffs have filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant James Boyd, a counselor at Graterford prison where plaintiff Daryl Cook (“Cook”) was formerly housed, subjected Cook to cruel and inhuman punishment in violation of the ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM *391 Table of Contents I. Introduction. 391 A. Procedural History and Background . 391 B. The Defendants. 392 II. MPPAA Withdrawal Liability. 392 III. Arbitration. 393 A. Flying Tiger and Doherty . 393 B. Date of Withdrawal .394 C. Controlled Groups.394 1. Epes Carriers, Inc. and Epes Transport...
Views: 2
*1204 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER This action is before the court on the following motions: (1) plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction [#7-l]; Defendant Stewart R. Friedman’s motion to dismiss [# 13-1]; Defendant Custom Tees’ motion to transfer [# 11-1]; and defendants’ motion to file a supplemental affidavit [#20-1]. All motions except the motion to file a supplemen...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, two Hispanic community organizations and eight Hispanic citizens of the City of Holyoke, challenge the city’s election system for School Committee and City Council, charging that its at-large components violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1982. 1 This statute prohibits electoral mechanisms that provide min...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on an appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri approving the second interim application of Davis & Davis, a law firm, for compensation and reimbursement of expenses. By the challenged orders, the bankruptcy court awarded Davis & Davis, the counsel representing MELP, Limited (“debtor”...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff S.B. Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#30) filed along with Plaintiffs Concise Statement of Undisputed Facts (#31) on December 30,1994. Defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company filed an Opposition and Countermotion for Summary Judgment (#32) on January 17, 1995. On February 10, 1995, Plaintiff filed a Supplement to its Con...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Background On November 20, 1989, the United States Air Force granted to Dorin Lascu a 40-year “ground lease” at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada (the “Lease”). The Lease allowed Lascu to construct a hotel facility for visiting Air Force personnel (the “Project”). Findings of Fact entered June 8, 1992 (# 30), para. 4 and 5. Under the terms of the Lease, Lascu ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Commonwealth of Kentucky’s motion to remand this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons stated below, the court grants that motion. *287 FACTS Plaintiff, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed this action in the Circuit Court of McCracken County, Kentucky. ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Currently before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b) on the grounds that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver had no obligation to honor plaintiffs letter of credit. Plaintiff responds that its letter of credit constitutes an insured deposit which the FDIC as insurer must honor. The FDIC asserted in it...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Pro se plaintiff Irving A. Gelb (“Gelb”) brings this action alleging that his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights were violated during the 1993 primary and general elections held in Bronx County. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, ask that I abstain from deciding this...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action arises out of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (“Crown Cork”) and Clark Equipment Company (“Clark”) seek to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Defendant, The Timken Company (“Timken”) in answer to Crown Cork and Clark...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DISGORGEMENT Before the Court are the objections of the defendant Nature’s Bounty, Inc. (“Nature’s Bounty” or “defendant”) to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Allyne R. Ross — now a United States District Judge in this district — dated September 23, 1994 (“Report”), re...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it co-defendants’ motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs’ motions in opposition to motion to dismiss (docket Nos. 39, 46, 47 and 48). For the reasons set forth below, co-defendants’ motions are hereby DENIED. This is an action for monetary damages pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) and § 3617 (1988). During...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.1292 A. Procedural Background.1292 B. Factual Background.1293 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1294 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1295 A. Iowa Code Provisions.■_1295 B. The “4r-R Act”.1297 1. Purpose of the “4-R Act”.1297 2. § 306’s prohibi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, six members of the United States Armed Services (the Services) who have stated that they are homosexual, brought this action for an order (1) declaring invalid under the First and Fifth Amendments Section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 654 (the Act), concerning a new policy as to homosexuals, and the dir...
Views: 1
879 F.Supp. 1047 (1995) Paula A. COUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; Las Vegas Hilton Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, Defendants. No. CV-S-93-44-PMP (RJJ). United States District Court, D. Nevada. March 8, 1995. *1048 Nancy L. Stagg, Tracy Nation, Dennis A. Schoville, James Stiven, Gary Cary Ware & Freidenrich, San Diego, CA, Joseph I. Cronin, Minden,...
Views: 0
OPINION This litigation was commenced by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to provide insurance coverage for the remediation of environmental damage which was caused, in part, by its insureds. The insureds have responded with several counterclaims. Numerous motions are currently before the court. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM We are considering the Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Féd.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). I. BACKGROUND This action arises from the Plaintiffs employment with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (“Commission”). Beginning in August, 1978, Plaintiff was employed by the Commission as Assistant Chief Counsel. On-September 14, 1992, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Frances H. Connelly, as executrix of her deceased husband’s estate, has sued General Medical Corporation and its chief executive officer, Steven Nielsen, for defrauding and misleading her in connection the sale of certain securities. Set for a one day jury trial on April 6, 1995, this case is currently before the Court upon the plaintiffs Motion for Leave ...
Views: 0
*717 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Willie Robinson brings this three count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Salvador A. Godinez, Warden of the Stateville Correctional Center, and Anthony Ramos, Superintendent of Segregation Unit II at Stateville. Presently before us is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action arises out of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Specifically, Plaintiffs, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (“Crown Cork”) and Clark Equipment Company (“Clark”) have brought this action seeking, inter alia, contribution for response costs incurred by them and paid to the United States and a declara...
Views: 0
*227 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and Plaintiffs’ motions to remand or certify question. Responses and replies have been filed to both sets of motions and these matters are ready for adjudication. I. Plaintiffs commenced this litigation in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on October 24,1994. At some point thereafter, Pl...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Honorable Alexander L. Paskay, Chief Bankruptcy Judge, presiding and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The legal issue on appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible error by dismissing, with prejudice, Count I and II of A...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The cause is before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support thereof (Docket Nos. 27 and 28), filed January 17, 1995, and response thereto, filed February 8, 1995 (Docket No. 32). This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of s...
Views: 2
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS CAROL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND RESORT & COUNTRY CLUB MANAGEMENT CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING DEFENDANT KSL RECREATION CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT MARCUS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Carol Management Corporation (“Carol Management”) and Resort & Country Club Management’s (“Resor...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on the following motions, memoranda, and other filings: 1. Defendant South Brandon Community Church of God, Inc. (hereafter “South Brandon”), Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support (Doc. Nos. 20-21, filed December 5, 1994), and response thereto (Doe. No. 81, filed February 10, 1995). 2. Defendant Edward Ross (hereafter “Ross”), Motion to Dismiss and Memo...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 1187 (1995) Ozie WILSON, Jr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAR BUILDERS II, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 94-1300 CIV-T-17. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 24, 1995. *1188 Sue-Helen Hyman, Bay Area Legal Services, Inc., Tampa, FL, for Ozie Wilson, Jr., Eva M. Wilson. Gary William Lyons, McFarland, Gould, Lyons & Sillivan, P.A., Clearwater, FL, for...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Spear, Leeds & Kellogg (“SLK”) seeks a preliminary injunction against three life insurance companies: Central Life Assurance Company, Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company of America, Inc., and Canada Life Assurance Company, (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from compelling Plaintiff to submit to arbitrati...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff Joan Ruther (“Ruther”) moves for an order compelling the District Attorney of Suffolk County (“District Attorney”) to produce to the Court, for in camera inspection, documents in the District Attorney’s possession related to (1) the District Attorney’s investigation into the plaintiffs arrest, and (2) the District Attorney’s investigation into...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Defendant Standard of Lynn, Inc. (“Standard”), is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal and sole place of business located in Lynn, Massachusetts. Standard does not own any property in the State of California, and has no offices, employees, agents or bank accounts in the S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Prior to June 16, 1993, plaintiff Anderson had filed numerous complaints in this and other courts against judges, lawyers, and others who had participated in his 1988 prosecution and conviction for crimes of violence. On June 16, 1993, I issued an injunction prohibiting plaintiff from filing any further complaints with this Court without first seeking and obtaining leave to...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Web Communications Group, Inc. brings this five count action against Gateway 2000, Inc. and Quebecor Printing (USA) Corp., alleging violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Also present in this actio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Charles and Karen Terrell filed this action against John Childers, Michael Childers, Frank Schuette, JoAnn Childers, Elwood Kreger, Talent Services, Inc., and Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook, alleging violations of various federal and state laws. In addition, defendant John Childers filed a counterclaim alleging breach of fiduciary duty and a thi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Plaintiffs in this case, Harper Realty, Inc. (“Harper”) and its president, William Levy (“Levy”), seek to recover damages for negligent representation from Defendant Versar, Inc. (“Versar”), an environmental engineering and consulting company. Currently before the Court is Versar’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of damages pursuant to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER On October 23, 1992, Plaintiff Saundra Lloyd, an African-American, filed an employment discrimination charge against Defendants WABC-TV and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (collectively “ABC”) with the New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter dated August 10, 1993, in which it concluded that Def...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff John A. Denk, on his own behalf and as Administrator of the Estate of Rosemarie J. Denk, has filed a motion to remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because his Complaint raises only state law claims. Defendants have filed responses in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, conte...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that his discharge from governmental employment was wrongfully based on conduct protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1 The plaintiff and defendants have each moved for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, I will refuse plaintiffs motion and grant defendants’ motion in part. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintif...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER All of the plaintiffs in these four actions— initially a group of plaintiffs headed by Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (in 95 C 174), then another group headed by the League of Women Voters of Illinois (“LWV” 1 ) (in 95 C 281), next the United States (in 95 C 433) and finally the League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) (in 95 C 1...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above cause came on for non-jury trial on February 13, 1995 and concluded on February 14, 1995, the Honorable Samuel B. Kent, presiding. The Court, having carefully considered the oral testimony of all witnesses presented live at trial, the deposition transcript of each witness proffered in that format, all exhibits tendered during the course of the t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Wrenn Handling’s (hereinafter “Wrenn”) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a disability discrimination action arising out of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. FACTS Robert Gower (hereinafte...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Val Green brings this negligence action against defendants Gordon Hall, personal representative of the estate of Michael Coffman, and the estate of Michael Coffinan (collectively, “the estate”). Only the United States’ claim against the estate for the cost of plaintiffs medical treatment remains. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. I grant the United State...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is a declaratory relief action involving a dispute as to whether plaintifl/counterdefendant American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania (“American Casualty”), is obligated to defend or to provide liability coverage under an insurance policy issued to defendant/counterclaimant George Krieger (“Krieger”) for injuries sustained by defendants/ counter c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This Bivens 1 and Privacy Act 2 suit presents two threshold questions. The first is whether the moving defendants, employees of the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) enjoy qualified immunity from suit under the Constitution where one employee unlawfully disclosed a veteran’s confidential medical information to an unauthorized third party and the remaining employees the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Does the First Amendment impose limits on partisan, government-sponsored speech so as to bar a county police chief from sending uniformed, armed, and publicly-paid police officers to appear at the nation’s Capitol building to demonstrate in support of controversial proposed legislation? Does the First Amendment protect a police officer’s right to refuse to participate i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This insurance coverage dispute is before the court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay. Plaintiffs are London-based insurers. Defendant J. Michael Cook is senior partner and chief executive officer of the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte), an unincorporated association. He is sued individually and as representative of a defendant clas...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER In this action filed February 13, 1995, plaintiff Professional Plant Growers Association (PPGA) seeks judicial review of a final rule issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture amending 7 C.F.R. § 319.37-8 (Regulation “Q-37”) by adding four new plant genera to a list of plants approved for importation into the U.S. in “gr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff was employed by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), as Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) in 1990. Plaintiff removed himself from the CALJ position in 1991 and asserts that he was constructively discharged. He brought this action on January 5,1994, alleging deprivation of civil rights, discrimin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Eric B. Fountain was admitted to the Albert Einstein Medical Center on or about January 22,1990, as a result of a stab wound. He remained there for two months, during which time he purportedly incurred a hospital bill in the amount of $291,233.05. Fountain died in September 1990. Seeking to be reimbursed for the hospital bills, Samuel A. Russo, the administrator of Fountain...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Ruben Pena’s (“Pena”) Complaint alleges state- law claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and for violation of his parental rights under the Illinois Constitution. Pena also alleges civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claiming that the Defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutionally protected parent...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October 31, 1994. The court entered an Order on November 2, 1994, in which it gave notice that Defendant’s motion would be construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment and parties have submitted affidavits and other documentary evidence. Plaint...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff John K. Mahon has moved this Court for sanctions against Defendants, City of Bethlehem (the City), and Officer John G. Gross, Officer Crenko, Officer Ladies and Sergeant Frances Donchez (the Police Officers), for failure to comply with this Court’s February 1, 1995 Order compelling discovery. Defendants’ response to this Motion was due by March 10, 1995, however, no response w...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Donald Vaughan (“Vaughan”) for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court denies defendant’s motion. BACKGROUND On January 24, 1992, an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was commenced against T.G. Morgan, Inc. (“the Debtor”) in the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion for [Partial] Summary Judgment, defendant U.S. Air’s (USAir) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant City of Phoenix’s (Phoenix) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and defendants America West Airlines (America West) and Ogden Air Service’s (Ogden) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Having considered the p...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Puerto Rico Insurance Guaranty Association (Association) 1 as the statutory successor in interest of the insolvent insurer, Corporación Insular de Seguros (Corporación). 2 Prior to its insolvency, Corporación Insular was de...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This litigation arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Frances Pierce from her position as Executive Director of the Montgomery County Opportunity Board, Inc. (MCOB). 1 Defendants are the MCOB, several of its directors (MCOB Defendants) as well as two officials of Pennsylvania’s Department of Community Affairs (State Defendants). All Defendants have moved to dism...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This diversity case, involving a dispute between a father and his son, has been brought before the Court by motion of the defendants, who seek dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted. I. HISTORY OF THE CASE The issue for the Court is wheth...
Views: 1
OPINION I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ (“Dr. Waksberg”) Claims for Damages Based *38 Upon Contempt. In this Motion the Government argues that Dr. Waksberg’s claim for damages based upon the Government’s violation of the Court Order of September 24, 1991 is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity....
Views: 1
*178 ORDER At the time he filed his “civil rights complaint” in this Court on October 25, 1994, plaintiff Welch was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, serving a sentence imposed upon him by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1981 for first degree murder. In his pleadings, filed pro se, Welch attempts to state claims a...
Views: 1
OPINION Before the Court in this labor-management dispute are cross motions for summary judgment presenting the narrow question whether a board duly appointed to arbitrate a labor-management dispute exceeded its jurisdiction when two of its three members issued an order clarifying an earlier award of the same board. Plaintiff United Transportation Union (UTU) represents train service employees....
Views: 1
OPINION This is an action by the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (“RICO”), and various state law theories. The Superintendent claims that Thomas N. Capolino bribed key employees of the Liquidation Bureau of the New York State Department of Insurance. The object of ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and William Fauver to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Also before the court is the motion of defendants DOC, Fauver, Donald Lewis, Gregory Riggs, David Kershaw, William Varell, Anthony Muns, Linda Lingo, *950 Jeffrey Fow...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (# 42). I. Standards for Amendment The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claim...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff MCI Telecommunications Corporation (“MCIT”) moves to dismiss counterclaims raised by defendant Graphnet, Inc. (“Graphnet”). For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND Graphnet is a licensed telecommunications carrier providing services including domestic and international telex transmission, specializ...
Views: 4
OPINION This case is before us on appeal from a final decision by the defendant, Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), denying plaintiff-claimant Diane Manning’s claim for Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff contests the denial of her claim. The parties have submitted cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set forth below, we w...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Before the Court today is the Joint Motion of the United States and Witco Corporation to Strike Late Expert Designations by Elf Atochem North America, Inc. In a July 27, 1994 Stipulated Case Management Order (July CMO), the parties and this Court agreed that all parties would identify experts by October 17, 1994, and then have a second opportunity to identify “any additional experts” by...
Views: 0
ORDER This civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000a, and 1971 is before the court on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. At issue is the constitutionality of the current state flag of Georgia, established by the Georgia General Assembly in 1956 pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1. Plaintiff is an African-American citizen. He seeks an injunction ordering the immed...
Views: 0
OPINION Introduction This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of defendant Magdalina Tan, M.D. (“Dr. Tan”) for partial summary judgment. Opposition was filed by plaintiffs Maria Dymburt (“Mrs. Dymburt”). Defendant Vatsala Rao, M.D. (“Dr. Rao”) does not oppose the motion. 1 Oral argument was heard on March 27, 1995. For the reasons set forth herein, defendants’ mo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Ethicon, Inc. (“Ethicon”) has filed a timely Notice of Removal (“Notice”) to bring to this District Court an action originally filed against it by Nadine Schacht (“Schacht”) in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. For the reason stated in this sua sponte memorandum opinion and order, this Court is constrained to dire...
Views: 1
ORDER In these consolidated wrongful death and survival actions, Plaintiffs seek damages due to their decedents’ deaths in the crash of an S-3 Viking jet aircraft (“S-3”) that Defendant, a Delaware corporation, manufactured and sold to the United States Navy in 1975. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 761-768 (“DOHSA”), and general maritim...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this Freedom of Information Act ease. By Opinion and Order dated January 31, 1995, the Court found that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts as to information and documents withheld by defendants pursuant to FOIA Exemptio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff McClam brought this suit for compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that the Norfolk City Police Department discriminated against him by refusing to *279 transfer him to the detective division in retaliation for his filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in violation of 42...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION Before the court for resolution is petitioner/defendant Tamez’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Ct.Rec. 113). In that motion, Tamez asserts that his criminal case and the civil forfeiture actions against his property were separate proceedings constituting multiple punishments for the same o...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This habeas corpus petition filed by Horacio Arraz Saenz (Saenz) in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenges his convictions for murder and conspiracy. For the reasons discussed, the petition is denied. Saenz is serving two life sentences for murder and twelve years for conspiracy in *475 the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. He was charged i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Presently before me are cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed by defendants Lifeco Services Corporation and Amer-ican Express Company (collectively Lifeco), and plaintiff Sue R. Anderson (Anderson). Lifeco moves for summary judgment on Anderson’s claims for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, as amended by the Old...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff in this action is a trustee appointed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) under section 4049 of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1349(b) (ERISA § 4049(b)). Ricke asserts claims against Armco, Inc. (“Armco”) on ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a nuisance action involving salt pollution to a fresh water aquifer underlying a mass of land that includes plaintiffs’ properties. The alleged source of the salt pollution is the American Salt plant, currently owned by North American Salt Company and formerly owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant, General Host Corporation. The matter is before the court on...
Views: 1
ORDER The Court, having received the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and having reviewed the record in this proceeding, objections not having been filed by either plaintiff or defendant, hereby ORDERS, for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, that the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. Defendant Department of Energy (DOE) has moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim against plaintiff Union Pacific Resources Company, -formerly Champlin Petroleum Company (UPRC). DOE requests that the court enter an order requiring UPRC to deposit into the escrow account established by the court the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a product liability action brought against the manufacturer of a football helmet. 1 The case was tried to a jury commencing September 27, 1994. The jury found in *986 favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered according to the verdict. This matter is before the court on motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alter...
Views: 0
ORDER This diversity action primarily involves allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of computer-based trade secrets. The case is before the court on Plaintiff TDS Healthcare Systems Corporation’s (“TDS”) motion for Rule 37 sanctions against Defendant PHAMIS, Inc. (“PHAMIS”), PHAMIS’s motion for summary judgment against TDS, Defendant Humana Hospital Illinois, Inc.’s ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Kenneth Jabczynski (“Mr. Jab-czynski”), applied for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) on May 16, 1991. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration by State agency personnel. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Larry M. Miller found that Mr. Jabczynski retained th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-captioned case is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Upon careful consideration of the parties pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will GRANT the Defendants1 Motion, I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at the Loretto Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto Pennsylvan...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Third-party defendants NTS Properties IV (“NTS IV”), NTS Properties Associates IV, NTS Properties V (“NTS V”), and NTS Properties Associates V (collectively, “NTS”) seek dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) of those portions of the Amended Third-Party Complaint that seek contribution from NTS. For the reasons set forth below, NTS’s motion is denied. BAC...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION The matter before the Court is a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained after the defendant, Kenneth Bullock, was stopped by Maryland State Police. Bullock claims that the stop and the events which followed it violated Ms Fourth Amendment rights. For the reasons stated below the Court demes the defendant’s Motion to Suppress the cocame and grants the def...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Celebrity Cruises, Inc. and Ajax Navigation Corp. move this Court to dismiss plaintiffs personal injury claim. Alternatively, defendants move to strike plaintiffs demand for a jury trial and requests an order that liability be governed by Mexican substantive law. By letter dated March 23, 1995, plaintiffs counsel consented to the dismissal of defendant Ajax Na...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 9, 1994, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff MCI Telecommunication Corporation (“MCI”) and against defendant/third-party plaintiff Am-eri-Tel, Inc. (“Ameri-Tel”) in MCI’s collection action against Ameri-Tel. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Ameri-Tel, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 659 (N.D.Ill.1994). 1 The Court’s M...
Views: 2
OPINION This is the commencement of the trial of a ease in which the plaintiff, a carpenter working on a road construction project, was grievously injured when he was struck by a passing car while performing work on the Van Wyck Expressway under a contract between his employer, D.H. Farney Contractors, and the State of-New York in September, 1990. The Farney crew, including the plaintiff, Camiel ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer has submitted a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) to the court concerning Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The parties have submitted their objections to the Report. In accordance with 28 USC § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court undert...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled cause is the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction and on its merits. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will GRANT the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss upo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Dr. Carlito Tabora, M.D., an anesthesiologist, was on the staff of Gottlieb Hospital in Chicago for 17 years. In 1990, his staff privileges were revoked. He sued, alleging that the reason for the revocation was discrimination against him on the basis of his race (Asian) and national origin (Filipino). Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment. Magis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Dennis Emerson brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Emerson essentially raises three challenges to his conviction and sentence: (1) he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, (2) he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of trial, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This nonjury trial came on to be heard before me on January 20, 1995. Plaintiffs, who supplied a short term loan to KTK Holdings (“KTK”), a failed holding company, bring this action to recover losses suffered as a result of alleged fraudulent inducement by defendants. Plaintiffs contend that defendants deliberately provided them with false and misleading information about KTK ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas and Merrilou Kedziora (“Kedzior-as”1) have sued Citicorp National Services, Inc. (“Citicorp”2), claiming that automobile leases issued by Citicorp have violated the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1667-1667e (the “Act”3) and its implementing regulations.4 Jurisdiction is grounded both in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and in Section 1667d(c). This Court5 previously gran...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is the latest in a series of nuisance actions that have been brought before this court since 1977 involving salt pollution to a fresh water aquifer underlying a mass of land that includes plaintiffs’ properties. The alleged source of the salt pollution is the American Salt plant, currently owned by North American Salt Company and formerly owned by a wholly ow...
Views: 1
ORDER After reviewing the file and the applicable law, the Court hereby adopts the bankruptcy court’s November 10th report and recommendation regarding the Negotiated Rates Act in its entirety. Defendant’s October 20th motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas, Batesville...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Shauna D. Parks (“plaintiff’) and Thaje R. Padgett, students at South Carolina State University (the “University”), brought suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, inter alia, the University, Dr. Thomas Wilson (“defendant”), and various other individuals, caused them to be subjected to sexual harassment in violation of rights guaranteed them by the United Sta...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 1069 (1995) Ted V. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-K-1017. United States District Court, D. Colorado. March 29, 1995. *1070 *1071 Ruth K. Vogel-Irwin, Boulder, CO, for plaintiff. Chalk Mitchell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, CO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KANE, Senior District Judge. This is a cas...
Views: 0
ORDER My thorough familiarity with this case explains my lack of surprise upon learning that the plaintiff thinks it should win $2,863,495 and the defendant thinks it should lose “around $59,000.” Bud Selig and Donald Fehr are closer on the issues that divide them than are the attorneys for the parties, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and the General Electric Company. On...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an antitrust ease in which plaintiffs are challenging the purchase of a daily newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Times (the “Times ”), by NAT, L.C. (“NAT”). Plaintiffs contend that NAT’s purchase of the Times is illegal under the antitrust laws, due to the fact that NAT has significant shareholders in common with defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the court for a bench trial on February 1, 2, 3, and 6, 1995. At trial, the court heard the evidence presented by Plaintiffs David S. Penner and Jason W. Penner (“the Penners”), who proceeded pro se, and Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”), which was represented by the United States Attorney. Having considered the evidence, the court now ente...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for decision following a bench trial. Plaintiff CEH, Inc. (“CEH”) brought this action against the F/V SEAFARER (“SEAFARER”), In Rem, and Michael A. Doyle (“Doyle”), Charles' Niles (“Niles”), and Roger Scott Smith (“Smith”), In Personam, for the alleged loss and destruction of lobster gear owned by plaintiff during the period May 23 through June...
Views: 3
ORDER I. THIS CAUSE was tried to a jury verdict before the undersigned on July 28, 1994 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On evidence that plaintiff prisoner had been assaulted by other prisoners in defendant Sheriff Gay’s jail, the jury found one deputy sheriff liable for failing to protect against the assault and returned a verdict of $100 in favor.of the plaintiff. Now the matter is...
Views: 0
RULING For the following reasons, this court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Clara Ladner and her husband, Patrick Ladner, brought this action in the Ninth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Rapides Parish, asserting negligent misrepresentation against Alexander & Alexander, Inc., Barbara Vercher and Joe Callaway. Later, plaintiffs amended their petition to include a fede...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of Defendant Fleet Mortgage Corp. (“Fleet”) for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Because Fleet is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and fact, summary judgment is granted in favor of Fleet. Gailliard’s cause of action for intentional interference with a contract between a borrower and himself as closing attorney is legally...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are defendant’s Motion for Amendment of Judgment and Motion for Costs and Fees, to which plaintiff has responded in opposition. For the reasons which follow, and upon the terms set out hereinbelow, the Court finds that the motions should be granted. This action was originally filed by Harvey Industries, Inc., against defendant, Hi-Tech Engineering, Inc., on October 16...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Grand Jury has charged Defendants with conspiring to steal paintings, sculpture, silver and jewelry from Ethel Brownstone, defendant Roberta Starzecpyzel’s aunt. (SI 93 Cr. 553.) The indictment charges, inter alia, that the Starzecpyzels removed over 100 items of artwork from Brownstone’s apartment, delivered them to Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction h...
Views: 6
OPINION I. BACKGROUND This matter came before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, minor students eligible for special education. and their parents, sought to certify a class of students with disabilities who are entitled to or receive special education instruction and services from the District of Columbia Public Schools (...
Views: 1
OPINION Before the court is the motion of Oppenheimer & Co. (“Oppenheimer”) and Sheldon Altman (“Altman”) to enjoin and dismiss plaintiffs’ claim under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), M.C.L. § 445.901 et seq. This claim is presently pending before a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) arbitration panel. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied in p...
Views: 0
ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the following post-trial motions: Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial; Plaintiffs’ motion to determine their status as a prevailing party; and Plaintiffs petition for attorneys’ fees. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against inter alia the Town of French Lick (“the Town”) and two French Lick police officers on ...
Views: 1
Memorandum and Order Plaintiff Dominic Murray sues the British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”), a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, and BBC Lionheart Television International (“Lionheart”), a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin and state law unfair competition. Murray claim...
Views: 0
881 F. Supp. 26 (1995) John M. COLES, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON FREE WEEKLY, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-825. United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 27, 1995. *27 *28 Kenneth Hyden Shepherd, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Henry S. Hoberman, Robert D. Lystad, Baker & Hostetler, Washington, DC, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION SPORKIN, District Judge. This matt...
Views: 2
*43 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss the remaining Eighth Amendment Claims alleged in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 1 Plaintiff is a District of Columbia prisoner who is presently incarcerated in the Medium Security Facility at Lorton Correctional Complex. Plaintiffs claims involve th...
Views: 3
ENTRY This matter is before the Court on defendant Grinnell Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Grinnell’s motion is denied. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Although many of the facts in this case are contested, the following is largely undisputed. Grinnell is a manufacturing company which produces and distributes products in the waterworks industry. A...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Plaintiffs seek to recover from Aerovías Nacionales De Columbia (“AVIANCA”) for the negligent infliction of emotional distress allegedly caused when AVIANCA Flight 052 crashed into the plaintiffs’ property and for the property damage sustained by the crash. Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on the grounds that New York law does not allow recov...
Views: 0
ENTRY This matter is before the court on the summary judgment motion of defendants United States of America, Neil E. Porter, David Galliart and Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Department. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts in this case are largely undisputed. On September 1, 1990, Plaintiff Southern Illinois Grain Inspection Service (“Southern Illinois”) was designated by the Federal Grain Inspe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Howard University’s motion' for summary judgment. Plaintiff Nayar, a female born and educated in India, was a faculty member of the Math Department of Howard University from 1984 until 1991 when her application for tenure was denied. Plaintiff sets forth two claims. First, Plaintiff claims that the University discriminated again...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, Mercy Health Services, brought this action against defendant 1199 Health and Human Service Employees Union alleging defamation, tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The claims arise out of two radio commercials and one television commercial which th...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant Rufus Sims’s Amended Motion to Suppress. The motion questions the Fourth Amendment legality of three separate searches and/or seizures. This court has previously dealt with Fourth Amendment issues before the trial of certain of Rufus Sims’s codefendants. United States v. Sims, 808 F.Supp. 596 (N.D.Ill.1992). The court refers to that opin...
Views: 0
DECISION DECLINING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF ARCO’S MOTION TO AMEND RULE 27 ORDER This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s August 2, 1994, Order Recommending Disposition of ARCO’s Motion to Amend Rule 27 Order and Sinclair’s Objection thereto. The court has considered the Magistrate Judge’s August 2, 1994 Order, the Objection, Replies, the ent...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT GENERAL ELECTRIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs are retired workers and the families of deceased employees who manufactured electrical transformers at a General Electric Company facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The defendants are General Electric Company (“GE”) and Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”). According to th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss counts one, two, three, and four of the indictment. Defendants have been charged in counts one and two with Hostage Taking under 18 U.S.C. § 1203. Defendants have been charged in counts three and four with using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Counts t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Franklin’s Systems seeks to enforce a judgment entered against defendant Mr. Infanti by the State Court of Fulton *248 County, Georgia, in the amount of $60,687.79, plus post-judgment interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This case is before the court on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgement. For the reasons cited below, the motio...
Views: 0
*1543 ORDER On January 13, 1995, at the conclusion of the Plaintiffs’ case during the trial of this action, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). At the time it ruled, the Court stated on the record the bases for its ruling. The purpose of this Order is to amplify on the reasons underpinning the Rule ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff pro se, a Caucasian female, has alleged that defendants failed to employ her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Defendants now move for summary judgment. In 1990 plaintiff applied for a position with defendant New York Telephone as a service representative. As part of her applicat...
Views: 3
OPINION At the first trial held in the Fall of 1992 in this consolidated multi-district ease, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and third-party plaintiffs Lone Star Industries, Inc., Lone Star Transportation Corp. and San-Vel Concrete Corp. (collectively “Lone Star”) against defendants and third-party defendants Lafarge Corporation and Lafarge Canada, Inc. (collective...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendani/Third Party plaintiffs (estate of Timothy Warner), motion for summary judgment on its third party claim against Lisa Rubin. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. Background This case has a long and tragic history. In order to understand the third party claim, some factual background is necessary....
Views: 1
ORDER Introduction This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion In Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Statistical Evidence, filed November 15, 1994 (Dkt. 164). The Court announced its decision to grant the motion in open court on January 6, 1995, before Opening Statements began. Under Fed.R.Evid. 702 and the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ...
Views: 0
*1536 ORDER This cause comes before the Court for decision on various motions in limine filed by the Defendants. The Court has considered such motions, and issues the following rulings thereon. Defendants’ Motion In Limine With Respect to the Testimony of Francisco Muriel Francisco Muriel and Plaintiff Jorge Nater occupied a vehicle stopped by a SET Unit member. Muriel is also a pla...
Views: 0
INTRODUCTION On September 8, 1994, Plaintiff Lawrence A. Harper, Sr., acting in pro per, filed a two-count Complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court against TRW, Inc., a credit reporting agency. Mr. Harper seeks to preclude TRW from “selling” credit information about him. He claims he asked TRW to “remove his name from its data base”, but TRW refused. Mr. Harper does not alle...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff, a Special Agent for the Department of the Treasury’s U.S. Customs’ Service, brings this action against his employer for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, pro se, brings this motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(1), to vacate the judgment entered against him in the above-captioned action. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was referred to Magistrate Judge Leonard Bernikow. On October 10, 1991, Magistrate Judge Bernikow filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending th...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is a class action lawsuit charging Brown University, its president, and its athletic director (collectively “Brown”) with violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (1988) (“Title IX”). 1 Specifically, the plaintiff class, which consists of all present and future Brown University women students ...
Views: 2
DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion in Limine. The court having considered the Motions, the Memoranda-in Support and in Opposition to the Motions, the papers and pleadings filed herein, having ...
Views: 1
ORDER INTRODUCTION On February 17, 1984, Petitioners Karl and Walter LaGrand were convicted by a jury of first degree murder and other crimes committed in the course of a failed bank robbery. On December 14, 1984, the trial court sentenced both Petitioners to death. Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus from this Court, alleging that certain constitutional errors infected both the guilt an...
Views: 3
This matter is before the court on cross-motions to disqualify counsel. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Poly Software International (“Poly Software”) has moved for the disqualification of Lynn G. Foster and the firm of Foster & Foster. The current CEO of Poly Software is Xiaowu Wang (‘Wang”). Defendants and Counterclaimants Yu Su, et al., (“Su”) have moved for the disqualification of Berne S. Br...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the court are (1) the motion of the plaintiff, Fuller Brothers, Inc. (Fuller Brothers), for leave to file a second amended complaint (# 112); and (2) the motion of the defendant International Marketing, Inc. (International Marketing) for sanctions (# 114). BACKGROUND In an opinion filed on July 14, 1994, this court granted the motion of International Marketing for summa...
Views: 0
ORDER This order supersedes the previous conditional order issued in this matter. Pending before the Court is plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. For the reasons set’forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and DENIES defendant Greyhound’...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND AND MONSANTO’S MOTION TO TRANSFER I. INTRODUCTION In separate actions before this court, two sets of plaintiff-retirees allege violations of *67 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. (ERISA). All the plaintiffs assert that their fo...
Views: 0
*1314 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION These matters, which are consoHdated for pretrial purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, are before the Court upon Defendants Corning, Incorporated and Dow Chemical Company’s Motions for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of these Defendants. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in these...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM RULING Presently before the Court is a “Motion to Remand” filed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. The Magistrate Judge has previously filed a Report and Recommendation recommending the motion be granted. For the following reasons this Court denies the motion. However, because this denial rests upon a close question of law, this court will grant the parties the option to pursue an interlo...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT NISSAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., Inc. (“Nissan”), was the owner of the ear that killed Patricia A. Richardson and injured Robert J. Etgeton III. Defendant Gregg A. Matthews was the driver. Nissan has produced evidence showing that, at the time of *7the accident, Matthews was not acting as its agent. Plaintif...
Views: 0
880 F.Supp. 96 (1995) PATELL INDUSTRIAL MACHINE CO., INC., Plaintiff v. TOYODA MACHINERY U.S.A., INC., Defendant. Civ. No. 93-CV-1572. United States District Court, N.D. New York. March 30, 1995. *97 Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock Blaine & Huber, Rochester, NY, for plaintiff (Gregory M. Trusso, of counsel). Martin, Martin & Woodard, Syracuse, NY, for defendant (Winthrop H. Thurlow, of counsel...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This court rendered a decision in the above-captioned matter following a trial on the merits, and accordingly ordered judgment to be entered in favor of plaintiff The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Aetna”). See The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. The Home Insurance Company, 882 F.Supp. 1328 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Immediately upon the filing of said deci...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This litigation under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, concerns an arbitrator’s decision that the loading and hauling of “culm” owned by Morea Cogen, Inc. (“Morea”) and located at a “coal breaker” operated by Plaintiff JeddoHighland Coal Company (“Jeddo-Highland”) is subject to the work jurisdiction provisions of the Anthracite Wage Agreement of 1990 (her...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant Melville Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and cross-motions for partial summary judgment brought by Melville and defendant Morse Shoe, Inc. and plaintiff Susan M. Maxwell. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, Melville’s motion for summary judgment and partial summary judg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER This case involves the appropriate educational placement of plaintiff Kerry B., a severely mentally retarded girl with autistic behavior, by the defendant Pentucket Regional School District (Union 53). Plaintiff seeks attorneys fees under the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). On Oct...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM On March 1,1994, Robin and Viola Kennedy (the “Kennedys”), purportedly the sole beneficiaries under the Will of Debtor Lawrence Marra, Sr., deceased, filed a Notice of Appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order of February 1, 1994, granting a motion to dismiss the Debtor’s/Decedent’s Chapter 7 Case. 1 This appeal was docketed to 3:CV-94-0303. Also on March 1, 1994, Attorney Stephen...
Views: 0
*1527 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court for consideration of the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, the United States of America (hereinafter “Defendant”) on January 26,1995. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment are due to be DENIED. II. FACTS A...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff, Flomerics Limited (“Flomer-ics”), brought this action against Fluid Dynamics International, Inc. (“FDI”), alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement with respect to its “Flotherm” reference manual. Pending before this Court is Flomerics’ motion for a preliminary injunction. I. BACKGROUND Flomerics, a limited liability company organized under the laws ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This ease arises from defendants’ refusal to reimburse plaintiff Robert Sutton for medical expenses he incurred as a result of a tragic diving accident. While Hearth & Home’s benefit plan approved payment for disability benefits, it denied Sutton’s claim for reimbursement for medical benefits based on a clause in the plan which exempted medical expenses “arising out of an a...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH Plaintiff Janice Rector Leyh has sued her former employer, Modieon, Inc., for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her on the basis of pregnancy. Modieon has filed a counterclaim. The underlying action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This matter having been tried before the court between February 3 and February 10, 1995, and after hearing the evidence and arguments at trial, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For reasons set forth below, judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff ...
Views: 1
ORDER The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant’s direct appeal of the underlying conviction and sentence in the criminal case without reaching the merits because no timely notice of appeal had been filed and, because the court lacked jurisdiction. Un ited States v. McFarlane, No. 89-3266 (unpublished opinion, 11th Cir. April 21, 1993). On March 22, 1993, this Court de...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs, Charles R. Reyher, motion for summary judgment filed on December 22, 1994, (Docket No. 56) and response thereto, filed on February 10, 1995 (Docket No. 65). The summary judgment motion, in consolidated case No. 94-918-CIV-T-17, filed on October 11, 1994 (Docket Nos. 14-15) and response thereto, filed October 27, ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Among the several issues in this action is the question whether Virginia Code §§ 56-405.3 and 56-406.1 alter the common law duty of railroads to place appropriate protective devices at especially hazardous crossings. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the statutes do not relieve railroads of their common-law duty to identify especially hazardous ...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the following motions and responses: *5721. Plaintiff Terri L. Steffen’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defendant United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. No. 27). 2. Opposition of Defendant United States to Plaintiff Steffen’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 28). 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summa...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION At issue in this diversity jurisdiction case is whether, and under what conditions, a drawer may sue a depositary bank for conversion under pre-1993 Virginia commercial law. Specifically, the question presented is whether a drawer may sue a depositary bank for conversion where (1) the drawer’s employee has induced the drawer to write checks to fictitious payees, (2)...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Flynt Lee, the Pro Se Petitioner in this case, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his state conviction for armed robbery.1 On direct appeal, Petitioner argued that the corpus de-licti of armed robbery had not been proven and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The Illino...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Maria Sudimak has moved for a new trial on her retaliatory discharge claim against Dorr-OIiver Incorporated (“Dorr-OI-iver”) under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 951, et seq. Ms. Sudimak contends that, in light of the jury’s affirmative response to the special verdict question of whether she had “met her burden of proving that Dorr-Oliver...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling defendant, The Chicago Club, to comply with provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring the filing of reports known as EEO-1 reports and the posting of certain information in the workplace. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-8(c) and 10....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Chrysler Corporation and Auto-mobili Lamborghini brought this action against Defendant Newfield Publications, seeking damages and an injunction against further infringement of their registered trademarks and trade dress. Chrysler and Lamborghini claim that Newfield’s use of their trademarks and trade dress in Wheels and Wings, allegedly a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This action arises out of the termination of Plaintiff Daniel Samson (“Samson”) as the zoning officer/building inspector for Harvey’s Lake Borough. Samson sued the Harvey’s Lake Borough Council and individual council members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his right to due process, with jurisdiction premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1343. He has also asserted state law claims...
Views: 1
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. 1 On September 28, 1994, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint with this Court alleging: 1.My income taxes are extracted from my labor award and income and expended for the benefit of another group. 2. My taxes are extracted from my labor and income and expended for another g...
Views: 0
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL UNDERWRITERS TO ANSWER DISCOVERY Plaintiff, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, seeks discovery from a group of defendant “Underwriters” concerning the reinsurance or lack thereof of the policies at issue in this litigation. Underwriters vigorously oppose the motion on the basis of irrelevance, disputing all of Great Lakes’ arguments and authorities. Unde...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action was tried before the Court on April 5, 15, and 18, 1994. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4). Venue for this action lies within the Eastern District of New York as the alleged events in question transpired principally at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA), located in Queens County, New York. ...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from an order entered on Nóvember 10, 1994 by Judge Thomas E. Baynes, Jr. Jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, orders and decrees of the bankruptcy court is vested in the Federal District courts. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The issue presented for this Court’s review is whether the bankruptcy court erred in confirming the debtor’s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Alonda R. Daniels seeks damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, false arrest, assault and battery for acts committed by Dillard’s Department Stores, Inc., through its security officers Dex Kruger and Steven A. Zeller. Specifically, plaintiff claims that Kruger and Zeller followed her through the store, grabbed and...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the instant ease, plaintiff Iraj Lavian sues his nephew Shahram Haghnazari [hereinafter “Sam”] asserting a number of causes of action, both federal and state, in connection with a purported scheme whereby Sam fraudulently induced his uncle to invest substantial sums of money, and considerable time and labor, in a closely-held corporation named Hagh Prescription...
Views: 2
ORDER Bethlehem Steel Corporation fired Cathy Carson from her position as a print shop clerk in Bethlehem’s engineering department. Carson alleges that in doing so Bethlehem discriminated against her on account of her race, which is white. This allegedly in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).1 Bethlehem has moved for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Ci...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion of plaintiff, James Dominique, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 65, for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff, an inmate in the Massachusetts prison system, seeks an order allowing him to resume his participation in the work release program pending resolution of this case. Also pending before this Court is a motion by the defendants, W...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on the Resolution Trust Corporation’s (“RTC”) motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 145). Ernest Fleischer (“Fleischer”) and John Seowcroft (“Seowcroft”) are former members of the Board of Directors of Franklin Savings Association (“FSA”). They contend that the RTC, as conservator of FSA, breached their employment contract...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This .case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for partial. summary judgment on the issue "of damages (Doc. 33). Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, but her response does not address that part of the motion relating to damages, nor does it controvert the facts offered by defendant in ...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Retax Costs (Doc. # 276), filed February 2, 1995. On September 20, 1994, the Court held a jury trial on plaintiffs claim of retaliatory discharge against his former employer, IBP, Inc. At trial, plaintiff prevailed on the question whether defendant fired plaintiff because he refused to perform work...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Barbara Renee James, an anatomically male transsexual, alleges sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination [KAAD], K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq. More specifically, plaintiff claims that Ranch Mart Hardware, Inc. (“Ranch Mart”), terminated her employment ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Smyers filed this breach of contract action in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, in December 1993. Defendant Quartz Works Corporation (“Quartz Works”) removed it to this Court on January 21, 1994, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. This action involves two contracts made between two merchants. Plaintiff claims damages for defendant’s a...
Views: 0
*1418 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Robert P. McDonald, a fornier correctional officer at the Lansing Correctional Officer (formerly the Kansas State Penitentiary in Lansing, Kansas), alleges that the' Kansas Department of Corrections subjected him to harassment and inequal treatment in the terms and conditions of his employment, and later terminated his employment, on account of his ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on Farm Credit Bank of Wichita’s (“creditor”) motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) debtors’ appeal. The court has reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, and is ready to rule. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 15,1992, debtors filed bankruptcy under Chapter 12. They f...
Views: 0
881 F. Supp. 236 (1995) Cyrus E. SILLING, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Edna Marie Litton ERWIN, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 2:94-0448. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. April 4, 1995. *237 Christopher J. Winton, Mark W. Kelley, Payne, Loeb & Ray, Charleston, WV, Richard J. Miller, Jr., Couch, White, Brenner, Howard & Feigenbaum, Albany, NY, for Cyrus E. Sill...
Views: 1
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is an interpleader action arising out of the bankruptcy case In Re: Louis Almeida, No. 78-1684-L in the District of Massachusetts. The trustee in bankruptcy of the debtor has interpled a fund of $67,809.89 representing the proceeds from the sale of nursing homes held in the name of Almeida upon which the defendants Regina Nursing Home, ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court' on Jo Ann Corke’s (“creditor”) appeal from United States Bankruptcy Judge James Pusateri’s final order denying on remand her motion to *947set aside his finding that a disputed debt was a property settlement and not maintenance. As an initial matter, it is necessary briefly to discuss the state of the record on appeal. Federa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion to reverse (Doc. 12) the Secretary’s denial of her motion for waiver for overpayment of benefits. Defendant has filed a motion for an order affirming the Secretary’s decision (Doc. 13). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The wage earner in this case, Wayne A. Downing, died in July 1978. He was survived by his daughter who...
Views: 2
RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendant Hector Luis Rios (“Rios”) is charged in five counts of a thirty-eight count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (racketeering), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (racketeering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1), 1959(a)(2) (violent crimes in aid of racketeering), 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (drug conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (f...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this suit against her former employer, Colgate-Palmolive Company (“Colgate”), and *514 Anna Guthrie, an employee of Colgate, plaintiff seeks damages for. defendants’ alleged acts and omissions which prevented plaintiff from timely filing for benefits under Colgate’s disability benefits plan. The case is before the court on the following motions: (1...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ENTRY REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter comes before the court upon cross motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court, having considered the submissions and briefs of the parties, finds that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should be DENIED, and Defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment should ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Plaintiff Jorge Gonzalez, a New York resident, invokes this court’s diversity jurisdiction to sue Rutherford Corporation, a used machinery dealer located in New Jersey, for injuries sustained while working with a press brake sold by Rutherford to Gonzalez’s employer, Capital Steel Fabrication, Inc. Plaintiffs complaint alleges causes of action in strict liability,...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court on an appeal from an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Plaintiff alleges in her application that her obesity, complicated by asthma, hypertension, and pain in her knees and hips, have rendered her disabled since December 15, 1986. In 1990 an ALJ determined that Plai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this social security disability benefits case, before the Court are plaintiffs and defendant’s cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons which follow, the cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are denied, and the case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a determination consistent with this decision. Background ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This patent infringement case comes before the Court for decision after a three-week court trial. The Court has carefully considered all of the trial testimony and exhibits, the entire pretrial record, the parties’ post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law and the parties’ post-trial briefing. Based on this review, the Court finds the patent claims-in-suit inva...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER At approximately 9:38 p.m. on a spring evening in 1992, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), looking for evidence of illegal wiretapping, executed a search warrant at the home of Eddie L. Cole, Jr. (Cole). Cole, his wife, and their three children lived in a small town in rural Nebraska where Cole was and is manager of the local telephone company. It no...
Views: 0
This is an appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court which essentially seeks to review two issues, which I understand are the only issues presented on appeal: (1) whether the bankruptcy judge erred in denying the motion for summary judgment, and (2) whether the bankruptcy judge erred in denying the motion for reargument. Dealing with them in turn, the Court concludes, for the reasons that ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Defendant Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke Medical Center (“Rush”) to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Michael B. Fernando, M.D., (“Fernando”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. FACTS On January 26, 1994, Fernando, an employee of Rush, filed a charge w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This opinion emanates from a Consent Decree entered into by the United States (the “Government”) and the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“District Council”), settling a civil RICO action brought by the Government against the union and certain of its officers in September of 1990...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on the motion for summary judgment by the defendant, The Boeing Company. A hearing was held on February 22,1995, and the court now is ready to rule. Plaintiff Kerry Castleberry worked for Boeing from April 1979 until August 1982 and from January 1984 until his discharge in August 1992. Castleberry was a first-level manager f...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court which held that a lease established pursuant to provisions of the Kansas Economic Development Revenue Bond Act is not a true lease and therefore not subject to the assumption/rejeetion requirements of § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. 1 The debtor has filed a cross-appeal challenging the bankruptcy cou...
Views: 1
*532 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 6, 1995, this , court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action and held that plaintiff had not met her burden to show that a genuine, issue of material fact existed as to her claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment, constructive discharge and negligent infliction of emotional distress. With respect to...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Plaintiff Matthew Eric Raddatz is seeking to overturn a child custody decision made by a Michigan circuit court based upon alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) (E.D.Mich. Jan. 1, 1992), the court will dispense with ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs brought this action seeking a declaration of the rights and obligations of local law enforcement officers pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”) and injunctive relief prohibiting the Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) fi’om conducting Brady Act background checks. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs of Marshall, Daviess, Calloway, and Ballard Counties i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This litigation arises from an effort by the United States Forest Service (an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture) to exchange a two-acre parcel of federal land — administered by the Forest Service *1374 but lying entirely within the boundaries of the Town of Vail (a Colorado municipal corporation) — for a 385-acre parcel of priv...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on motions to dismiss plaintiffs action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment. The motions were filed by defendants Teamsters Local #41 and Warren Stevens (Doc. 18), and by defendants Roadway Express and Jim Kasperski (Doc. 24). For the reasons explained below, the motions are grante...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In Counts VII and VIII of its first amended complaint, plaintiff Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”) alleges that various defendants breached certain fiduciary duties and were otherwise negligent in connection with the purchase by Franklin Savings Association (“FSA”) of a $30,000,000 promissory note from L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc. (“LFR”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiffs David Burton and Ora Burton filed this lawsuit on May 25, 1994, and later filed an amended complaint against defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and The American Tobacco Company. Plaintiff 1 alleges numerous claims, including fraud and *1518 misrepresentation, negligence, strict liability, breach of ...
Views: 0
ORDER Magistrate Judge Patricia Gorence has issued a decision recommending that I deny the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ motion for summary judgment, grant Ms. Magray’s motion for summary judgment, and reverse and remand this matter to the Secretary for further proceedings. The Secretary has filed an objection to Judge Gorence’s recommendation. Reviewing the recommendation in toto and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Collette Travel Service, Inc. (“Collette”) has moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims. The Court previously addressed the issues raised by Collette’s motion when it ruled on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Marriott Corporation (“Marriott”). See Memorandum and Order, 845 F.Supp. 33 (D.Mass.1994) (...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are both parties’ motions for partial summary judgment. The issue to be decided in regard to both motions is simply whether the Employee Retirement Income *234 Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., preempts state law claims concerning claims arising under an individual insurance policy converted from a gr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction This action is brought' by shareholders against Herley Industries, Inc. (“Herley”) and three of its senior executives, Lee N. Blatt, Gerald I. Klein, and Myron Levy. Defendant Herley is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Herley designs, manufactures, and sells flight instrumentation products to aerospace companies, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This case concerns the allocation of costs for the cleanup of the Iron Mountain Mine (“the mine”). Plaintiffs are the United States and the State of California, who are suing under CERCLA 1 to recover response costs for cleanup activities at the mine. Defendants are Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T.W. Arman (“IMMI/Arman”), the current owners o...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this diversity action arising out of an allegedly wrongful termination of employment, defendant ITT/Sheraton Corporation (“Sheraton”) moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Plaintiff Peter Tischmann (“Tisehmann”) opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Shera...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 405(g) and 1383(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), to reverse the administrative decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or in the alternative, to remand the case to the Secretary for further evidentiary proceedings. Als...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs Opposition, and the Defendants’ Reply thereto. Upon careful consideration of the papers, the entire record, and the applicable law, the Court shall grant the Motion, in part, as hereinafter discussed. BACKGROUND The facts material to this case are not in dispute. 1 ...
Views: 1
*33 MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND On October 25, 1990, Syro, Inc. (“Syro”) filed a claim in the amount of $1,861,733.82 in this Chapter 11 bankruptcy action against O.W. Hubbell & Sons, Inc., (“Hubbell”). Syro claims that Hubbell owed this amount for the purchase of guardrails and accessories from Syro. On July 8, 1993, Hubbell filed and allegedly served a motio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) .and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by defendants. She filed a timely complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a right to sue letter on October 28, 1993. She filed this suit alleging the above claims on January 31, 1994 and filed f...
Views: 1
OPINION This commercial dispute, which is governed by California law, turns on the parol evidence rule, underpinnings of which sharply divided two of the great judges of this century, Judge Learned Hand and Chief Justice Roger Traynor of California. In the final analysis, I conclude that both would have reached the same result in this case, albeit by different paths. In consequence, defen...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jackie T. Lane has filed a seven-count complaint against defendants David P. Jacobson & Company (“the Company”) and Howard Jacobson. The complaint includes two federal law claims and five state law claims: (1) sexual harassment under Title VII, (2) constructive discharge under Title VII, (3) wrongful termination, (4) intentional infliction of emotional dist...
Views: 1
*407MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendant Collins CMO Fund Limited (“Collins”) has moved this Court for a stay of arbitration. For the reasons which follow, Collins’ motion is denied. The relevant facts are undisputed: On June 20, 1994, Collins mailed its application for a stay of arbitration, by ordinary mail, to Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, attorneys for Kidder, Peabody & Co. Pursuant to CPLR § 750...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1. Introduction This is an action in employment discrimination pursuant to Title I of the Americans ■with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 1 Defendant, International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 3 (Local No. 3), sued here in its capacity as an employer rather than as a labor union, moves for s...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM The United States has filed a Motion in civil action 94-0662 for a Ruling as to the Appropriate Standard and Scope of Review of Agency Action and to Limit the Scope of Discovery. 1 This Motion is directed at Witco Corporation, and that is the only party that has responded. The United States brings this Motion out of a concern that Witco may attempt to challenge the m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This discrimination case is before the Court today on motion of the defendants, *989 which seek an order granting them summary judgment as to all ten counts of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated from her employment on account of her gender and pregnancy in violation of state and federal law. For the reasons that f...
Views: 1
REVISED JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE On December 28, 1994 came the Defendant, Judy A. Wiley-Dunaway, by counsel Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, and came the Government by Sharon M. Frazier, Assistant United States Attorney, for a hearing to resentence the Defendant in accordance with Court of Appeals mandate in United States v. Wiley-Dunaway, 40 F.3d 67 (4th Cir.1994). The Defendant wai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action, on remand from the appellate court, arises out of pro se Plaintiff Terry W. Mobley’s termination from Defendant U.S. West Communications Inc. Mobley alleges U.S. West terminated him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Two motions are pending: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(...
Views: 0
ORDER This ease was tried to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Following the bench trial, the parties have submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. D.A.T. Constructors, Inc. (DAT) was awarded contract No. F 14614 91 C 0013 at...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This medical malpractice case was tried to a jury in Jonesboro, Arkansas on November 14-17 and 21-22, 1994. Plaintiffs mother, Lisa Lockamy, was approximately six months pregnant when she suffered from cholecysti-tis and had a cholecystectomy and incidental appendectomy on December 8, 1986. Less than two weeks later, Plaintiff was born at Arkansas Methodist Hospit...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a civil rights complaint filed by a Cuban detainee in custody pursuant to an Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) detainer. He alleges he is housed improperly in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that he is subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by his placement in D-Cellhouse at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, K...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a civil rights claim filed by a federal inmate. Plaintiff commenced this action while housed at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and alleges his constitutional rights were violated by a transfer and placement in disciplinary segregation without due process, placement of false information in his institutional file, destru...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants, Michael Gorski, Sam Capado-na, and James Brady have moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by plaintiff, Frank Baltrunas. Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds. First, they move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(J) (now FRCP 4(m)) on the ground that they were not served within 120 days of the filing of the complaint, and plaintiff ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action was originally filed in Supreme Court, Rockland County, on December 9, 1994. In his complaint, John Yureik (“plaintiff’) alleges that the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund (“defendant”) wrongfully withheld payment for early retirement and disability options under its pension plan. On December 21,1994, defendant removed the action to this ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff Seymour Zuckerbrod is insured pursuant to an insurance policy issued by defendant Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Phoenix”) and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. 2. Under the terms of the policy, plaintiff is entitled to receive 80 percent of covered expenses for private duty nursing care up to a ma...
Views: 0
FINDINGS of FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Preliminary Statement Plaintiffs Sara Morales and Juan Nunez, employees of the Division of Human Rights (the “Division”), commenced this action, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). They allege that they were the victims of discrimination by t...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER After a nine day trial of these consolidated cases, a jury returned a verdict based on answers to special interrogatories finding for the plaintiff, Ramakrishna Rao, against defendants Anthony Japha, Dennis Newman, and Robert Weigand on the plaintiff’s claim that their termination of his employment at the New York City Health and Hospital’s Corporation (“HHC”) violated his...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION These are six cases in which the plaintiff union has sued in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, a state small-claims court, various of its members for relatively small amounts of back dues. The six cases were removed here by an attorney representing the six individual defendant union members. The removal was predicated on the existence of federal jur...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which Robert Smith, acquitted of serious criminal charges after a bench trial in Baltimore County, Maryland, sues Baltimore County and the police officer who procured the warrant for Smith’s arrest, claiming that his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizure was violated by its officer’s actions in procuring the warr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 27, 1994, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order directing the Plaintiff to respond to a single issue identified by the Court. This issue, now known to the parties as the “due process issue,” is whether Mr. Wellman received reasonable notice of the May 8,1990, hearing (at which the Petition to Appoint a Public Guardian for him would be heard) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Venard Garvin, acting pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence to avoid incarceration resulting from an alleged violation of his special parole imposed pursuant to conviction. Garvin contends that any further incarceration would amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs move to reinstate the court’s September 3, 1986 Memorandum-Decision and Order granting in part their cross-motion for summary judgment against defendants. In that decision, the court held that New York Education Law § 3202(4)(b), as applied to plaintiff Dunbar (“Dell”) Catlin, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before us on William J. Bielecki’s appeal from a final judgment order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. Background In 1983, Robert Nettleton purchased Bell-wood Marathon, an automobile service and gas st...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 9, 1995 I received the first draft of the “Order of Compromise” submitted by the plaintiffs in this case. By order dated January 12,1995 I directed the parties to address a number of issues that concerned me regarding the proposed “Order of Compromise”. I received a revised “Order of Compromise” from plaintiffs’ attorney, Daniel Donnelly, Esq., dated Fe...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Donald Frazier 1 filed suit against defendant Correctional Officers Adolph For-gione and Michael Williams 2 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants intentionally withheld certain legal papers from him for a period of more than two years in violation of the First Amendment, the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the privil...
Views: 1
OPINION This is a foreclosure action brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) as receiver for The Howard Savings Bank (“Howard Savings”) against defendants Wissel & Sons Construction Co., Inc. (‘Wis-sel Contracting”), Conrad Wissel, III, Randolph Wissel, Conrad James Wissel, Blackstone Co., Inc., the State of New Jersey (collectively, the “Defendants”) and Carmen ...
Views: 1
*433ORDER In an Opinion issued on July 23, 1993 granting defendant Theatrical Protective Union Number One I.AT.S.E.’s (the “Union”) motion to dismiss plaintiffs hybrid breach of contract/duty of fair representation claim, this court also ordered plaintiffs lawyer Stanley Fidel to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions against him pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The court suggested that...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 23, 1994 Plaintiff, Philip R. Joelson, filed a complaint challenging his removal as a member of the Panel of Northwest Ohio, Chapter 7 Trustees. The eight count complaint alleges violations for which relief is sought as follows: (I) The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; (II) Failure to comply with Fifth Amendment due proce...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 42, 45). Defendants claim that Plaintiff Mary Braddoek (Braddoek) failed to comply with certain Florida statutes in filing her medical malpractice action against them. Braddoek originally filed this action in Michigan, and agrees that she did not comply with Florida’s statutes that might govern her claim. Braddoc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, thirty-one former employees of Defendant, Star Enterprise, allege that Defendant’s implementation of an early retirement plan was less than evenhanded and therefore constituted a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Defendants assert that summary judgment in their favor is proper since the Plaintiffs lack standing under ERISA to purs...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, Gerald Freedman, Mervyn Hutton, Peter Ridley, Michael Rushbrook, Gary Skipp, Neil Spiller, and David Vann, are employees of Texaco Marine Services, Inc. (Texaco Marine). Before working for Texaco Marine, Plaintiffs were employed by Texas Overseas Tankships LTD (Tankships) in the United Kingdom. While in the employ of Tankships, each of the Plaintiffs participated in...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION ' Plaintiffs Charlie and Hazel Murphy contend that Charlie Murphy was improperly denied medical treatment under Wal-Mart Associates’ Group Health Plan and the Prudential Health Care Plan (Plans). Plaintiffs filed this suit against the above defendants for violations of the Texas Insurance Code, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, b...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action for review of a decision to build a seventeen mile, $413 million limited access .highway, from Interstate 70 to Route 51 near Large, Pennsylvania, a point short of the major metropolitan area in the region. The immediate issues raised by this decision concern vehicle traffic. Barely below the surface and directly connected to the traffic issues, however, are ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff has alleged violations of federal and state civil rights laws in this action. Plaintiff has also asserted common law tort claims. This case is now before the court upon the motion for summary judgment of defendant City of Lakin (Doe. No. 79) and the motion for judgment on the pleadings by certain defendants (Doc. No. 145). A motion to review a Magistrate Judge’s...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this action, plaintiff alleges that her termination from employment with defendant Interstate Brands Corporation (“Interstate”) breached the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with defendant Local 218 of the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union (“Local 218”). Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant union breached its duty of fair re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This employment discrimination and breach of contract action is now before the court upon defendant’s summary judgment motion. The general guidelines for analyzing summary judgment motions were reviewed by the Tenth Circuit in Martin v. Nannie and the Newborns, Inc., 3 F.3d 1410, 1414 (10th Cir.1993): Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers t...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed by a person detained under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Petitioner, a native of Cuba, seeks relief from a final order of exclusion and deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The court has heard oral argument in this matter, and thi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a detainee held in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) challenges his continued detention. The respondents have filed an Answer and Return (Doc. 8), and petitioner has filed a traverse (Doc. 9). Having examined the record, the court...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Thomas Lennon and Eugene McGee petition this Court to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by an arbitrator pursuant to a dispute between Integrity Insurance Company, in liquidation (“Integrity”), and American Centennial Insurance Company (“ACIC”). The subpoenas were issued by the arbitrator at the request of ACIC, and direct the petitioners to appear for pre-hearing depos...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the decision of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) disapproving the proposed appointment of petitioner Phillip J. Hammond to the positions of president, chief executive officer, and member of the board of directors of First National Bank of Shawnee Mission (“First National”), in Fairway, Kansas.1 The OCC based its disapproval o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Laconia Police Department Detective David Gunter shot and killed Philip St. Hilaire while executing a search warrant. St. Hilaire’s wife, Kathy, has sued Gunter, the other officers involved in executing the warrant, and their employers. She argues that the defendants violated her husband’s Fourth Amendment rights because: the warrant authorizing the search was not support...
Views: 0
ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Carol A. Rubin’s motion to vacate the magistrate judge’s order appointing a guardian ad litem on behalf of plaintiff Rebecca Rubin. Also before the court is the guardian’s motion for protective order, to which no objection, has been filed. *214 1. Carol Rubin’s Motion to Vacate (document 161) Carol Rubin m...
Views: 1
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 1995, upon consideration of the Motion Of Plaintiff Britamco Underwriters, Inc. For Judgment On The Pleadings And To Dismiss Counterclaim and the defendants’ respective responses, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED. 1 I. BACKGROUND Britamco Underwriters, Inc. (“Britamco”), initiated this decla...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter comes before the court on the defendant’s motion, filed February 15, 1995, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure alleging there is no genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff filed its response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on March 7, 1995. The defendant did not file a reply. This matter is ready for adjudicatio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action is an appeal from the order of the United States Bankruptcy. Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Bankruptcy Rule 8001(a). The action is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by consent of the appellant and the appellee for the exercise of authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). Debtor Juvenile Shoe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER These actions are brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The matters are before the court on the Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendant United States of America (hereinafter “the Government”). The court has carefully reviewed the entire record in these matters and h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action commenced in August 1993. On September 30, 1994, The University of Colorado Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”), The University of Colorado (“University”), The Regents of the University of Colorado (“Regents”), Robert H. Allen and Paul A. Seligman (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that Defendant American Cyanamid Com...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The present action arises from the operation of a used oil refinery in Salt Lake City, Utah. The refinery was owned from 1953 by the O.C. Allen Oil Company. In 1968, the refinery was purchased by Flinco, Inc., which owned the property until it was purchased in 1978 by Steven M. Self and Steven F. Miller, by means of their company, Ekotek, Inc., a Delaware corporat...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The court has before it the Motion of Defendant for Additional Protective Order (doc. 179). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and 60(b), it seeks an order “to provide that the information produced in the pretrial discovery in this case not be disclosed to anyone outside this litigation unless and until such information is admitted into evidence and becomes part of the Court’s r...
Views: 0
OPINION This Section 2 Voting Rights Act ease is presently before the court following vacation and remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Clark v. Calhoun County, Mississippi 21 F.3d 92 (5th Cir.1994) (Clark II). In that opinion, the court concluded that remand was necessary “[bjeeause the district court’s findings regarding the geographic compactness of...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendants Patrick A. McCaslin, Kevin Donlan, Jeffery J. Theulen, John Skanes, John Swanson, and Michael Hoch’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (Filing No. 45). For the following reasons, defendants’ motion should be granted. BACKGROUND The material facts of this case are undisputed.1 On March 17,1992, at approximat...
Views: 0
OPINION In this ease, plaintiff alleges that her young son was paddled by a teacher in violation of constitutional and state law. This cause is presently before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. The issue is simple: Were the child’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural or substantive due process rights violated by the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These consolidated matters are before the Court with regard to the appropriate disposition of the two partnership properties following the failure of the Larken Interests 1 to close their purchase of those properties at a price of $39.35 million. This issue was originally presented to Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff in the form of a motion by the Pine...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This action is an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. § 158 and Bankruptcy Rules 8001(a) and 8013. The debtor-appellant and the appellee United States each consented to the exercise of authority by a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). Debtor Ronald L. Recker (appellant) appeals from the Novembe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE OHIO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING THE ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS’ AND BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Introduction This case is before the Court on (1) the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Ohio Department of Liquor Control, Michael Ak-r...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Luis Liriano (“Liriano”) sues defendant Hobart Corporation (“Hobart”) for injuries sustained while using a meat cutter manufactured by Hobart. Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(b), for leave to demand a jury trial. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion is granted. BACKGROUND Liriano commenced this personal injury action against Hobart on M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 10,1995, plaintiff Phyllis Grethe filed a complaint against defendant Trust-mark Insurance Company (“Trustmark”) seeking a mandatory injunction and declaratory relief. The complaint states that Ms. Grethe is currently undergoing treatment for life-threatening, inoperable breast cancer. Ms. Grethe seeks an order from this court mandatorily enjoining Tr...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION On December 14, 1994, plaintiffs J. Lyons & Company Ltd. and Tetley Inc. (“Lyons”) filed suit against The Republic of Tea, Inc. (“Republic”) for (1) trademark infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, (2) unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (3) common law trademar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On December 27, 1994, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on all issues raised in the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint except one: the issue of due process and defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity with respect to that issue. On April 6, 1995, the Court resolved that issue, granting summary ju...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiffs Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and its present Trustees bring this action to collect damages relating to pension plan withdrawal liability, asserting a claim pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), §§ 502(a)(3) and 4301(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3) and 1451(a)(1) against defendant.1 Before t...
Views: 1
OPINION Preliminary Statement Defendants Insurance Company of North America and CIGNA Corporation (collectively called “ICNA”) move the court to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Ernest C. Peterson for denial of a promotion in 1985 and denial of appropriate salary increases in 1985 and 1986, pursuant to Rules 12(h)(3) and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the groun...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1356 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1357 III. FINDINGS OF FACT .1358 A. Undisputed Facts.1368 B. Disputed Facts.1359 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1360 *1355 A. Age Discrimination And Reductions In Force. 1360 1. Fink...
Views: 2
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIMS *1402 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND.Í402 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1403 A. Conflict of Laws.1403 1. Characterization Of The Causes Of Action.1404 2. A True Conflict Of Laws.1404 B. Iowa’s Conflict-of-laws Rules.1405 1. The Iowa Conflict-of-laws Rules For Tort Cas...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM Non-Party Witness Linda Della Rocco has moved this Court for a protective order to preclude the second day of her deposition. She also seeks, presumably in the alternative, to ensure that only one attorney be permitted to take her deposition, as well as an order that Defendants must pay the costs she incurs pursuant to the second day of the deposition, and her costs in filing this moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve yet another discovery dispute in this litigation; this one a Motion of Plaintiff, Maia Caplan, for a Protective Order to keep her from “having to undergo additional days of deposition in this case, after defendants concluded their deposition of her on the fourth day having asked all of the questions they then had.” Motion at 1. Ms. Caplan is represented by William H. E...
Views: 2
885 F. Supp. 1079 (1995) Betty KUTSCHBACH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Colonel Warren DAVIES, et al., Defendants. No. C2-93-1032. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 31, 1995. *1080 *1081 *1082 *1083 Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, for plaintiffs. Ohio Attorney General, for defendants. OPINION and ORDER BECKWITH, District Judge. Plaintiff Betty Kutschbach challenges cer...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Gloria Z. Abeja-Ortiz (“Ortiz”), filed suit alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation against defendant Henry G. Cisneros (“Cisneros”), Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The defendant has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs first amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). .For the reasons set ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a French manufacturer of ladies’ footwear, claims that defendants, a Brazilian footwear manufacturer and its U.S. distributor, have violated their rights under the Lan-ham Act, among other legal doctrines, by imitating the trade dress of plaintiffs so-called P-sole shoes. The matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions in limine. Defendants s...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs Susan and Edward Wyant have moved to amend their complaint, pursu *921 ant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 20, to add an additional defendant, Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. (“Nelson Maintenance”). Because the joinder of Nelson Maintenance would destroy diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs also have moved to remand the ease to ...
Views: 2
Upon review and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrates (D.Conn.1995), this recommended ruling is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the ruling of this court over Plaintiffs objection. It is so ordered. RECOMMENDED RULING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION MARTINEZ, United States Magistrate Judge. Rona Finizie, a pro se...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER TRIAL (Amended May 18, 1995) Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), is an agency of the United States charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). At all times material to thi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Gary Kipp brings this action individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Cheryl D. Kipp, deceased, and alleges negligence by the defendant, the United States of America, concerning Cheryl Kipp. In this “Memorandum and Order,” Gary Kipp is designated “Kipp,” and the defendant is designated “United States” or the “government.” According to the “Order on...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THE COURT This case presents an action by an applicant for admission to the State Bar of Michigan. The complaint contains three claims and seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages. The Court has denied plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. *302 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kenneth A. McCready is a law school grad...
Views: 4
ORDER Before the court is the motion of defendant City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (“the City”) to modify the court’s order of 3 March 1992. Plaintiffs and intervenor Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) filed responses in opposition to this motion, and the Commonwealth of Virginia filed an amicus curiae brief. The City subsequently replied. The issues have been fully briefed, and the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Before the Court is Plaintiff Karl G. Granse’s Complaint to Enjoin Collection or Seizure. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has made a jeopardy assessment 1 against Plaintiff pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6861(a) 2 in the amount of $86,621.00, and levied upon certain property owned by the plaintiff. Both parties have submit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 8, 1994, the United States filed a verified Complaint for Forfeiture. On November 25, 1994, this action was referred to the Honorable Jerry D. Hogg, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of his proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pending a...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER Now before the Court is plaintiff Inx International Ink Co. Inc.’s (“Inx”) 1 motion for leave to amend its complaint. For the following reasons, this motion will be granted, except to the extent that it seeks to add claims under section 6972(a)(1)(A) of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”). I. BACKGROUND The full factual backg...
Views: 3
OPINION This is an interpleader action brought by plaintiff, First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A. (“FIOR”), to resolve competing claims to $28,179.91 (the “disputed funds”) held by FIOR in a checking account. FIOR alleges that it is a disinterested stakeholder, and that it may be exposed to multiple liability and vexatious litigation unless it is allowed to interplead the disputed funds ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The subjects of this Memorandum Opinion and Order are defendants’/third-party plaintiffs’ (“Blystras’ ”) October 6,1994 motion for summary judgment and plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State *584 Farm’s”) October 24, 1994 cross-motion for summary judgment, and third-party defendant Farmers Insurance Company’s (“Farmers’ ”) January 27, 1995 m...
Views: 0
*75 ORDER THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: The defendant, Besser Company, has filed a motion for summary judgment based on 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536, a Pennsylvania statute of repose prohibiting suits for injuries inflicted by an improvement to real property more than twelve years after construction of the improvement. The plaintiffs, Domingo Cin-tron (Cintron), and his wife, Theda Cintron, f...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO ACCOMPLISH SERVICE OF PROCESS I. Introduction Defendant City of Sunnyvale (the “City”) has moved to dismiss the above-captioned action in its entirety, as against all defendants, and with prejudice, for failure to timely accomplish service of process. Because plaintiffs have substantially complied with the federal rule governing service of...
Views: 0
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on the plaintiffs complaint, on the defendant’s answer and on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and supporting materials. Whereupon the Court, having read and examined such pleadings and motion, and being duly advised, now makes its ruling: Introduction Plaintiff is the United States...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is a wrongful termination action arising out of the discharge of plaintiff Robin Turner from her position as a cashier and sales clerk at defendant Imperial Stores. In her complaint, Turner alleges a number of causes of action against defendants Imperial Stores and Christopher B. Wardrup, and requests damages on various grounds, including compensatory dama...
Views: 9
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Filing No. 24). After careful consideration of the briefs, the exhibits and the applicable law, the Court finds that defendant’s motion should be granted. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of its obligations under its insurance policy issued to defendant Walters in relation to defendant Jacobs’ lawsuit against her. Plaintiff and Jacobs have moved for summary judgment. Bankruptcy proceedings resulted in dismissal of the case as to Walters. Background Movants are not in dispute as to the ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FACTS On September 13, 1994, Petitioners Melville K. Turner and Letitia Y. Turner (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to quash six Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses served on three financial institutions seeking financial information about petitioners. The summonses were issued on August 16, 1994, by an IRS employee using the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Presently before the court are numerous motions filed by both parties, as outlined below. Papers in opposition were filed, except as noted. Oral arguments by the parties were heard by the court on March 20, 1995. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this diversity action alleging that plaintiff Thomas Bellinger was injured while using a corn picker m...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) alleging that defendants conspired to and did falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute them because of their race and their faith, in violation of their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek damages of $60 mil...
Views: 0
SCHEDULING ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECT OF SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT I. INTRODUCTION This case raises the issue of whether the filing of a superseding indictment affects the time for bringing the case to trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. (“the Act”). On March 8, 1995, the Court conducted a Trial Setting Conference in this case. The Court f...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the federal RICO statute, the New Jersey Racketeering statute, violations of various fiduciary duties, fraud, breach of contract, and are also seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Presently before the Court are defendants Arum, Top Rank, Inc. (“Top Rank”), Lee, International Boxing ...
Views: 1
OPINION I. Introduction and Procedural History Plaintiffs, Kirk and Margie Stewart, filed a complaint on July 7, 1993, (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 1), and an amended complaint, (D.I. 4), on July 13, 1993 alleging that the defendant, Walbridge, Aldinger Company (“Wal-bridge”) injured Mr. Stewart on Monday, June 10, 1991 by negligently stacking construction materials which, as a result, fell on him. Th...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court are numerous motions filed by both parties, including Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and Defendants’ Motion for Early Consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Forum Non Conveniens and Motion to Dismiss for Want of Personal Jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that it lacks removal jurisdiction over the subject...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 504 (Triton College), Jenni Golembeski, Mark R. Stephens, Merrill Becker and James Durkin have moved to dismiss Count IV of plaintiff Michael J. Bakalis’ amended complaint. That count charges that the individual defendants, who at the time of the events complained of, constituted a majority of the Board o...
Views: 0
*407 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In this action, plaintiffs have alleged that defendant New York City police officers and New York City Housing Authority officers are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for, inter alia, false arrest, illegal searches, an improper show-up and excessive force 1 in connection with their response to a shooting on Fe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This diversity case has been brought before the Court by motion of the defendant, Addco, which seeks dismissal of Counts III, IV and VI of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Further, Addco seeks the dismissal of both Count V to the extent it contains a claim for negligent misrepresentation and Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages. For th...
Views: 2
881 F. Supp. 673 (1995) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. BANKERS ALLIANCE CORP., Carpe Diem International, Inc., Lee Financial Group, Ltd., L.F.S. Lee Financial Services, B.A. Holding Co., Roy Lee, Steven Higley, Terry Plack, Wayne Wakefield, Michael Saliba, Allan Nash, Michael Daily and John Finegan, Defendants. No. 95-0428. United States District Court, District of Columbia. Ap...
Views: 2
ORDER This ease arises out of wrongful sexual contacts between children. The issue before the Court is whether the injuries claimed by the minor child and her mother are covered by insurance. This matter is before the Court on multiple motions. Plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), seeks summary declaratory judgment, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on three motions filed by defendants Harvard Community Health Plan of New England, Inc. (“HCHP-NE”) and Leon G. Danish, D.D.S. (“Danish”). First, defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs claim for compensatory and punitive damages and expert witness fees under the 1991 amendments to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Tit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Eddie Bauer, Inc. and its insurer Industrial Risk Insurers (together, “Eddie Bauer”), bring this three count damages action against defendants Focus Transportation *1176 Services d/b/a Baker Motor Express, Inc. (“Baker Motor”) (Count I), Central Ohio Shippers, Coordinate Corporation (“Central Ohio”) (Count II), and Gully Transportat...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Renee Wasserman brings this action against defendants Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (the “Secretary”), Commissioner of the New York State Department' of Social Services (the “New York Commissioner”), and Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services (the “Nassau County Com: missioner”) for declaratory and inju...
Views: 2
ORDER The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this § 1983 action on January 26, 1995. After a careful de novo review of the record in this case, the Court finds that it- must reject the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions and grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I This suit concerns an injury to Plaintiffs ankle at the Coastal Correctional Institution on or about Novembe...
Views: 0
ORDER Now before the Court is a motion by Defendant Compagnie Generale Maritime (“CGM”) for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. For reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. The purpose of summary judgment is to explore the evidence and determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial. Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for loss of cargo consisting of components from an industrial Airknife machine, unloaded and stored by Defendants at the Port of Savannah in May, 1993. Both Defendants now move for partial summary judgment. For reasons stated below the Court DENIES the motion of Defendant Georgia Ports Authority (“GPA”) and GRANTS the motion of Defendant Atlantic Contain...
Views: 1
ORDER The Browns filed this appeal from an order of Chief Judge Lamar Davis of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court now grants. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8007, the Record on Appeal was docketed with this Court on November 10, 1994, obligating Appellants to file their brief within fifteen days. Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1). Appellants filed...
Views: 0
*280 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the final determination-of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that denied plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Both plaintiff and the Secretary have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fe...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court for resolution is the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed by Anant Kumar Tripati, and the Court after considering the same, has concluded that it should be granted. INTRODUCTION Anant Kumar Tripati (“Tripati”) is a creditor in Bankruptcy Case No. 95-40059-S in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Texas. On February 2, 1995, Tripati att...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, Attorney Narda Cisco Offutt (hereinafter “Mrs. Offutt”), on her own behalf Pro Se and on behalf of her minor child, Kristine J. Offutt (hereinafter “Kristine”), filed the instant action in July 1994, alleging that defendants, the Honorable Judge Jordan Kaplan (hereinafter “Judge Kaplan”), who formerly presided in custody...
Views: 4
Defendants Concordia Custom Yachts, Inc. (“Concordia Custom”) and Burlington Industries, Inc. (“Burlington”) assert that they are improper parties and move for summary judgment on the causes of action asserted against them by the plaintiff and on the cross-claims asserted against them by co-defendants. All defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiffs strict liability and negligence causes...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Presenting Rule 12 Defenses and Objections and Brief in Support (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed April 8, 1994; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Response”), filed April 22, 1994; and Defendants’ Reply (“Reply”), filed June 29, 1994. Also before the Court is Defendants’ Brief o...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This case presents the issue of whether amending a complaint to change the defendant revives the plaintiffs right to a jury trial. The matter stems from an untimely jury demand by the plaintiff. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that plaintiff has waived her right to a jury. Furthermore, her request that the Court exercise its discretion t...
Views: 0
ORDER RELEVANT FACTS On May 1, 1991 the Plaintiff, Timothy Wayne Perry (“Perry” or the “Plaintiff’) was seriously burned while performing certain work on an A-6E aircraft that was owned, operated and maintained by the United States Department of the Navy. Although an employee of the Boeing Corporation (“Boeing”), Perry was working at the Naval Air Station, Oceana, which is located in Virginia Be...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss this action for improper venue under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In the alternative defendant requests that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendant removed this action from state court on...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me is a motion in limine by plaintiff Richard Hodges (“Hodges”), requesting that I exclude from evidence at trial his past mental health records and expert testimony by psychiatrist Dr. Richard Ciecone. Defendants seek to introduce this evidence to impeach Hodges’ credibility. The mental health records proffered by defendants are comprise...
Views: 1
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS Defendants move for reconsideration of the ruling on plaintiffs’ motion in limine dated January 14,1994, to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, and to alter or amend the class certification to exclude from the class persons who were voluntarily placed in state mental hospitals. Background In this action, plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants’ pract...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Mark A. Philips, a machinist’s mate second class in the United States Navy, has sued for an injunction to prevent his discharge from the service. The defendants are the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the -Commanding Officer of the Transient Personnel Unit, Puget Sound. Both sides have moved for summary judgm...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before this Court today is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the alternative, Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to file a more definite statement of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). This litigatio...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM American Media Operations, Inc. has moved to dismiss this libel complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, because it contends this action is time barred under the Uniform Single Publication Act, codified at 42 Pa.Con. StatAnn. § 8341. Because the parties have supplemented their briefs with affidavits and a deposition transcript, we ...
Views: 0
ORDER The Plaintiffs Pagan, Hernandez and Colon, citizens of the United States, claim that their constitutional rights are being violated by the lack of prison programs at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley, by the limited number of Latinos on the staff of the correction system, and by the lack of medical attention and counseling for individuals who are HIV-positive at Shir...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM These cases are before the Court on the motion of the Government of the Virgin Islands' ("Government") to dismiss the arbitrator's award and the arbitration proceeding on which it was based for lack of jurisdiction. Although the Trustees of the Long Bay Trust ("Trustees") have requested oral argument, the Court finds that the issue may be resolved on the briefs. The Government's motion ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on appeal from the final judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama on December 14,1994, in favor of Joe M. Harper. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. 1 After independently reviewing the record, the briefs, and the documents submitted by the parties, this court fin...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) suit. The Court holds that the Government’s failure to follow its own mandatory policies requiring notification to the Uni...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL On October 17, 1994, the Court heard defendants Chris Caras’ and James Rickell’s motion for partial dismissal of plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. After fully considering the moving, opposition, and reply papers, exhibits submitted in connection with the request to take judicial notice, authorities, and ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to remand to the District Court of *1002 Harris County, Texas, this action for breach of contract and for tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations. In support of this motion, plaintiff observes that the asserted basis for removal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship, does not exist ...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Modify or Vacate Judgment. On September 13, 1995, Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson issued a Report and Recommendation on the Motion. Magistrate Judge Johnson treated the Motion as a Fed.R.Civ.P 59(e) motion, and this Court will do likewise. The Report recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. Bot...
Views: 0
FINAL ORDER OF REMAND This cause has come before the court upon the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand Case, and to Require Payment of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. The Motion has been fully briefed. Section 1446(a), Title 28 of the United States Code requires a party seeking removal to file a notice of removal listing all grounds which support the federal court’s jurisdiction. The ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING STAY PENDING APPEAL The United States of America, on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), seeks a stay pending appeal of a bankruptcy court order confirming the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. At a March 24 hearing on the matter, the Court denied the United States’ motion for a discretionary stay, and...
Views: 0
ORDER This case causes the Court to revisit Florida’s evolving economic loss rule. *712 I. Factual Background Sfc Valve Corporation (“Sfc”) is a government contractor that supplies the United States Navy with high-pressure, high-temperature valves for use in submarines. Sfc got into the valve business in May 1986, when it purchased the assets of the bankrupt Southern Fl...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s December 8, 1994, Motion for a Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), Hearing and Motion to Suppress. On December 27, 1994, the Government filed its Response, and on January 5, 1995, the Defendant filed his Reply. The court held a hearing on January 9, 1995, to pursue the appropriateness of a Franks hearing, af...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Exclude Anticipated Testimony, of James Gri-nolds. Ford filed the motion on January 24, 1995; plaintiffs responded on February 28, 1995; and Ford replied on March 10, 1995. The court held a Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) hearing on March 17,1995, and thereafter took the matter under advisement. For the ...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Robert Cooper, moved this Court for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 28, 1994, this Court denied the motion from the bench and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction. Upon reconsideration, however, this Court hereby finds that it does have jurisdiction over this matte...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff has brought a Motion for Reconsideration and Reargument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Rule 3(j) of the Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs Motion is hereby denied. BACKGROUND The facts of this ease are set forth in this Court’s Memorandum and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves a consumer credit transaction governed by the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”),1 and implementing Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. part 226.2 Plaintiff, Carolyn Jefferson, seeks certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23. For the reasons which follow, plaintiffs motion is denied. BACKGROUND Courts are instruct...
Views: 1
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART BANKRUPTCY COURT’S MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT BEFORE THIS COURT are two appeals filed by the United States of America (“United States”) which pertain to a Memorandum Opinion, dated December 20, 1993, and its corresponding Final Judgment dated January 24, 1994, entered by visiting United States Bankruptcy Judge Basil H. Coutra-ko...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joseph K. Bagdonas (“Bagdonas”) alleges that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied federal firearms disabilities relief to Bagdonas. Currently before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Bagdonas’ motion for summary jud...
Views: 2
ORDER ON RULE 11 SANCTIONS This cause is before this Court on Defendant’s motion to impose sanctions on pro se Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. (Docket No 36). Plaintiffs have not timely filed a memorandum in response. The Plaintiffs have, however, filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order of February 21, 1995, which granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. STANDARD OF REVIEW...
Views: 1
ORDER On December 21, 1994, the Court heard arguments on George Thomas Franklin’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the papers submitted, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court GRANTS Franklin’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. *1438 I. INTRODUCTION On September 22, 1969, eight-year-old Susan Naso...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS I. Background This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment.1 This controversy arises from the. levying of a/1 valorem, property taxes by the defendants upon lands owned by individual members of the plaintiff Tribe or collectively by the Tribe itself.2 On February 10, 1988, the plaintiffs paid ...
Views: 1
*35 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the Fifth and Seventh affirmative defenses raised by the defendant in its answer. The defendant has cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The motions were submitted to the court without oral argument. II. FACTS. [1] The defendant is the owner and operator of an automobile rac...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEATH PENALTY CASE I Petitioner James Richard Odie is a prisoner of the State of California, in state custody under sentence of death. He first sought habeas relief in this court in 1988. After briefing, argument and review of the state-court record and the applicable legal authorities, the court denied the seven claims in his original petition. Se...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiffs Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York (the “District Council”), James Lupo, former president of the District Council (“Lupo”) and the members of the Executive Board of the District Council, have moved by order to show cause for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65, Fed. R.Civ.P., preventing defendant Laborers’ International Union of North Americ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Food City, Inc. (“Food City”), brought this action pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2023 seeking judicial review of a decision by the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (“FNS”) permanently disqualifying Food City from participation in the federal food stamp program. Currently before the Court is Food City’s motion pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Timothy Flake (“Flake”) claims that defendant illegally fired him because of his age and has brought suit under the relevant provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Cal.Gov’t Code section 12941 et seq. Defendant Medline Industries (“Medline”) seeks to dismiss the action for improper venue. The case turns on a forum selection clause in the parties’ contrac...
Views: 1
FINAL JUDGMENT HABEAS CORPUS For the reasons stated in the report and supplemental report of the Magistrate Judge, and upon independent review of the file, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. This petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 2. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are denied, as moot. DONE AND ORDERED. *703 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE SORRENTINO, Un...
Views: 0
ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an employment discrimination suit in which Plaintiff Jessie Mae Williams (“Williams”) alleges that Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (‘Wal-Mart”) and Rick Quinely (“Quinley”) have engaged in discriminatory behavior against her based on gender and race. Before the Court now is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court fin...
Views: 0
*1275 OPINION AND ORDER This is a diversity action arising from the 1988 division of a family owned business and a subsequent tax assessment by the State of California against members of one side of the family based on capital assets they received in the breakup. As the parties against whom the tax was assessed, plaintiffs seek reimbursement for all or part of this liability from...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to reconsider its Order of February 7,1995 which disqualified the plaintiff's counsel, the firm of Birch, dejongh, Flindels, & Hall, from further representation of the plaintiff in the course of this litigation. Since plaintiff's arguments merely rehash those proffered in its opposition to defendant's original motion to disqu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT SECRETARY REICH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#U) I. THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT CLAIMS In Counts One and Two of his complaint, the plaintiff Charles M. Edgar (“Edgar”) has stated claims against Secretary of Labor Robert Reich1 for violations of the Fan-Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (1994). The DOL has moved for summary judgment alleg...
Views: 1
*1219 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, the United States has filed suit under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to recover costs incurred and to be incurred in responding to the release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the Davis Liquid Waste Site in Smithfield, Rhode Island. For the convenien...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on the' Resolution Trust Corporation’s (“RTC”) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 235). The RTC initially filed a motion for partial summary judgment November 30, 1993, in which it argued plaintiffs’ post-con-servatorship compensation and severance pay claims must fail because plaintiffs were term...
Views: 0
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT This action came before the Court on April 4, 1995 for consideration of Plaintiffs objection to the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated February 27, 1995 recommending that the motion of the Brown University defendants, seeking partial summary judgment and the dismissal of the pendent state law claims be granted. Upon considera...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF DEBTORS’ OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM This matter is before the court on debtors and appellants Michael J.D. Smith’s (“Mr. Smith”) and Sandra Rose Smith’s (collectively “Debtors”) appeal of an order entered by the Honorable Glen E. Clark, Chief United States Bankruptcy Court Judge, on September 12, 1994, denying debtors’ objection to a proo...
Views: 1
CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER As ruled from the bench on March 27, 1995, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion filed on March 23, 1995 to find defendant in violation of this Court’s permanent injunction filed on March 21, 1995 and therefore in contempt of this Court. I. Procedural History On January 6, 1995, plaintiffs filed: (1) a complaint to enjoin defendant from violating the Freed...
Views: 3
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before me is Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the minute order entered on February 22, 1995, granting Defendant Rockwell International Corporation’s motion to compel production of documents from Plaintiffs. I deny the motion. Rockwell’s motion to compel was dated and served February 16,1995. Plaintiffs had not filed a response when I issued the m...
Views: 0
*944 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant, Albertson’s, Inc. (Albertson’s), filed a motion for partial summary judgment and to strike or deny jury demand. The motion is adequately briefed and oral argument was held on April 10, 1995. Plaintiff, Ruth Ann Mullaney (Mullaney), has elected the legal remedy of damages for breach of contract rather than the equitable claim of specifi...
Views: 0
REVISED MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Gregory W. Edmonds (“Ed-monds”), has been employed as an engineer by defendant, Norfolk and Western Railway Company (“N & W”), for approximately seven years. On August 1, 1994, while operating Engine No. 6503 in Iaeger, McDowell County, West Virginia, Edmonds slipped and fell, sustaining injuries that required him to miss 112 days of work. Two or three week...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and MassMutual Corporate Investors (hereinafter “MassMutual”) loaned the defendant, Ariteeh Corporation, $10 million dollars under an arrangement referred to in the insurance industry as a private placement investment transaction. The sole issue in this case is whether...
Views: 1
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This cause is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 10), Defendant’s Memorandum in Support and Plaintiffs’ Response (Docket Nos. 11 and 24), and Defendant’s Motion for Oral Argument on Its Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 27). I. HISTORY On July ...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant, Bill Currie Ford, Inc. (Docket No. 31) and Plaintiffs response thereto (Docket No. 38). BACKGROUND For purposes of this Order, the background of this case is adopted from the previous Order issued by this Court on Defendant’s Motion t...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff Benny Frank Nettles sues Carl R. Griffith, Jr., Sheriff of Jefferson County, Texas, and Jeanne Simon, an official of the Jefferson County Detention Center, in their individual and official capacities, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts claims for denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and for failure to protect under the Eighth...
Views: 0
*1038 ORDER This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 1), and Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8). PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 17, 1983, the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas Coúnty, Florida, filed an indictment against Petitioner, Michael Irwin. The indictment charged Petitioner with a sex...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ City of Clearwater, Detective Cronin and Detective Frank Daly’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 12, 1994 (Docket No. 67) and response thereto filed by pro se Plaintiff David Pontier on February 17, 1995 (Docket No. 85). 1 *1567 STANDARD OF REVI...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY AND RHÓNE-POU-LENC MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Introduction Defendants Eli Lilly & Company, Mont-rose Chemical Corporation of California, PureGro Company, Hercules, Inc., Miles, Inc., and Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals (collectively “Certain Defendants”) move ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Pro se Plaintiff, Darnell Williams, has brought suit against Defendant, Edward Sweeney, who is the Warden of Lehigh County Prison. At the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was an inmate of Lehigh County Prison, although he is currently incarcerated in Graterford State Prison. On January 15, 1994, while in the prison’s General Population, Plaintiff allegedly expected a parti...
Views: 0
AMENDED DECISION, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONING SUPPORTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BASED ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (To Make Minor Changes) INTRODUCTION The United States and the State of California (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit through a second amended complaint on August 16, 1991 for violations under th...
Views: 1
*1116OPINION This case presents a challenge to the administrative decision of the United States Army, the National Guard Bureau, and the Michigan Department of Military Affairs (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “agency” or “defendants”) to construct a Multi-Purpose Range Complex-Heavy-Reduced (“MPRC”) at the Camp Grayling Army National Guard Training Facility. The specific legal basis ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE Defendant' Randall Hudack pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The court sentenced defendant and ordered him to pay restitution of $29,416.26. Before the court is defendant’s motion to vacate this court’s restitution order. I. Facts On April 22,1993, a grand jury returned a thirty-tw...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ PRETRIAL MOTIONS Plaintiff John Comenos is suing defendant Viacom International, Inc. for breach of an employment contract. Just prior to the commencement of trial in this matter, defendant filed nine pre-trial motions and plaintiff filed a renewed motion in limine. A hearing was held on these motions on March 31, 1995. I. Background Plaintiff...
Views: 0
ORDER AND JUDGMENT Before the Court is an appeal from an Order of the Bankruptcy Court granting summary judgment to Defendant John Greenway. Plaintiffs/Appellants filed their brief on September 9, 1994 and Defen-danVAppellee filed his brief on September 26, 1994. After reviewing the arguments of counsel and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the Bankruptcy Court’s ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE Defendant David Webb pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and one count of manufacturing counterfeit U.S. currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. The court sentenced defendant and ordered him to pay resti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action arises out of a June 18, 1991 accident in which plaintiffs’ decedents, Ty Jay Stephens and Glenn L. Kelly, and plaintiffs legal charge, Cordell Rogers, (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) were poisoned by carbon monoxide fumes as they slept in a motor home at a rest area on US 131 in Montcalm, Michigan. The complaint...
Views: 0
ORDER In this civil action, plaintiff Cheryl Tsetseranos asserts that her employment was terminated by Tech Prototype, Inc., because of her pregnancy and related medical conditions, in violation of section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k); Title I of the Americans with Disabili...
Views: 0
PERMANENT INJUNCTION The Court grants plaintiffs’ application filed on January 6, 1995 for permanent injunction to enjoin defendant from violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (“FACE”), Pub.L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694 (1994) (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248), which was signed by President Clinton on May 26, 1994. I. Procedural History On January ...
Views: 0
ORDER TO REMAND Plaintiff Thomas E. Lengyel (“Lengyel”) claims he was unlawfully terminated from his position as a social work supervisor for She-boygan County, Wisconsin. On September 9, 1994, he commenced a suit in the Circuit Court for Sheboygan County. On September 26, 1994, defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that plaintiffs state court suit contained causes of action b...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, William A. Neilson, for summary judgment (# 38) and the cross-motion of the defendant, Mary Elaine Beck, for summary judgment (# 45). UNDISPUTED FACTS In 1987, William A. Neilson and Mary Elaine Beck were co-petitioners in an action to dissolve their marriage. Pursuant to the decree of dissolution, Neilson agreed to hold Beck har...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Leila M. Meyerson’s Motion, filed July 15, 1994, for entry of summary judgment. Defendants David Meyerson, Stuart Meyerson and Kenneth Lindlau jointly filed their motions for summary judgment on July 21, 1994. Plaintiff filed a response to the summary judgment motions on August 12, 1994. A separate reply memorandum from each of the De...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action to ascertain the value of the plaintiffs shares of stock in a corporation know as Woloohojian Realty Corporation. Plaintiff is an owner of one third of the stock of the corporation. Plaintiff initially brought this action to compel a liquidation of the corporation. Substantially all of the corporation’s assets were real estate interests. Under the provisions of ...
Views: 0
Report and recommendation accepted. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: DEFENDANT UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET ENTRY # 23); PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET ENTRY #13) Pending before this court are cross motions for summary judgment in the above styled action to recover federal estate taxes. Defendant United States of America (“defendant”...
Views: 2
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” [Document # 5], filed September 19, 1994, and the Plaintiffs “Motion To Strike, Alternative Motion For Leave To File Surreply Memorandum And Affidavits; Motion To Allow Discovery” [Document #20], filed December 1, 1994. Motion to Strike On September 19, 1994, the Defendant file...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER (JURISDICTION) The plaintiffs bring this Declaratory Judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They seek a declaration of the parties’ rights and duties under a Limited Partnership Agreement (“Agreement”), the Tosté Farm Limited Partnership, effective November 4, 1991. The defendants deny that the ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff (“York”) asserts that he had an oral contract with the defendants to sell poultry products in eastern North Carolina, and that the defendants breached that contract. He further alleges that the defendants committed fraud in that they never intended to abide by the terms of the contract. York seeks ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant, Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (“Consumers Union”). Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c), Consumers Union seeks summary judgment in its favor on each of the four counts contained in the Complaint filed in this action by plaintiff, Quantum Electronics Corporation (“Quantum”). Qu...
Views: 7
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFENDANT came before the Court on March 15, 1995, based upon his motion to vacate his sentence. He was represented by Ms. Beth Bollinger; the government by Assistant United States Attorney Joseph H. Harrington. BACKGROUND On March 16, 1994, the defendant, his brother, and a friend robbed a bank in Bea-verton, Oregon. The three young men got *977 away wi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER & OPINION I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 7, 1915 the luxury liner RMS LUSITANIA (“Lusitania”) was struck by a single torpedo fired by a U-Boat of the German Imperial Navy. She sank in less than 18 minutes, settling about 12 miles off the coast of Ireland. The Plaintiff, F. Gregg Bemis, Jr. (“Bemis”), filed a Verified Complaint agai...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case involves a claim for libel allegedly arising from the publication of the book Profits of War. Plaintiff now moves for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Mohammed Radi Abdullah (“Ab-dullah”), a retired colonel of the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action, brought pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10, seeks an order vacating an award rendered by an arbitration panel of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint (styled in the parlance of the FAA a “motion to vacate the arbitration award”) was filed August 3, 1994 within minutes of the filing, in Superior Cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the court upon an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “bankruptcy court”) granting appellee debtor Buckhead America Corporation’s motion to dismiss appellant creditor’s claim for creditor Glenstone Lodge, Inc.’s failure timely to respond to debtor’s motion to assume and assign. I. JURISDICTION ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER In this action, Plaintiff Rudecindo Camine-ro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, challenges the constitutionality of Section 251 of the New York Family Court Act (“Section 251”), both on its face and as applied.1 Currently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs objections to the June 30, 1994, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Buchwald (“Repo...
Views: 2
*1387 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joseph R. Mirto, D.C.P.C., brings this action against defendant Amalgamated Retail Insurance Fund to recover benefits under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For reasons more fully explained below, the motion is denied. BACK...
Views: 1
OPINION DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Sergio de la Cruz, a caseworker for the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York (HRA), commenced this Title VII and Section 1983 action alleging that a supervisor’s criticism, marginal rating of his communication skills, and a transfer to another unit without any loss of pay or benefits, constitute anti-Hispanie...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-styled action is before the court on appeal from the August 9, 1993, final decree of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The bankruptcy court found that Lynne E. MacElvain (hereinafter “MacElvain” or “the Debtor-Appellant”) filed her Chapter 11 plan of reorganization in bad faith and dismissed her plan of reorganization. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending in this closed case is a dispute among Betty Ann Jenkins, her court-appointed lawyer, W. Robert Hamlin, and strangers to this litigation. The dispute involves a portion of Plaintiff’s recovery claimed and retained by Mr. Hamlin’s employer, the law firm of Wood Grimm & Delp. 1 To resolve the issue the Court held an evidentiary and took te...
Views: 1
Defendants Hilton Hotels Corporation and Hilton Waldorf-Astoria Corporation (“Hilton-Waldorf”) move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) on all of plaintiff’s claims. For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion is denied in all respects. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gisela Moog (“Moog”) is a German citizen who stayed at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York City from November 29 to De...
Views: 0
883 F.Supp. 435 (1995) Donna J. FERRY, Plaintiff, v. ROOSEVELT BANK, Defendant. No. 4:94CV00139 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. April 17, 1995. *436 Althea P. Johns, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff. Gregory F. Hoffmann, Millar and Schaefer, St. Louis, MO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GUNN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendant's moti...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the motion of Co-Defendant and Cross-Defendant R.E. Ripberger Builders, Inc. (“Ripber-ger”), for summary judgment on all claims of Plaintiff J.R. Lazaro Builders, Inc. (“Lazaro”), and Cross-Claimant Greg Maddox. Also before the Court is the motion of Co-Defendant and Cross-Claimant Greg Maddox (“Maddox”) for leave to join in Ripber-ger’s...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs and defendants each move for summary judgment against plaintiff-interve-nor Jeffrey Sado. 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). The non-moving party “cannot escape summary judgment merely by vaguely asserting the exi...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Ruth E. Johnson. The motion is opposed by the defendants, Gregory M. Eaton and Kay White. 1 Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff alleged that t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT JAVIER’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendants Elvin Javier (“Javier”) and Jorge Santiago (“Santiago”) are charged with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base). Both defendants filed motions to suppress evidence seized during a search of their apartment at 100 Mark Lane, Apartment D-8, W...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE This matter is before the court on the motion of United National Insurance Company, Diamond State Insurance Company and Hallmark Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively, “UNG”), for withdrawal of the reference to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). For the reasons stated below, UNG’s motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND On Jun...
Views: 1
Defendant Joseph J. O’Hara moves to dismiss the claims against him in this cause of action for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, O’Hara’s motion to dismiss is denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael Mielke is President of Plaintiff Health Management Professionals, Inc. (“HMPI”). Defendant Joseph J. O’Hara, a New York resident, is President and a shareholder ...
Views: 1
ENTRY Bindley Western Industries, Inc. (“Bind-ley”) appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Confirming Plan (“Confirmation Order”) entered on December 10, 1993, in which the Bankruptcy Court held that Bindley was not entitled to an administrative expense claim because the liens held by the Banks and Acadia had priority over Bindley’s reclamation claim. Because the Court finds that any admini...
Views: 4
ENTRY This appeal arises out of the objection of Forum Group, Inc. (“Forum”) to the claims of five former executive officers (collectively, “the Executives” or “the Claimants”) for damages resulting from the rejection of their pre-petition Termination Benefits Agreements (“TBA’s”). The Bankruptcy Court allowed the claims. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. I. FACTUAL BACKGR...
Views: 0
CONSOLIDATED ENTRY These two cases involve claims based upon the deaths of two patients at Central State Hospital. Currently before the Court are various defense motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied. I. Background June Christy Highsaw was admitted to Central State Hospital (“CSH”) in July, 1970, as a result of a voluntary admission a...
Views: 1
This matter is currently before the court on Reynolds Metals Company’s (“Reynolds”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and this court’s Order of January 5, 1995, directing the briefing of specific issues raised by the court. For the reasons set forth below, we grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael McCarty is employed by Reynolds as a ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the appeal of Debtor-Appellant Robert E. Black, Jr., of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order of December 21, 1993, dismissing his chapter 13 Case. For the reasons stated below, Black’s appeal is denied. Black filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy in 1992. A payment plan was submitted and confirmed. However, Black defaulted on the chapter 13 plan when he f...
Views: 0
*790 MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc., for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gale Prizevoits was terminated by Defendant Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc. (“Bell”) on or about November 9, 1992. At the time of her termination, Pr...
Views: 0
*783ENTRY Defendants Paul 0. Cody, Mary Zimmerman and Emory Garthoff (collectively, “Defendants”) move to dismiss this cause of action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The Court, having considered the motions, affidavits, and supporting and opposing briefs, grants Defendants’ motions. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 26,1991, defendants Paul 0. Cody, Harold Zimmer...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The United States assessed a “100% penalty” of $14,270.90 against plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants pursuant to Section 6672 of the IRS Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. § 6672, for failure to pay employment withholding taxes. In this action, plaintiffs, Jim Keller and Ron Keller, seek a refund of monies they have paid pursuant to that penalty. Plaintiffs also seek an abatement of ...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendants Irizarry and Lafferty have filed a motion for summary judgment in this § 1983 action, and plaintiff has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Defendant Chimon has not been served with process and has not answered or otherwise appeared. In a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) dated July 27, 1994, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that plaintiffs cross-motion be deni...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Susan Baba, proceeding pro se, brings this suit under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., against plaintiffs former employer, Warren Management Consultants (“WMC”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the New York State Division of Human Rights (“DHR”). *341 The EEOC and the DHR move to di...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant United States of America brings its Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. The Court also has before it the Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Mary Evans. 1 Having considered these mo *125 tions as well as the supporting and op...
Views: 0
ENTRY This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ counsels’ petition for attorneys fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The parties do not disagree as to plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees as the prevailing party on the post-' judgment contempt petition initiative, apparently recognizing for these purposes at least that plaintiffs did in fact attain the objectives in their litigation. Cady v....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On September 30, 1993 the Court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its favor on the third claim for relief in the complaint, in the amount of $252,202.44 against the defendants Gene Farber and Henry Grausz (the “defendants”). See Tucker Leasing Capital Corp. v. Marin Medical Management, Inc., 833 F.Supp. 948 (E.D.N.Y.1993). In relevant part, the Court’s ord...
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION This cause is before the Court on the Relator’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs filed August 16,1994, (Doc. # 206) and Motion for Percentage of False Claims Settlement filed September 1,1994 (Doc. # 210). The Defendant filed a response in opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees and costs on September 2, 1994. The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM Appellant United States of America appeals the May 13, 1994, order of the Bankruptcy Court 1 awarding appellee out-of- *91 pocket expenses, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees for violation of an automatic stay. The Court has considered the parties’ pleadings and the record on appeal. For the reasons set out below, the order of the Bankrup...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, investors in certain limited partnerships organized and managed by the defendants, assert claims for relief based upon section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, sections 12(2) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77Z(2), 77q(a), and pendent state la...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of plaintiffs James W. Upper and Carol A. Upper for summary judgment and on the cross-motion of defendant the United States for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the court will deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs James and Carol Upper filed an income ...
Views: 0
ORDER The United States appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court holding that the debtor’s federal income tax liabilities were dischargeable and that any liens based on the liabilities were void. 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(C) provides that a discharge does not discharge an individual debt- or from any tax debt with respect to which the debtor “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or def...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a case of alleged sexual harassment arising out of events occurring during a pickup basketball game played by Plaintiff, a now discharged male teacher, and another male teacher. Plaintiff advances claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and several state causes of action. Jurisdiction is alleged to be based on federal que...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Defendant, indicted for the crime of Aggravated Sexual Abuse (rape) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241, moves for an order of this Court to compel a psychiatric examination, prior to trial, of the complainant, Monique Roman, *127 who is also defendant’s wife. Defendant contends...
Views: 0
OPINION DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant seeks dismissal of this patent infringement action under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is in the business of marketing modems which interconnect remote data terminal equipment, such as computers, printers, and video terminals. Defendant also manufactures and sells self-powered mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiff Howard V. Barton’s motions filed March 3, 1995, to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, and to award costs and attorney fees expended on his remand motion. Defendant Gary Leonard Griffiths (hereafter “Griffiths”) filed a response on March 17, 1995. After careful consideration of the arguments ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Mostafizur Rahman, Tazin Mahnaj, Monowara Begum, Kazi Arif Khalil, Mohammed Ahamed and Md Alam (collectively “plaintiffs”) brought this action against Edward McElroy, Acting District Director of the New York District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), the INS, and United States Attorney General Janet Reno (collectively, “defendants” or “Government...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM At a pre-trial suppression hearing, I granted Edward Trzaska’s motion to suppress a rifle and ammunition that were obtained as part of an illegal search of his apartment. United States v. Trzaska, 866 F.Supp. 98 (E.D.N.Y.1994). The defendant did not move to suppress a statement he made to one of the Probation Officers after the evidence was found in his apartment — “I’m a drug ad...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case arises from a 1993 public debate over the financial condition of New York’s major non-profit health insurance provider. The claims of plaintiff Albert A. Cardone grow out of his precipitous and not entirely voluntary resignation as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield in May 1993. A year later, Cardone sued Empire and si...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is now before the court on the defendant the Department of Education’s motion for summary judgment, filed March 3, 1994, and on the defendant the Personnel Department’s motion for summary judgment, filed February 14, 1995. The plaintiff, Edward Donald Moody, responded to the Department of Education’s motion for summary judgment on March 28, 1994, and to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand the above-styled cause to the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, filed February 27, 1995. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion on March 1, 1995. For reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion is due to be granted. BACKGROUND Deland L. Kirkland (hereinafter “Kirkland”) i...
Views: 1
OPINION & ORDER On September 19, 1994, Magistrate Judge Roberts issued the attached Report and Recommendation, recommending that I dismiss plaintiffs claim against defendant for failing to state a cause of action under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. On September 29, 1994, plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation that I dismiss plaintiffs claim. On October 28, 1994, the court gav...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements and the Government’s Opposition thereto. The Court held a hearing on said Motion on March 14, 1995. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the oral argument of counsel, the relevant law, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements shall be granted in part, and deni...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendants Joel Fol-mar, Bruce Devane and the District Attor-. ney’s Office for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit for the State of Alabama’s amended motion to dismiss filed March 20,1995. The plaintiff filed a response on March 30, 1995, to which the defendants replied on April 6, 1995. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause is before the court on defendant Togo D. West, Jr.’s motion filed October 17, 1994, for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss, in part, and for summary judgment. 1 The plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause why said motion should not be granted. On October 14, 1994, at a pretrial hearing in the above-styled case, the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District for Alabama. The bankruptcy court abstained from hearing Thomas Leonard Thaggard’s adversary proceeding against Mary Anne M. Pate, f/k/a Mary Ann Thaggard, and Robert J. Russell, Jr. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs action, filed October 13, 1994. Plaintiff responded in opposition to Defendants’ motion on November 18, 1995. For reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part. Jurisdiction & Venue Jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff alleges violations of 42...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Introduction This case involves a claim under 40 U.S.C. § 270 (the “Miller Act” or the “Act”), arising out of the construction of the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff, a supplier of budding materials to *1269 Defendants, has brought suit pursuant to the Miller Act to recover damages, for the manufacture and storage...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Sheriff Larry Collins and Deputy Sheriffs William Dillard and Tim Surrett’s motion to dismiss filed January 18, 1994. The plaintiffs filed a response on February 9, 1994. After careful consideration of *620the arguments of counsel, the caselaw and the record as a whole, the court finds that the defendants’ motion is due to be granted in part and ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed September 19, 1994. The defendant contemporaneously filed a brief and affidavit in support thereof. The plaintiffs submitted two affidavits in opposition on January 24, 1995. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw and the record as a *159whole, the court find...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Ronald E. Brooks (hereinafter “Brooks”), brings this action against his former employer, Alabama Power Company (hereinafter “APCo”) and Protective Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “Protective”), the claims administrator of APCo’s long-term disability plan (hereinafter the “Plan”), to reinstate Plaintiffs benefits under the Plan. The Plan is governed by...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is the Government’s Motion in Limine for admission of a letter written by the Defendant Duran. The Court is not in receipt of any written Opposition thereto. A hearing was held on the same on March 15,1995, at which time counsel for the Defendant argued that said letter must be excluded as irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are the Government’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs and Acts Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), as well as the Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The Court held a hearing on the same on March 15, 1995. The Government seeks to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s (1) previous conviction, incarceration, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On March 20, 1995, the first day of trial in the above-captioned case, the Court was advised that a Government witness, David Millis, wished to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination with respect to any questions regarding his alleged involvement with illegal drugs subsequent to Mr. Millis’ last encounter with the Defendant on Septe...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are the Defendant Duran’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized During Warrantless Searches of Workplace, and the Government’s Opposition thereto. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on said Motion on March 14, 1995. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, tbe oral argument of counsel, the relevant law, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that the Defendant’s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed February 27, 1995. Defendant United States of America filed a supporting brief simultaneously. On March 31, 1995, Plaintiff filed a response and supporting brief in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. For reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is due to be granted. Jurisdiction & Venue Plaintif...
Views: 0
ORDER The Court is in receipt of a “Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion of the Washington Post, the New York Times *527Company and the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. for Access to the Duran Letter,” as well as the “Government’s Supplemental Response to Motion of the Washington Post and the New York Times for Access to Duran Letter,” and a “Memorandum in Response to the Governme...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER INTRODUCTION The City of Amsterdam brought suit against Daniel Goldreyer Ltd. and Daniel Goldreyer (“Defendants”) to recover damages for breach of contract. Defendants now seek dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Defendants also move...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court is a motion for an Order for Default Judgment on a petition for attorney’s fees filed by Kirlin, Campbell, and Keating (“KCMK” or “Petitioner”). 1 Petitioner is the former counsel for the Defendant, A & Mac Enterprises, Ltd., d/b/a East River Chinese Restaurant (“ERCR”). Petitioner filed a Petition for Attorney’s Fees...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed March 2,1995. For reasons contained herein, the court finds that Defendant’s motion is due to be granted. Jurisdiction & Venue Plaintiff contends that Defendants deprived him of a constitutionally protected right in denying him access to his inmate records; therefore, jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION INTRODUCTION In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act to address the threat to nearby surface waters of pollution from stormwater runoff. Under regulations implementing the Act, discharge from commercial or industrial activities which disturb more than five acres of land require a stormwater permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). In this case plaintiff, the City of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION After no liability was found on the claim of gender discrimination asserted against it, Defendant Northwest Structural Components, Inc. (“NSC”) has applied to the court for an award of attorney fees and costs incurred in this action. For the reasons stated herein, NSC’s Application for Award of Fees and Other Expenses and Amended Application for Award of Fees and Other Expense...
Views: 1
*687 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ Claims and Relief Sought Plaintiffs have brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of various aspects of the current system through which congressional elections are financed. They denote the system they challenge the “wealth primary,” and base their case upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fo...
Views: 2
ORDER Before the Court are the Defendant Duran’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized From Chevrolet Truck, the Government’s Opposition thereto, and the Defendant’s Reply. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on said Motion on March 14, 1995. Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant seeks an Order suppressing all evidence seized ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the Court are the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Government Witness and to Dismiss or Sever Count Four for Jencks Act Violations, along with the Government’s Opposition thereto. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on said Motion on March 17, 1995, and issued an Order that day denying the same. The Order also directed counsel for both partie...
Views: 0
ORDER The Court is in receipt of the Government’s and the Defendant’s proposed jury Instructions in the above-captioned case. Upon review of the same, the Court has determined that there are a number of conflicts in the proposed instructions that must be addressed. Namely, the Court must determine whether the crime of assault on a federal officer is a specific intent or a general intent crime; ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the above-styled cause to the Circuit Court of Elmore County, Alabama, filed February 10, 1995. Defendant Nestle Frozen Food Company (hereinafter “Nestle”) 1 timely filed a notice of removal to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), contending that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is the Government’s Motion In Limine for the Admission of Letters Written by Defendant Duran to His Wife and Son. The Court is not in receipt of any written Opposition thereto. The Court held a hearing on the same on March 15, 1995, at which time counsel for the Defendant opposed admission of the letters on relevance grounds. Counsel for the Defendant...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter having come before the Court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment; The Court having reviewed the pleadings submitted herein, and being otherwise fully informed in the matter; The Court finds that plaintiffs motion for partial summary...
Views: 0
*259 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendants’ petition for a rule to show cause why plaintiff Willie Wilson should not be held in contempt of court for procuring and suborning alleged perjured deposition testimony and an alleged perjured affidavit. The court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties and has held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff James Champ initiated this suit against Baltimore County, Maryland, Roger B. Hayden, Baltimore County Executive, and Cornelius Behan, former Chief of Police for *994 Baltimore County Police Department (at times collectively referred to as “defendants”), all in their official capacities, alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities A...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This is an appeal by the United States from an Order of United States Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki, dated July 26, 1994, (170 B.R. 57), sustaining the objection of Citibank, an unsecured creditor, to the priority status of the Internal Revenue Service’s claim against the debtor. The Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on defendant Wiregrass Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s motion filed February 21, 1995, for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.1 The plaintiff filed a response in opposition on March 8, 1995, to which the defendant replied on March 15, 1995. After careful consideration of the arguments of co...
Views: 0
ORDER The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate the sentence with supporting memorandum. The defendant’s motion is denied. This court has recently ruled that a federal criminal conviction that precedes a judgment of forfeiture is not subject to challenge on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. Martin Hobart Stanwood, 872 F.Supp. 791 (D.Or.1994) (copy attached). In this case, d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff United States Liability Insurance Company (“U.S. Liability”) seeks a determination of its duty to indemnify and defend its insured, Livingstone Selman, who is a defendant in a case pending before the Suffolk County Housing Court. That suit, brought by Robin Razza, as mother and next friend of Carol Ann Razza, alleges that Carol Ann Razza was poisoned by lead paint...
Views: 1
PARTIAL MEMORANDUM RULING1 Pending discovery motions raise numerous issues related to the application and interpretation of various privileges and doctrines, including the attorney-client and joint defense privileges and the work product doctrine. The threshold issue which must be determined before these various issues can be analyzed individually is whether state or federal law governs. This iss...
Views: 1
These six cases appearing on the Court’s Miscellaneous Business Docket present two related questions, viz. (1) can the United States Attorney delegate to another senior official in his office the important power to request of the Attorney General that immunity from prosecution be conferred on an individual pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002? and, if so, (2) what is the appropriate procedure for effectin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff, Geo. P. Reintjes Co., Inc. (“Reintjes”), brought this action to rescind a settlement agreement with the defendant, Riley Stoker Corp. (“Riley”), and/or to obtain money damages for deceptive trade practices under M.G.L. c. 93A. Reintjes claims that Riley fraudulently obtained an arbitration award, which, in turn, led to the settlement agreement, by knowingly mak...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Appeal the Partial Memorandum Ruling of the Magistrate Judge on January 5, 1995. The appeal is opposed by the Defendants’ Steering Committee and McDermott, Inc. While the instant matter was pending in state court, plaintiffs propounded interrogatories to defendants. Defendants asserted several privileges in response to the inter...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a civil racketeering action brought by a Massachusetts trucking company, H.P. Leasing, Inc. (“Leasing”), and its principal, Patrick J. Doyle (collectively “Doyle”), against the toy manufacturer Hasbro, Inc. (“Hasbro”); Alan Hassenfeld (“Hassenfeld”), Hasbro’s President, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Chief Executive Officer; Israel “Izzi” Laudon (...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Pending before the Court are two motions: 1) Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in Lieu of Answer; 1 and 2) Defendant Brigham City Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel for the parties appeared for oral argument on the motions on January 13, 1995, counsel f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On November 29, 1990, Carol Cuttle was kidnapped from a parking lot on the United States Army base at Schweinfurt, Germany. Ms. Cuttle, who lived on the base with her husband, an Army Captain, was subsequently taken to another location, where she was beaten, raped, robbed, and ultimately strangled to death. The perpetrator of this crim...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT Petitioner Mal de Mer Fisheries, Inc. moves the Court to enforce a settlement negotiated between claimant Cheryl S. Costa and petitioner Mal de Mer Fisheries, Inc. in the amount of $115,000.00 (Docket No. 75). For the reasons herein stated, the motion is ALLOWED. Factual Background The Court treats the following f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BACKGROUND In this action, plaintiff seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. (the “FTCA”), for emotional distress, pain and suffering arising out of his former employment as an air traffic control specialist for the Federal Aviation Administration (the “FAA”). Plaintiff also claims that, a...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara, to hear and report, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Presently before the court is plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint (Item 6). For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Michael Chapman, commenced this action on August 23, 1994, alleging race discriminatio...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman on June 7, 1994, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 26, 1994, Magistrate Judge Heckman filed a Decision and Order denying plaintiff Nancy E. Riester’s motion for a protective *753 order. Plaintiff Nancy E. Riester appealed this Order on November 10, 1994. On December 15, 1994, Magis...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court are defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Hon. Carol E. Heckman, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York, filed August 19, 1994. Magistrate Judge Heckman has recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted. For the reasons set forth below, this Court will accep...
Views: 2
ORDER On January 27, 1995, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this action along with several other motions. The court reserved decision on the motion for preliminary injunctive relief and now rules that such relief is denied. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction in the Second Circuit the movant must make a showing of: (...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant, James Rusin (“Mr. Rusin”), moves for an order requiring the government *1036 to provide him with specific notice of Fed. R.Evid. 404(b) evidence no less than 60 days prior to trial. Mr. Rusin is charged with theft of government funds in two transactions that allegedly took place in 1990. Mr. Rusin says the government has produced an investigative repo...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the Court is defendant E & E Contractors’ motion to vacate a default judgment entered by this Court on February 13, 1995. The motion is being made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). Defendant alleges that the default was the product of excusable neglect, and moreover, that the judgment itself is voidable because the defendant did not receive proper not...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action to recover $95,762.67, which is the balance due for bunkers delivered to the M/V Alpha Star in 1993 in Amsterdam and Dunkirk. The delivery of the bunkers and the amount of the unpaid balance are undisputed. Defendants assert, however, that the parties entered into a binding agreement to settle the liability for $40,-000 and that plaintiffs have reneged...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Camp Pharsalia Correctional Facility, alleges that various of his statutory and constitutional rights were violated by correction employees following an altercation between plaintiff and another inmate. The complaint alleges th...
Views: 1
ORDER Appeal by the claimant, Internal Revenue Service, from an order of the bankruptcy court denying its motion to Vacate Order Granting Debtors’ Motion Compelling The Internal Revenue Service to release a hen. The government filed an amended proof of claim in this case for a secured claim of $20,000 and an unsecured claim of $56,945.31. Debtors filed an objection to this claim and the ban...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER In this insurance coverage dispute, the parties have brought cross motions for summary judgment. I This case arises from difficulties in developing Stanford Ranch, a development of new single-family homes on a large expanse of land near Rocklin. Plaintiff Stanford Ranch (“Stanford”) has served in a master developer role, subdividing and sellin...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL FROM A FINAL ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT INTRODUCTION The Bankruptcy Court held that a 1977 home mortgage granted by Robert and Mary Ballarino to the Foxborough Savings Bank (“the Bank”) operates, through its dragnet clause, to secure the debt owed the Bank by Robert, as a result of the Bank’s foreclosure on a commercial propert...
Views: 1
881 F. Supp. 1532 (1995) Marian BENEDICT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. No. 93-C-957B. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. April 4, 1995. *1533 J. Gordon Hansen, Scott R. Carpenter, Kent O. Roche, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, for plaintiffs. Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Salt Lake City, UT, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER BE...
Views: 1
Plaintiff, LINDA DANIELS RECIO, instituted this action alleging medical malpractice against her treating physician, DR. RAFAEL SANCHEZ MONSERRAT and his insurer as weH as HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO and its insurer EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY. In essence, plaintiff claims that her medical condition was misdiagnosed, as a result of which she received improper and damaging treatment. Specifically, it is ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS Three non-profit conservation groups and several private citizens seek to enjoin timber sales from taking place in the Wenatchee National Forest. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, all relevant documents, heard oral argument, and being otherwise fully ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a motion by General Electric Company (“GE”) to compel the production of documents which Saint>Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramics Corporation (“Norton”) intends to rely upon in defense of GE’s charge of willful patent infringement. Norton opposes this motion, and moves to submit certain disputed documents for in camera inspection....
Views: 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................169 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND................................................169 A. The Xuncax Complaint: Civil Action No. 91-11564 .......................169 1. The Plaintiffs’ Ordeals..............................................169 a. Teresa Xuncax....................................
Views: 6
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff, First Bank National Association, Trustee (“First Bank”), brought this action for breach of contract against the defendant, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq., as amended by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”)....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have moved for an order (1) striking from the caption of the action the name of Marge Grasso as a defendant, (2) granting leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint to delete from it claims based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1974, and (3) amending the balance of their complaint in the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND A. Summary of Facts: In 1987 plaintiffs Kenneth P. Lacorte and Lacorte Electrical Construction admitted to violating New York State Labor Laws by willfully underpaying employees on public works projects. Lacorte agreed to repay the employees but was subsequently charged with compelling those employees to return *66 the repai...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Procedural History The state attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Florida initiated the prosecution of the petitioner by filing a five count information charging petitioner with two counts of attempted first degree murder, the victims being his wife ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (“Owens”) seeks insurance coverage for its $22.5 million patent infringement settlement. The key question is whether the '“advertising injury” provisions of defendants’ policies are capacious enough to include room for patent infringement. I A. The Underlying Litigation In September 1...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and Defendants’ is DENIED. *1382 I. BACKGROUND In May of 1993, the City Council of defendant City of Santa Barbara (“the City”) adopted an ordinance limiting protest activity outside medical cli...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT WAL*MART, INC.’s MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF ELY’S FIRST AND SEVENTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Defendant WaPMart, Inc.’s (WaPMart’s) motion to dismiss plaintiff Kathleen Ely’s (plaintiffs) first and seventh claims for relief in her original complaint 1 (motion) was heard on or about 10 a.m. on January 23, 1995 before the Honorable Judge Robert J. Timlin. Ma...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Gale M. Levine (Levine) and Marina Shores, Ltd. (Marina Shores or the Marina) are suing defendant F. Wayne McLes-key (McLeskey), alleging antitrust and various state law injuries in a fifteen count complaint as follows: Count I (Levine’s claim under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act), *1036 Count II (Marina S...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Susan Detwiler sues Dr. Orentreich, 1 who administered injections of silicone into her face, for medical malpractice and fraud. 2 She sues the other defendants on a variety of theories for injuries allegedly caused by silicone gel breast implants. Her husband asserts a claim for loss of consortium against all defendants. Dr. Orentreich now m...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Andrew Ger-navage (“Gernavage”) under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to challenge a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”), denying Gernavage’s application for disability insurance benefits based on disability. Plaintiff now moves this Court to reverse th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The United States and Witco Corporation have presented this Court with a Joint Motion for an Expedited Order to Amend the Case Management Order (CMO) to Bifurcate These Proceedings. Elf Atochem North America opposes this Motion. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a District Court may modify a *36CMO if movants make a showing of good cause. For the reasons that follow, this Motion to modify the CM...
Views: 0
888 F. Supp. 1328 (1995) TEXANS AGAINST CENSORSHIP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE BAR OF TEXAS, James A. McCormack, and the District 1A Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas, Defendants. No. 3:94 cv 61. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Paris Division. March 31, 1995. *1329 *1330 *1331 *1332 *1333 Charles L. Babcock, Alan N. Greenspan, Susan L. Weiss, Dallas, TX, Ken Poland, ...
Views: 4
OPINION I.Introduction. On April 15, 1994, a 10-eount information was filed charging William M. Strouse, III, with one count of wire fraud and nine counts of interstate transportation of stolen monies. On May 10, 1994, Strouse entered a plea of guilty to the information. In the presentence report the Probation Officer calculated a total offense level of 18 and a criminal history category of III...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by AD/SAT, a division of Skylight, Inc. (“AD/SAT”) against the Associated Press (“AP”), the Newspaper Association of America (“NAA”), the National Newspaper Network (“NNN”), and a number of individual newspapers, including The Lexington Herald-Leader (the “Herald-Leader” or “defendant”). AD/SAT asserts that defendants have conspired to monop...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Defendant F.B.I. Special Agent Clifford Hedges’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 143) and Memorandum of Law in Support of said motion (Docket No. 144), filed on February. 6, 1995, in these consolidated cases. Plaintiff filed his brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion (Docket No. 148) on March 24, 1995....
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DETERMINING THAT MICHIGAN LAW APPLIES; AND DISMISSING COUNTS X, XI, AND XII OF DOW’S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST FIREMAN’S FUND This matter came before the court upon Defendants Fireman’s Fund and its subsidiaries, Associated Indemnity Corporation and The American Insurance Company (collectively, “Fire...
Views: 1
ORDER The matter before the Court is a request to issue a decision granting a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of Proposition A, § 130.100 RSMo 1994 and declaring the law unconstitutional. Plaintiff Thomas Carver filed a civil rights suit for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to enjoin defendants from enforcing Missou...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the disciplinary matter of Respondent Juan M. Masini-Soler (“Masi-ni-Soler”). Masini-Soler is an attorney in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court suspended him from practice for six months for the following matter. Under Puerto Rico law 1 banks must publish in the newspapers lists of inactive accounts, including the depositors, their addresses, thei...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) Plaintiffs *595 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief; (4) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaim; and (5) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Fourt...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEVER In this criminal prosecution, all four defendants have moved, pretrial, to sever various counts of a nine count indictment on several differing but related theories. These motions require the court to explore the nuances of misjoinder, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and 14. Defendant Rodney Davis seeks to sever Counts 1 and 2 of a second supe...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendant German Montalvo’s Motion to Suppress Title III Recordings .and to Dismiss the Indictment. The government has opposed said motion. The Court granted defendant Montalvo until March 28, 1995 to reply to the government’s opposition. As of this date, however, defendant has failed to file a reply. Therefore, the Court finds, that the motion is ready for...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a petition by plaintiff Rolando R. Silva Igleeia for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a member of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Defendants are members of the Panel for the Special Independent Prosecutor (“SIP”). On October 15, 1992, the Secretary of Justice of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico recommended to the SIP...
Views: 0
Order Report and Recommendation Adopted. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DOCKET ENTRY #4) March 14, 1995 BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“UPS”) and defendants Edward Chip (“Chip”), George Armentano (“Armentano”), David Mackey (“Mackey”), A1 Bethune (“Bethune...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff Sidney Abbott alleges that Defendant Dr. Randon Bragdon violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) when he refused to provide her with dental services in his office upon discovering that she suffered from the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). (Pl.’s Am.Compl. ¶ 10.) At the *182 time...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS DETHLEFS AND WHITE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS In this criminal matter, Defendants face charges of conspiring to engage in drug trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and of conspiring to avoid payment of federal income taxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Two of the nine defendants, Gary Dethlefs and Rebecca Whi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT, VARIG BRAZILIAN AIRLINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 20, filed 8I25IW Construing the pro se Complaint liberally, it can be said to state a breach of contract claim for compensatory damages on account of the defendant’s alleged failure to transport plaintiffs brother from Nigeria to Grand Cayman via Miami pursuant to a ticket which the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, the Maine Education Association (“MEA”) and four classes of public school teachers as members of the Maine State Retirement System (“MSRS”) brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging amendments enacted by the Maine Legislature in 1993 which modify ce...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Farida Sadrud-Din is the Administrator of the Estate of Selena Johnson, deceased. Plaintiff brings this case solely in her representative capacity as the adminis *272 trator of the estate against the City of Chicago and various individual police officer defendants. Plaintiffs claims arise from the events surrounding the murder of Selena Johnson in her ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in the above-captioned cause. The government duly filed its response. After a hearing held on March 8, 1995, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be resolved as set forth below. Statement of Facts On July 27, 1994, Agent Victor Maldonado (herein “Maldonado”) of the El Paso office of Alco...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs Order to Show cause why the proceeds of a supplemental life insurance policy should not be paid to the plaintiff. Earlier this Court allowed $100,000 of the proceeds of the supplemental life insurance policy to be paid to the plaintiff. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court holds that the balance of the supplemental life insurance poli...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER In light of changes made to the sentencing guidelines, an issue has arisen in this case as to whether defendant Richard Caleb James’ role in the offense calls for a four-level enhancement as an “organizer or leader” under USSG § 3Bl.l(b). As an individual supplier of cocaine to a major drug ring, the defendant supplied in excess of 250 kilograms of cocaine to the ring. Although...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is brought before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion will granted and the Court will dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs trade dress infringement claims and dismiss without prejudice the plaintiffs pendent state law claims for breach of contract. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Mohamed Desoky is the president of Amit...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is opened before the Court by the motion of defendants Bill Clinton, Donald Dea, Rich Miller and Leo Dianetti (collectively the “individual defendants”) to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) for defective service of process. The motion has been decid...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Procedural History Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 1989 contesting an *301Indiana program which intercepted the tax refunds of persons who had been overpaid food stamps. In 1993, this court, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, on the grounds that the notices were unlawful and that,the program violated due proce...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion. 1 I. Petitioner was indicted, along with ten other defendants, in January, 1993. The multiple count indictment charged the defendants with various drug-related off...
Views: 0
*751 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Leonard Kenebrew filed this complaint against Defendants CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY a CIGNA COMPANY; CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OP ILLINOIS, INC.; CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF TEXAS, INC.; CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF ARIZONA, INC. CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.; and ROSS LOOS MEDICAL GROUP d/b/a CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF NORTHERN CALI...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER “Ex parte applications have reached epidemic proportions in the Central District.” Judge Rymer warned us of this in 1989 in In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D.Cal.1989). Since then the abusive use of ex parte motions has worsened. This abuse is detrimental to the administration of justice and, unless moderated, will increasingly erode the qualit...
Views: 1
ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff Stella Jewelry Mfg., Inc. (“Stella”) moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56 for partial summary judgment dismissing the Second Affirmative Defense of Defendant Naviga Belgamar (“Naviga”). Background The following facts are not disputed. Stella, incorporated under the laws of New York State, claims that a loss occurred in the amount of at least $10...
Views: 0
OPINION Preliminary Statement Plaintiff Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. (“Pentagen”) brought an action against defendant CACI International Inc. (“CACI”) and other defendants, as a “qui tam” relator pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (1988) (“FCA” or the “Act”). Plaintiff United States of America (the “United States” or the “govern *81 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Sehlumberger Technologies, Inc. (“Sehlumberger”) seeks to transfer the above-captioned action from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California. Plaintiff JM Computer Services, Inc. (“JM Computer”) opposes such a transfer. Construing the parties’ letters and the discussion at the conference held on April 20, 1995 to be the motion and pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Organizational plaintiffs Hispanics United of Dupage County (“Hispanics United”), Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities (“Leadership Council”), and Hispanic Council, and the individual plaintiffs1 (collectively “plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, sue defendants Village of Addison, Illinois (“Addison” or “the ...
Views: 3
OPINION Presently before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint for mootness, for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will: deny defendants’...
Views: 0
OPINION The plaintiffs Jack Meyerson, Pamela Meyerson, George Froley as trustee, Edith Citron, William Weinberger, and Samuel Schaeffler, members of and representing Class V, Subclass 3 in MDL 732, have moved for an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) granting them leave to amend the Fifth Consolidated Amended Complaint (“the Fifth Complaint”) to clarify that defendants Wiekes Companies, Inc. ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. I. Background Plaintiff brings this product liability action based on the theories of strict liability and negligence. On December 28, 1992, P...
Views: 0
ORDER 1. Plasti-Clip’s and Faneufs Motion in Li-mine to Exclude Any Reference to November 29, 1993, Rulings of Administrative Patent Judge on Preliminary Motions in Interference Proceeding (document 8JJ Plaintiffs 1 filed a patent application intentionally seeking an interference with the ’078 *98 patent in the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) on Februa...
Views: 0
Over objection, the recommended ruling is approved, ratified and adopted. It is so ordered. RECOMMENDED RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (# 105, 107, 114, 124, 125, 138, 190, 195-1, 195-2) EAGAN, United States Magistrate Judge. This Court has been asked to determine the appropriate standard of liability to wh...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Two contradictory motions are before the Court: defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. They explore some new issues of law. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Background Plaintiffs, CIGNA Healthplan of Louisiana, Inc. (“CIGNA...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM The above-captioned action is a diversity case arising from an injury to the right index finger allegedly sustained by plaintiff Luz Morales in 1992 while operating a wrapping machine at her place of employment, the Warner-Lambert pharmaceuticals plant in Lititz, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. To seek redress for the personal injuries suffered by Luz Morales as a result of...
Views: 0
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET ENTRY # 20); MOTION BY PLAINTIFF HEWLETT-PACKARD TO DISMISS, IN PART, DEFENDANT’S FIRST COUNTERCLAIM AS TO US. PATENT NO. 5,124,660 (DOCKET ENTRY # 7); MOTION BY PLAINTIFF HEWLETT-PACKARD UNDER FEDERAL RULE 42(b) FOR A SEPARATE TRIAL, IF NECESSARY, ON THE ANTITRUST, UNFAIR COMPETITION AND PATENT MISUSE ISSUES AND TO ...
Views: 1
STIPULATED JUDGMENT ENTRY Now come the parties, by and through counsel, and stipulate that the court may vacate its Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1994, 862 F.Supp. 196, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff and that the claims and counterclaims asserted herein may be dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that this court’s Memorandum and Order of April 29...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION I. Background The City of Birmingham, Michigan (Birmingham), the Oakland County Drain Commission and the Chapter 20 Birmingham Combined Sewer Overflow Drain Board are in the process of constructing a large retention basin (RTB) in Linden Park, a public park in Birmingham.1 It is the approval of the Linden Park RTB by the regulatory a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Robert Lee Ellis III (“Ellis”) and a number of other plaintiffs have tendered a self-prepared 8-page Complaint (captioned “Emergency Mandamus Civil Rights Complaint & Action Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 USC 2000bb”) together with a related 37-page document (captioned “Memorandum and Narrative in Support of Emergency Motion for Injunctive ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Court has just been assigned the appeal by Car-Go Parts Center of Illinois, Inc. (“Car-Go”) from what Car-Go’s Notice of Appeal describes as “the final order dismissing Count I of the above-captioned adversary proceeding, with prejudice, of the bankruptcy court entered in this adversary proceeding on the 9th day of March, 1995.” For the reasons stated in this...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Background A. Facts This opinion addresses summary judgment matters. The following facts are not in dispute. Defendant maintains a fire department (Department) and is an employer subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Plaintiffs are fire fighters employed by the Department. Eleven of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Rebecca A. Stoeekel (“Stoeckel”) brought this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation for making a complaint of sexual harassment. 1 A three-day bench trial commenced in late 1994. Following the trial, the parties sub...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiffs Central Point Software, Inc., Computer Associates International, Inc., Da-tastorm Technologies, Inc., Quarterdeck Office Systems, Inc., Software Publishing Corporation, Symantec Corporation, Wordstar International, Inc., and Executive Systems, Inc. d/b/a XTree Company (collectively, “plaintiffs”), computer software manufacturers and m...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND. ORDER Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Ware (“plaintiff’) an inmate at Cook County Department of Corrections, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, James W. Fairman; the Superintendent of Division VI, James Carey; and, the Director of Cermak Health Services, Lenard Berski...
Views: 0
I. Introduction The 1994 amendments to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA), Public Act 117 of 1994, (ATTACHMENT I), amended §§ 52, 54 and 55 so as to significantly curtail the political activity of, inter alia, labor organizations. Each of the aforementioned amendments subjects a violator to criminal penalties; § 52, misdemeanor; §§ 54 and 55, felony, punishable by ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 26, 1992, plaintiff Laurie Ambre (“Ambre”) purchased from defendant Joe Madden Ford (“Madden”) a “new” 1992 Ford Explorer manufactured by defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). Ambre alleges that shortly after she purchased the Explorer, it manifested multiple defects which affected its safety, reliability and value. (lA.Compl., Count IV, at ¶...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 26, 1992, plaintiff Laurie Ambre (“Ambre”) purchased from defendant Joe Madden Ford (“Madden”) a “new” 1992 Ford Explorer. To finance her purchase, Ambre entered into a retail installment contract with Madden; Madden, in turn, assigned the installment contract to Bank One, LaGrange (“Bank One”). 1 Under the terms of the installment ...
Views: 4
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff in this case, Enid Bent, had been an employee of Mount Sinai Hospital for almost nine years when she was terminated on June 13 or June 14, 1991. Ms. Bent suffers from a thyroid condition, pulmonary fibrosis, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertension, osteoporosis and blindness in the left eye. Following her termination, Ms. Bent brought suit, alleging that the defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Following an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist, a panel of arbitrators awarded plaintiff Valerie Washington $60,000 for her injuries from Allstate Insurance Company based on her uninsured motorist coverage benefits. Washington received treatment costing $10,500.15 under a health benefit plan (the “Plan”) sponsored by the University of .Chicago. D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Lawrence Neumann, an Illinois state prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Neumann alleges that, during jury selection at his trial, the state prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. As such, Neumann contends that the state violated the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a petit jury composed of a fair...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this diversity action arising out of a car accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (the “Turnpike”), defendants Francis Marziani (“Marziani”) and A to Z Transportation, Inc. (“A to Z Transportation”) move, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Shirley Wang’s (“Wang”) punitive damages...
Views: 0
876 F. Supp. 1071 (1995) Oscar Salas VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Carl Houseman, District Director, St. Paul, Minnesota District, Respondent. Civ. No. 3-95-001. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division. February 6, 1995. *1072 Michael H. Davis, Ingber and Aronson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for petitioner. Mary Trippler, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneap...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court via “Plaintiffs Productions to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court assumes that the above-entitled document is intended to represent the plaintiffs’ objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation in the above-styled matter. Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject M...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is petitioners’ challenge to the constitutionality of lethal *470 injection as a method of execution. This is the last in a series of three orders in which the Court has considered respondents’ motions for summary judgment, filed April 19, 1993. Petitioners’ remaining argument is that this method of execution, which will be utilized in their executions unless pe...
Views: 1
*1105ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF This case presents a claim pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633. Plaintiff, Judith Goden, alleges that Defendant, Marvin T. Runyon Postmaster General acting through the Regional Chief Inspector denied Ms. Go-den a promotion to the position of Investigative Program Analyst because of her age. Ms. Goden was over age...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court is the motion of plaintiff, Giant Eagle, Inc. (“Giant Eagle”), for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Giant Eagle contends that defendant, Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”), failed to sustain the burden of proving its claim for reformation of an insurance contract by clear and convinc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mark Umphrey (Umphrey) filed his original petition in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, alleging that Fina Oil & Chemical Company (Fina) violated certain provisions of the Texas Labor Code prohibiting discrimination or discharge of employees who pursue worker’s compensation claims. Fina removed the case to this court by alleging that the cla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The plaintiff Joseph Naccarato (the “plaintiff’ or “Naccarato”) commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on or about April 30, 1993. Naccarato claimed that his rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated when he was arrested by the defendant William Oliver (the “defendant” or “Oliver”), who, at the time, was an off duty New York State Trooper. The arrest f...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant Prodan’s motion to determine the dischargeability in bankruptcy proceedings of restitution ordered by this Court as part of a criminal sentence. For the reasons outlined below, the Court holds that restitution orders issued by the United States Courts are not generally dischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant T. Darrell Lee’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), as well as on defendant’s Motion to Substitute the Bankruptcy Trustee as Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mroz has filed a response to each motion. Defendant has replied in the matter of the Motion to Substitute. The facts and legal argum...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DECLARING MOOT ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. The motions are opposed. After consideration of the motions, response, and reply, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted and the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgm...
Views: 0
*243 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS IN A REDUCED AMOUNT I. Background On October 28, 1994, judgment was entered in defendants’ favor. Currently before this Court is defendants’ motion to tax costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1923. Through their motion, defendants request $93.50, consisting of $73.50 in copying fees u...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs petition for remand (D.E. # 4) and defendant’s motion to substitute parties (D.E. # 7). A hearing on these motions was held on May 25,1994, and supplemental briefs were filed by the parties as requested by the Court. As discussed herein, disposition of these motions requires an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant was a...
Views: 0
885 F.Supp. 1017 (1995) Gregory VAN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. Richard W. BURROWS, et al., Defendants. No. 3:93CV7602. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. January 23, 1995. *1018 *1019 Edward G. Kramer, Timothy Robert Obringer, Kramer & Tobocman, Cleveland, OH, for plaintiff. Nick Tomino, Reminger & Reminger, Cleveland, OH, Terry R. Griffith, Office of Pros. Atty., S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to stay and compel utilization of grievance system, defendant’s opposition, and plaintiffs reply. This is an employment discrimination lawsuit in which plaintiff advances claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Plaintiff also alleges causes of action under the common law tort...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case involves a dispute concerning the future ownership of certain real property (the “property”) and the enforceability of redemption provisions in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan (the “Plan”) of QF Finance Ltd. (“QF”). On November 28,1994, National Indemnity Corporation (“National”) filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), from an ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Roosevelt Lester brings this one count complaint against Officers David Brown and Judith Buckner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 1 Presently before us are the parties cross-motions for summary' judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted and plaintiff’s motion is den...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The seven-count indictment in this case charges defendant, Magdalena Esteves (“Ms. Esteves”), with theft, embezzlement, conversion, concealment, forgery, and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a), 1029(a)(2), 1341, and 1344. Ms. Esteves moves for an order directing the government to file and serve a bill of particulars pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 7(f). F...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs move this Court to reconsider its previous decision dismissing the official capacity claims against Defendant Faye Mowery (“Mowery”) on Eleventh Amendment grounds. For the reasons stated below, we grant Plaintiffs’ motion but do not assess additional monetary damages against Mowery. I. DISCUSSION A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity In its previous entry of November 4, 1993, the Court ...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 1180 (1995) Constantine STAMATIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HURCO COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. IP 94-308 C. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. April 12, 1995. *1181 Peter G. Tamulonis, Kightlinger & Gray, Indianapolis, IN, Kenneth A. Jacobsen and Francis J. Farina, Chimicles Jacobsen & Ti...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW INTRODUCTION Based on the proof adduced at a bench trial before the undersigned, Airlines Reporting Corporation (“ARC”) seeks to recover $202,877.64, plus interest and costs, from Inter Transit Travel, Inc. (“Inter Transit”) and from Luis R. Fuksman (“Fuksman”), individually. The gravamen of the complaint involves an agreement under wh...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER On February 24, 1994, Plaintiff, Deborah Matthews, former Supervisor’s Bookkeeper/Clerk to the Supervisor, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging she was terminated in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution when Defendants Town of Blooming Grove (“the Town”) and Katherine Bonelli, Town Supervisor, failed to reappoint her...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action, alleging copyright infringement, trade-dress infringement, product misappropriation, trade-name misappropriation, misappropriation of proprietary information, conspiracy to defraud, product interference, and design-patent infringement, in connection with plaintiffs’ design for a children’s bed rest called a “Snug-up.” Defendants’ moti...
Views: 0
OPINION Preliminary Statement Plaintiff Harold Falik, a New Jersey resident, is seeking judgment against defendants David T. Smith and James Moscowitz, California residents, for failure to indemnify him, as required by indemnification agreements, for legal expenses he incurred in Myron Karr v. Emerson Radio, No. 90 Civ. 1315, a lawsuit instituted in this court. This is...
Views: 0
*475 MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Losch Boiler Sales & Service Company (“Losch”), a retail fuel oil dealer that supplies and installs heating equipment, alleges that Defendant, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (“PP & L”) violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and state law1 by unlawfully restraining trade in the residential heati...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiffs bring various federal securities claims and state common law claims against their former stockbroker. Defendants have moved to dismiss this ease for failure to plead fraud with particularity, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In the alternative, defendants move for partial summary judgment. For...
Views: 4
Defendant Pal Marinos Marine Co. (“Pal Marinos”) moves for an order pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., granting partial summary judgment limiting the liability of Pal Marinos to $500 per package pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.CApp. §§ 1300-1315 (1988). Plaintiff Francosteel Corporation (“Francosteel”) *87 cross-moves for an order pursuant to Rule 12(f)...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant AmBase Corporation (“Am-Base”) has filed an objection to the memorandum and order issued by Magistrate Judge Dolinger dated October 29, 1993 (“October order”) on the grounds that defendant’s position on the underlying discovery motions was “substantially justified” and that even if the imposition of costs was warranted, the amount of costs imposed was excessive. Plaintiff Bown...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This ease is before the court on the motion of defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of America to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Phyllis A. Shipbaugh charges defendant Boys & Girls Clubs with a violation of Title VII of the C...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Plair sues E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc. and E.J. Brach Corporation (collectively “Brach”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Plair contends that Brach fired him because he is African American. Brach moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. BACKGROUND Brach is a candy manufacturer. Def. Rul...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Axel N. Eliasen, Robert Y. Roll-heiser and Allan L. Apter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this eighty-two page, nine count putative class action complaint against defendants Itel Corporation (“Itel”), Itel Rail Corporation (“Itel Rail”), Howard L. Chabner, James Chandler, Rod F. Dammeyer, Jack P. Edwards, Desmond Hayes, ...
Views: 0
*709MEMORANDUM DECISION FACTS This action for violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411, et seq., the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, libel and infliction of emotional distress is before this Court on the individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On November 22, 1993, defendant Patrick Shorb was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). He was sentenced to a 70-month term of imprisonment. The conviction is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Defendant requests that he be re...
Views: 0
OPINION In this case, the defendant landowner seeks additional compensation for land allegedly affected by an easement over part of his property. A few days before trial, the plaintiff moved in limine to exclude defendant’s proposed experts. On the day of trial and after full discussions with the parties, the court orally sustained the motion. This opinion more fully amplifies that ruling. ...
Views: 1
885 F.Supp. 1370 (1995) Susan BRADSHAW, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN ROAD MOTOR INN, et al., Defendants. No. CV-N-94-0074-ECR. United States District Court, D. Nevada. April 18, 1995. *1371 *1372 Michael E. Langton of Langton & Kilburn, Reno, NV, for plaintiff. Bruce Laxalt of Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., Reno, NV, for defendant. ORDER EDWARD C. REED, Jr., District Judge. This is a sex discrimination ...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................1268 II. ANALYSIS........................................................................1270 A Subject Matter Jurisdiction........................... 1270 1. Facial Or Factual Challenge Pursuant To Rule 12(b)(1) ........................,. 1271 ...
Views: 0
ORDER Now before the Court is defendant Ron Angelone’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #25) based on qualified immunity. The motion is opposed (Doc. #29) and a reply (Doe. #30) has been filed. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court. Zweig v. Hearst Corp., ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS This cause of action is before the court on defendant’s motion to stay the action and order arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4. 1 *118 The question before the court is whether an arbitration clause found in the employment agreement between the parties is enforc...
Views: 3
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS On March 1, 1995, the above captioned matter came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Rudi M. Brewster. Defendants were represented by Anthony Da Silva, Esq. Plaintiffs were represented by Sheila A. Reid, Esq. via telephone conference call. After due consideration of the papers filed both in support of and in opp...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before the court is defendant and third-party plaintiff USAir’s appeal of Magistrate DiBianco’s discovery order filed March 6, 1995 which requires USAir to produce documents and make certain microfiche records available for inspection. In the underlying action plaintiff and his wife assert claims of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and loss of cons...
Views: 0
OPINION I Introduction Pending before the Court is a motion by the Regional Bell Operating Companies (Regional Companies) to modify Section 11(D) of the decree to allow them to provide cellular and other wireless services across LATA boundaries. 1 In essence, the Regional Com *2 panies wish to be able to offer interexchange service (colloquially r...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (Popular) contracted to purchase an airship from defendant Thunder & Colt, LTD (Thunder). This device, known as a blimp, is a helium-filled, aerial apparatus designed to attract attention to the company whose logo and name adorns its side. Plaintiff purchased the airship for promotional and advertising purposes. Unhappy with the res...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Arthur H. Ode, Jr. (Ode), who now lives in Wisconsin, previously worked at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) as director of the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum (NSA). Ode claims that Defendants, especially Irvin Omtvedt (Omtvedt), vice chancellor of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) at UNL, harmed him by (1) terminating his employment becau...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT I. INTRODUCTION This court has previously found that the system of election for the Holyoke City Council violates the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. This memorandum will address the appropriate remedy. The court will enjoin the defendants from conducting any City Council elections under the current electoral structure...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Defendant Edna Marie Litton Erwin’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Erwin asserts as a matter of law: 1) Plaintiff is incompetent to testify regarding transactions or communications with his deceased father; 2) Silling, Sr. had the requisite mental capacity to execute the codicil dated April 13, 1991; 3) the April 13, 1991 codicil was exe...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for sanctions for plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate with discovery. As outlined in the moving papers, plaintiff refused to cooperate with a scheduled deposition on February 13, 1995. Defense counsel arranged for a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Wallace W. Dixon, who granted an oral motion to compel plaintiffs testimony. Desp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the Defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and for summary judgment on the merits based on the duty of fair representation. For reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on claims barred by the statute of limitations is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Further, Defendant’s ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS AND THE COURT’S TRIAL PLAN The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to De-certify the Class and the Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, and the trial plans submitted by the parties, and the Court, having reviewed the relevant materials on file herein, having heard the oral arguments of the parties and being fu...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Joseph E. Wilkicki, Jr. (“Wilk-icki”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was discharged from public employment as a police officer in retaliation for his exercise of protected First Amendment activities. In addition, he brings two pendant state claims against defendants. This case is now before the Court for further consid...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DISMISSAL OF ACTION This matter is before the court on appellant Evelyne Broitman’s (“Ms. Broitman” or “Appellant”) appeal of an order entered by the Honorable Judith A. Boulden, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge, on November 30, 1994, granting appellee Scott Frank Kirkland’s (“Mr. Kirkland” or “Appellee”) motion to dismiss for failure to timely ...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The bench trial of this matter having been concluded, I now issue my findings of fact *1295 and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants denied them their right to freely exercise their religion in violation of the First ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve two discovery motions, regarding the same discovery request. Plaintiffs, Northwood Nursing and Convalescent Home, Inc. and Nursecare Health Centers, Inc., moved this Court to Quash Defendant, the Continental Insurance Company’s, Subpoena for Documents and Deposition and for Entry of a Protective Order. Defendant opposed this Motion with a Memorandum of Law. Several day...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants 1 on November 28, 1994. For reasons that follow, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due to be DENIED. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 2, 1994, Plaintiffs 2 filed this civil action pursuant ...
Views: 1
OPINION Dennis Olivares and his employer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), have been at odds for a considerable time. Since at least 1989, Olivares has clashed with NASA over the conditions of his employment, causing him to file among other things Equal Opportunity Employment complaints, grievances through his union (the Goddard Engineers, Scientists and Technicia...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1404(a) and (b). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue is Denied. I. Background Plaintiff brought this c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The plaintiffs assert that a preliminary injunction is necessary in order to prevent a strike by members of the defendant Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (“BMWE”) against one or more railroads. This motion has been fully briefed by the plaintiffs and the BMWE and the Court co...
Views: 0
The present case is before the court on appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) to discontinue Plaintiff’s Supplemental Security Benefits and to collect an overpayment which resulted from Plaintiffs ownership of excess resources. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the Secretary’s decision. I. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff, Shirley Woods...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has moved this Court to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaims against her. Plaintiff brought charges to the EEOC against David Braverman and her former employer, the law firm of Fellheimer Eichen Kaskey & Braverman, and has now brought this action against the Defendants alleging Title VII violations and other torts. Defendants asserted three counterclaims against Plaintif...
Views: 1
OPINION I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. [Docket Item (“D.I.”) 22]. In his application, Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $6,722.45 and expenses in the amount of $200.00. The Government has not responded to Plaintiffs Motion except to state that it...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I.INTRODUCTION Plaintiff W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) commenced this trademark infringement action against Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (“J & J”) on October 7, 1994. Gore claims that J & J infringed Gore’s dental floss trademark registration “Glide” by use of a similar trademark for its dental floss “Ea...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This case involves efforts of Orange County social workers to protect children of the plaintiff parents from abuse alleged by an informant to have occurred, and confirmed by statements of one of the children during *72 an interview at the child’s school. 1 While no action- was ultimately taken against the parents in this instance, this fact c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Prince William Professional Baseball Club (“Cannons” or “Plaintiff’) brought this action against Defendants Francis Boul-ton (“Boulton” or “Defendant”), Harrelson Sports Group Limited Partnership (“Harrel-son”), and Kenneth Shepard (“Shepard”) asserting various breach of contract claims. Plaintiff has settled claims against Defendants Harrelson...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Illinois Sporting Goods Association, Maxon Shooters Supply, Inc., Shore Galleries, Inc., Cook County Gun Collectors, Inc., Ronald Straff, William Khcka, and Paul Petersen (hereinafter collectively referred to as “plaintiffs”) seek, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants Cook County and Barbara Bruno, in her offic...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is a civil diversity suit stemming from an automobile accident in which plaintiffs’ decedent, Eva Smith, a citizen of Delaware, was killed when the car she was driving collided head-on with another car. Plaintiffs Beverly Essick and Mandil Smith, also citizens of Delaware, filed this action under 10 Del.C. § 3724, Delaware’s wrongful death ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER These consolidated cases had their genesis in Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.’s (“Prudential”) decision to withdraw from the Puer-to Rico market, and the resultant termination from employment of several top executives assigned to the Puerto Rico office. The first action (Civil No. 90-2659) was filed on December 28, 1990 by plaintiff José F. Rodriguez, former President ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Robert Reich, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (“Secretary”), brings this three count complaint against defendants Arthur McManus and Richard Covelli alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Presently before us is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons se...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendant Uniflo Conveyor, Inc.’s (“Uniflo”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Hamischfeger Engineers, Inc.’s (“HEI”) complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court held a hearing on Uniflo’s motion on ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. This is another ease, of a type seen with increasing frequency in federal courts, in which an employee seeks to transform arguably harsh treatment by an employer into a claim of statutory discrimination. Beyond pure speculation, however, the evidence in no way suggests that the employer’s actions were unlawfully discriminatory, a burden of proof which the employee ulti...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Preliminary Matters This case is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Sarns/3m Health Care, Inc. (“Sarns/3M”) against plaintiff Homedical, Inc. (“Homedical”). Plaintiff has filed a timely opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and defendant now seeks leave of court to reply. Plaintiff objects to defendant’s attempt ...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, and request for sanctions. The Court overruled the Defendant hospital’s objections at the conclusion of a hearing held on October 27, 1994. This order supplements that ruling and addresses sanctions. This is a medical negligence case in which Plaintiffs allege Defendants were negligent during the birth of Megan Eliz...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff, together with her husband, originally brought this action against the General Services Administration (“GSA”) and the United States under the aegis of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., seeking compensation for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of a fall suffered while walking on the sidewalk parallel to the Federico Dege...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court are defendants’ motions for summary judgment in connection with the remaining claims of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the Milberg Weiss defendants’ counterclaims. Defendants are the law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes and Lerach, and certain individually named firm members (“Milberg Weiss”), and the law firm of Cotehett, IEston and Pitre and pa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Affiliated Capital Corporation (“Affiliated”), has filed a motion for summary *648judgment to which defendants, Frederick A. Buck (“Mr. Buck”) and Medical and Surgical Health, Inc. (“MSHI”), did not respond. For the reasons discussed below, Affiliated’s motion is granted. Undisputed Facts 1 Affiliated is an Illinois corporation, and MSHI was a Missouri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION By standing Order entered on June 26, 1992, this Court referred this ease to the Honorable B. Waugh Crigler, United States Magistrate Judge, for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. The Magistrate Judge filed his Report on February 23,1995. On March 13,1995 the plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and the defendant filed a response to the plaintiffs o...
Views: 0
ORDER In this action, plaintiff, Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. (“Citicorp”), seeks to enforce the terms of guarantees signed by defendants, The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (“CFCL”) and Cadillac Fairview Inc. (“Cpi”). plaintiff alleges that defendants became hable for $3,500,000 plus interest when Cadillac Fairview U.S., Inc. (“CFUS”) failed to pay that amount on March 15, 1994. Plaintiff ...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff West-chester Fire Insurance Company (“West-chester”), and the motions for partial summary judgment filed by defendants Hedding-ton Insurance Limited (“Heddington”), Texaco, Inc. (“Texaco”) and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. (“TRMI”). Having considered the motions, the submissions on file, and the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER Presently before the court are plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and defendant’s motion for attorney fees and costs. Opposition to both motions were filed by the parties. Oral argument was heard on March 2, 1995. FACTS Plaintiff David J. Dittmann was an employee of defendant Ireco, Inc. and its predecessor company, Hercules, Inc...
Views: 0
OPINION On this motion the court must consider the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement allegedly made to plaintiff by defendant’s attorney during a break in a deposition taken in conjunction with an earlier lawsuit. Plaintiff, Michael Moody, has brought this suit against his employer, the Township of Marlboro, its former mayor, Saul G. Hornik, and its Chief of Police, Joseph Walker. Pla...
Views: 0
OPINION This ease involves a constitutional challenge against the employee drug testing program that was adopted by the Monmouth County Board of Health (“the Board”) in February 1994 and rescinded a short time later. 'In an effort to provide a safe, drug-free facility for its employees and customers, the Board implemented a policy which re *142 quired drug testing of every new-hire candidate;...
Views: 0
876 F.Supp. 1148 (1995) Seneva BERRY dba Sunny Farms, Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, a Corporation, Defendant. No. CV-F 94-5161 REC/DLB. United States District Court, E.D. California. February 6, 1995. *1149 Lanny T. Winberry, Law Offices of Lanny T. Winberry, Bret Culbreth, Law Offices of Bret Culbreth, Stephen Nelson Cole, Cole and Culbreth, Sacramento, CA, for plaintiff. M...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sharon E. Grubin filed on November 1, 1994 in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus was accepted and the petition dismissed on December 23, 1994. On December 28, 1994, the petitioner moved for reconsideration on the ground that he did not receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, on January 17, 199...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Walter Summers (“Plaintiff’) an inmate at Cook County Department of Corrections, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, James W. Fairman; the Cook County Sheriff, Michael Sheahan; and *1167 the Superintendent of Division V, Ernesto Ve...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND This Memorandum and Order addresses four outstanding motions in this dispute, all filed in the aftermath of this Court’s Memorandum and Order of January 17, 1995. See Killian v. McCulloch, 873 F.Supp. 938 (E.D.Pa.1995). The defendants in this action, A. Donald McCulloch, Jr., Reef C. Ivey, II, Albert J. DiMarco and John Sylves...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for March 2, 1995 was plaintiff Kathleen Roberts’ motion to compel the deposition of defendant Michael E. Sweat-man and Sweatman’s motion to stay his deposition and for a protective order. Also pending was defendant Americable’s related motion to compel production. 1 The parties timely filed a j...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER These two lawsuits are consolidated civil rights actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated. These two lawsuits were consolidated by this court for all purposes on June 27, 1994 (Doc. 24), and this Memorandum and Order pertai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants terminated his employment, in which he claims a constitutionally protected property interest, without due process of law. The court has reviewed the parties’ factual submission...
Views: 0
*1250 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed in connection with plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994), as well as several state law tort claims. Plaintiffs have filed a response to this motion, opposing the relief sought. The Court has jurisdiction over thi...
Views: 0
Samuel Shames and Richard Rothstein are doctors of dentistry who, since 1979, have been the principals of a dental practice at 274 Newbury Street in Boston. Through extensive advertising and promotion and apparently satisfactory and faithful service to their patients, they have developed a substantial practice in the Back Bay section of Boston where the office is located, and in the Boston area ge...
Views: 1
885 F. Supp. 300 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Brian E. DONNELLY, Defendant. Crim. No. 95-10007-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. April 20, 1995. *301 Bjorn Lange, Owen S. Walker, Federal Defender Office, Boston, MA, for defendant. Ben T. Clements, U.S. Atty.'s Office, Boston, MA, for U.S. MEMORANDUM AND DECISION GERTNER, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On Ap...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This case presents an issue of first impression in the First Circuit: whether S.E.C. actions for an injunction and disgorgement are subject to the five year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C- § 2462, the general statute of limitations for government actions aimed at imposing a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture.” I. Facts The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a person in custody at the Norton Correctional Facility, Norton, Kansas. The facts of the case are outlined in pages two and three of the respondents’ answer and return. The court finds these facts as outlined to be the facts of the ease and incorporates same into this Memorandum and Order by ...
Views: 0
885 F.Supp. 1254 (1995) Salena GARNER, Plaintiff, v. ARVIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. 1:93CV19SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. April 20, 1995. *1255 *1256 David C. Howard, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff. Kenneth J. Yerkes, John R. Maley, Barnes and Thornburg, Indianapolis, IN, for defendant. MEMORANDUM LIMBAUGH, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Great Lakes International (“GLI”) moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 and 59 for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial. Plaintiff John McSpirit, the former captain of the tugboat FRANK C. Barker (the “FranK B”), fell and injured himself on a ladder aboard the FranK B while cruising on the Hudson River in 1992. Mr. McSpirit sued GLI, owner of...
Views: 0
OPINION This case presents a challenge to defendant’s city-wide prohibition against new off-site billboards. Plaintiffs complaint alleges violations of the Michigan Home Rule City Act (“HRCA”), M.C.L. 117.1 et seq., and the relevant provision of the Zoning Enabling Act (“ZEA”), M.C.L. 125.581 et seq. The complaint also states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action asserts that plaintiff was terminated by his employer, defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”), “in direct violation of his civil rights and the laws of the State of New York” shortly after the employer became aware of certain alleged disabilities and infirmities. The action was commenced in the New York State courts and removed to this C...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Constance Guice-Mills was a nurse at the Montrose, N.Y., hospital of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the ‘VA”). She retired on disability in April or May of 1986. Plaintiff complains of discrimination with respect to race, color, gender, handicap and age, as well as retaliation for prior complaints. Am.Compl. ¶ 9. The Amended Complaint con...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 4, 1983, Petitioner was arrested and charged with the robbery and first degree murder of an 85-year-old-woman, Sophie Biskup. On April 4, 1984, a jury found Petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum mandat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, LaSalle National Bank (“La-Salle”), is a secured creditor of Crown Products, Inc. (“Crown”), holding a mortgage on property that is now an asset of the Bankruptcy Estate of Crown (the “Estate”). La-Salle filed the present lawsuit against defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. (“Owens”) seeking recovery of response costs it has incurred in investigating that proper...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the Court are defendant Simpson Plainwell Paper Company’s (Simpson) motion for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and motion for sanctions, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. FACTS Plaintiffs Alvin Blanchard, David Casarez, Kevin Knobloch, and Allen O’Bryant, are former employees of defend...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court to consider an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s April 5, 1994 order. The court below held that subordination is a proper penalty for. a priority creditor when that creditor filed a tardy claim despite having notice of the bankruptcy filing. This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of bankruptcy ju...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Eugenio Cruz brought this action pursuant to §§ 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(e)(3) (1995) (the “Act”), challenging the decision of Defendant Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”), denying him Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“SSDI” benefits). Both par...
Views: 0
*8 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Having had its application for a liquor license denied by the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (“Board”) solely on the basis of a religious objection filed by the Lincoln Park United Methodist Church (“Church”), plaintiff, Espresso, Inc., t/a Park Cafe (“Espresso”), initiated this action against defendants, the District of ...
Views: 0
ORDER Petitioner initiated this action on November 5, 1993, by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (hereinafter Petition) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction, following a jury trial, for six counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and one count of firing at, within, or into an occupied vehicle. 1 (R. 266) Petitioner was...
Views: 0
ORDER The cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 3), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed May 18, 1994. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 11,1988, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of purchase of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) and possession of cannabis in violation of Section 893.13(l)(g), Florida Statutes...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION William M. Nicastro and Roy D. Little are federal prison inmates housed at the United States Penitentiary in White Deer, Pennsylvania, who have brought a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., (“FLSA”) against the Executive Directors of Federal Prison Industries (“FPI”), among others.1 *1129FPI was created to provide work to inmates confined in fed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 28, 1990, plaintiff Raymond Griffin (“Griffin”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison and hospital officials due to their alleged failure to provide prompt and adequate medical treatment for his alleged health problems, which Griffin claims constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” For the reasons more fully set forth below, Gr...
Views: 0
OPINION In this breach of contract suit brought by Neal Maslan (“Maslan”) on behalf of himself and a putative class of others similarly situated, defendant American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons discussed herein, summary judgment will be granted. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The United States (the government) brings this action against the New York City Transit Authority (the Authority) alleging that the Authority has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). The government seeks an order enjoining the Authority from maint...
Views: 0
A class of private plaintiffs and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought two civil rights actions in 1973 against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (“NMDU” or “Union”) and more than fifty news publishers and distributors within the Union’s jurisdiction. Both suits charged that the Union, with the acquiescence of the publishers and distributo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Dianna Bibart brings this ten-count complaint alleging violations of her Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Presently before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Background At approximately midnight on May 18, 1993, defendant J...
Views: 1
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS THREE AND FOUR OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT In this case, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that United States Patent Nos. 4,342,832 (the ’832 patent), 4,601,980 (the ’980 patent), 4,366,246 (the ’246 patent), and 5,221,619 (the ’619 patent) are invalid and not infringed by plaintiffs. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Seymore Schlager (“Schlager”) petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Schlager contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial when his defense counsel (1) failed to fulfill promises made in opening statement; and (2) chose not to pursue a “confusional arousal” defense. Schlager was convicted by a jury in...
Views: 0
The United States appeals the bankruptcy court’s entries of judgment for the Trustee in two adversary proceedings. The court heard oral argument on April 10, 1995 and now rules. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case is about net operating losses (“NOLs”). NOLs are created when a taxpayer’s deductible business expenses for a given year exceed its gross income for the year. 26 U....
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff A.R. Salman sued defendant Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service in state court for use of plaintiff’s corporate name (# la). Claiming to have been named in this action improperly, the United States of America removed to this court (# 1), and requested an extension of time in which to answer (# lc), which the court granted. Salman filed a “Notice and Demand to ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Crowd Management, Inc. (“CMS”) and James J. DeLoretto (“DeLoret-to”) brought this action seeking a refund from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) of payments made to the IRS for assessments and penalties arising from plaintiffs’ classification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees for employment tax purposes. Plaintiff DeLoretto als...
Views: 0
ORDER The government and the defendant have filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation issued April 11, 1995, by the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge. The objections are filed, pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(c)(2). The Magistrate recommended that defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment be denied; that defendant’s motion for a hearing to dismiss the in...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Thomas Wilkinson claims that he was falsely accused of sexually abusing his young son, Benjamin Wilkinson (Ben), and stepson, Jonathan Wiegand. He brought this action in state court on his own and Ben’s behalf, against Stephen J. Balsam, M.D., a psychiatrist who treated Ben, Jonathan and their mother, Linda Wiegand, and against two employees of the Vermont Department...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND In this ease, the plaintiff, Arthur Poff, alleges in his complaint that he was discharged from his employment in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (the “ADA”). The factual background of this case is as follows. In January of 1986, Mr. Poff was hired by Defendant BancTee, Inc. (“BancTee”), a computer services c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Appellant River Village Associates (“River Village”), Debtor, appeals an order of the Bankruptcy Court confirming the reorganization plan of Appellee General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”). Debtor asserts that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding GECC’s plan confirmable, and in choosing to confirm GECC’s plan over Debtor’s own reorganization plan. Debtor also appeal...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has moved this Court to remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on the ground that there is neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) directs a district court to remand an action to state court if it appears that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. A district court may remand an action on juris*1...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This ease involves disabled preschool children residing in New York City who claim that they have not received an appropriate education as required by federal and state law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485 (the Act), mandates that states receiving federal aid develop a plan to provide a free appropriate spe *698 ...
Views: 0
ORDER The recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted for the reasons stated in his exhaustive Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 1995. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GOLD, United States Magistrate Judge: The defendants in this ease, all alleged to be aligned with the Orena faction of the Colombo Orga...
Views: 1
885 F.Supp. 1 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Larry G. MEADOWS, Andrew K. Peay and Leonard Meadows, Defendants. Crim. No. 94-0465 (JHG). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 23, 1995. James Robert Holloway, Federal Public Defender for D.C., Cheryl Denise Stein, Washington, DC, for defendant Larry G. Meadows. *2 Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, DC, for defendant Andrew K. Peay....
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION On September 29, 1994, Plaintiff Marie M. Sears, a former employee of Defendant Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”), filed a four-count complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court against Chrysler and six of its employees — Joseph McCormick, James Ripie, Dennis Aim, Don Witkowski, David Reed ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs Motions for Summary Judgment filed on April 1, 1994 and February 10, 1995. After consideration of the motions, the responses and the replies, the Court is of the opinion that the motions should be, and hereby are, GRANTED, with the exception of the “Chief Plaintiffs’” portion of the motion for summary judgment on the...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This is an action under an insurance policy arising out of a fire that destroyed the home of John J. and Sandra E. Clarke Fahy. In addition to seeking recovery of amounts allegedly due under the fire insurance policy the Fahys had purchased from Defendant Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), the Fahys seek relief under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371, which provides...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff, David L. Marschand (“Marschand”), has two lawsuits pending before this Court. On May 19, 1993, Marsc-hand filed a claim against the Defendant, Norfolk and Western (“NW”) under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. On April 28, 1994, Marschand filed a claim against NW and No...
Views: 2
OPINION Dial A Car, Inc., has sued Transportation, Inc., which does business as Red Top Cab Co. of Arlington, and Barwood, Inc., which does business as Barwood Cab Co. of Maryland. Dial A Car alleges that the defendants have attempted illegally to monopolize the relevant market and have engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C....
Views: 1
OPINION This action is brought by plaintiffs, Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc., Environmental Defense Fund and New Jersey Environmental Lobby (collectively “the Plaintiffs”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 432H370d (the “NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (the “APA”). Plai...
Views: 0
885 F.Supp. 133 (1995) Inez HUMPHREY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Con-Serv, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. AW 94-2813. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. April 28, 1995. *134 Robert O. Kazary, Cumberland, MD, for plaintiff. Lynne A. Battaglia and George Levi Russell, III, Office of the U.S. Atty., Balt...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is before the court on the petition of plaintiffs counsel for an award of attorney’s fees. The petition is unique in this court’s experience. It seeks an award of $1595.00 for what clearly represents court-related legal services plus any portion of the $9,594.75 which counsel has sought before the Secretary but which may not be approved by the Secretary, subject to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a bankruptcy appeal from an order of U.S. Bankruptcy Judge H. Clyde Pearson discharging the debt owed to the appellant. The parties have fully briefed the issues raised on this appeal. The Court has heard argument from the parties. This matter is, therefore, ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, the bankruptcy court’s order will be reversed. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch (“Zurich”), is the United States branch of Zurich Insurance Company, a Swiss corporation with its principal place of business in Switzerland. Zurich is licensed as an alien insurer under New York law. Respondent Ennia General Insurance Company (“Ennia”) was the United States Branch of Ennia Sehadeverzekering, N.V., a ...
Views: 0
*1074 OPINION AND ORDER This is a patent infringement action brought by plaintiffs Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Ethicon, Inc. (“Ethicon”) against defendant Riehard-Allan Medical Industries, Inc. (“Richard-Allan”). Ethicon claims infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,171,249 (“the ’249 patent”), entitled “Endoscopic Multiple Ligating Clip Applier.” This matter is before the Court on t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Before the Court are several pre-trial motions. The plaintiff moves to amend the complaint in order to add a cause of action for retaliation. The defendant moves to exclude or dismiss the cause of action for retaliation, and to exclude certain evidence from being admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 408. The Court heard oral argument on the various motions on April 10, 1995, ...
Views: 2
Memorandum and Order This ease concerns one of a large class of federal criminal prosecutions to which the Guidelines do not, as a practical matter, apply — those disposed of by plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C). For an earlier view of this case, see United States v. Mosquera, 813 F.Supp. 962 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (describing procedures for multi-defendant prosecuti...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER , Before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is granted and Plaintiffs motion is denied. FACTS 1 Plaintiff Steven Zoltek (“Zoltek”) brought this action against Defendant Safelite Glass Corporation (“Safelite”) alleging that Safelite did not pay him overtime wages to w...
Views: 1
OPINION Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment of defendant Amplicon, Inc. (“Amplicon”) in an action brought by plaintiff Radiation Systems, Inc. (“RSI”) alleging breach of contract due to failure to pay for goods sold and delivered. Summary judgment may be granted only if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is a pro se action brought by Stephen Berman (“Berman”) against Stanley K. Turecki (“Turecki”), a prominent child psychiatrist, and Steven F. Chapman (“Chapman”), a special agent of the Federal Bureau of *530 Investigation. Berman alleges that Chapman, acting under color of authority, engaged in a conspiracy with Turecki to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights unde...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiffs are Benjamin King (“King”) and his wife, Joyce King. Defendants are Judith Evelyn Hahn (“Hahn”), Jacob Imberman (“Imberman”), and Noveau Elevator Industries, Inc. (“Noveau”). On November 10, 1994, defendants filed a third-party complaint naming plaintiffs employer and the tenant-in-possession of the premis...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Andrew Curro, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages from four New York State court reporters. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants deliberately altered the transcript of his criminal trial. This matter is now before the Court on four separate motions. First, plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 37(...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Presently before this Court is the Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s (“defendant”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. Norman E. Kaezmarek (“plaintiff’) and his wife Emily Kaezmarek initiated this action based upon injuries plaintiff suffered at a plant owned by defendant while he was employed by Oldman Boiler Works which had...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ACTION I. INTRODUCTION The action was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs Lydia Cooks (“Cooks”) and Terrie Owens (“Owens”) seek enforcement of a 1989 settlement agreement between the parties in which the defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, brings this action on behalf of herself and her minor daughter who was allegedly raped by another juvenile in an abandoned building there. Invoking provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”)1 and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”),2 she sues the United States and Resolution Trust Corporation (“R...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 832 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Stephen E. TAYMAN, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-1575-AM. Cr. A. No. 92-112-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia. May 1, 1995. *833 Helen F. Fahey, U.S. Atty., Kevin C. Quin, Special Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, VA, for U.S. Robert H. Ellis, Stephen L. Lauer, Lauer & Lauer, P.C., Fairfax, VA, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLIS, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of Cryomedical Sciences, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Cryomedical” or “the Company”) during the period from September 13, 1991 through April 4, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “class period”). Particularly, Bea Boxer, Walter Boxer and Adeline Sirota and others bring thi...
Views: 1
885 F.Supp. 289 (1995) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant. Civ. No. 94-2734 (CRR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 3, 1995. *290 Dennis R. McBride, Supervisory Trial Atty., and Julie C. Bretz, Trial Atty., James R. Nealy, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Philip Sklover, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Reuben Daniels, Regional...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND: On April 14, 1995, plaintiff Welton Zolicoffer, an inmate at the Federal Correction Institution at Marianna, Florida, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges a widespread conspiracy among investigators, federal agencies, corrections officers and officials, judges and prosecu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Witco Corporation seeks leave of this Court to Amend its Answer to the United States’s Complaint in 94-0662 in order to assert a sixteenth affirmative defense. The United States opposes this Motion on the ground that the Motion is untimely and that amendment would unduly prejudice it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) sets forth the general principles governing amendment of pleadin...
Views: 2
885 F.Supp. 185 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ivy Nelson FOUNTAIN, Defendant. No. CR94-1002. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern-Dubuque Division. May 3, 1995. Daniel C. Tvedt, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Cedar Rapids, IA, for plaintiff U.S. Paul W. Papak, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Cedar Rapids, IA, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER MELLOY, Chief Ju...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff applied for Child Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act for her child, Jessica Krenz, the alleged child of a fully insured wage earner, Jeffrey Blakley, who died unmarried on November 28, 1982, before Jessica was born. Plaintiffs application was denied initially and upon reconsideration and was then the subject of a hearing before an administrative law judge....
Views: 0
The matter before the court is the motion of Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., Inc., and Keith Sales Co. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Foster”) to intervene (# 40). BACKGROUND A jury has heretofore returned a verdict on the merits in favor of Foster and against Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Hallco), Olof A. Hallstrom, and Robert M. Snellman on the issue of patent infringement. Th...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 1383 (1995) Grace A. DORRIS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WASHOE, Dianne Cornwall, Larry Beck, Gene McDowell, Jim Shaw, Steve Bradhurst, Vincent Swinney, Todd Vinger, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CV-N-94-353-ECR. United States District Court, D. Nevada. April 26, 1995. Anne M. Vohl, Reno, NV, for plaintiff. *1384 Gregory R. Shannon, Deputy Dist. Atty., Reno, NV, for defen...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER BILLINGS, Senior District Judge. The following motions bring this matter to the Court’s attention: 1. Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary Judgment dated October 20, 1994. 2. Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment dated January 26, 1995. 3. Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment dated January 19, 1995. 4. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike dated De...
Views: 0
*372DECISION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Roger Simmons commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the filing of a complaint on November 9, 1994. On November 30, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint and his action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 10, 1996, the court sent a letter to the plaintiff informing him that, if h...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER The plaintiff, Joseph G. Chambers, a shareholder of Í7 shares of stock in the defendant corporation, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on September 14, 1994. Presently before the court are motions for summary judgment filed by each side. A portion of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will be dismissed as ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER These consolidated actions stem from a physician peer review proceeding which eventually led to a curtailment of plaintiffs surgical privileges at the defendant hospitals. The Complaints in both cases allege a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section one of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as well as various state law claims. Currently before the court are...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, a former non-exclusive licensee of Disney products, brings this suit for infringement of derivative copyrights in the book Bambi Plaintiff alleges that last year it acquired certain rights in Bambi, and now seeks profits from the Bambi ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gerald Duncan Auto Sales, Inc. appeals a judgment by the bankruptcy court holding that it violated various consumer protection laws by failing to disclose previous *618 damage to an automobile it sold to appellee Mellonie Russell, and by then selling the vehicle with hidden and excessive finance charges. Duncan Auto also appeals the bankruptcy...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S STATE EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIM and DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S PROMOTION CLAIMS and DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S PROMOTION CLAIMS and GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S FLASTAT. § 760.10 CLAIM FOR COMPENSATORY AND...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Robinson’s July 7, 1994, Order, denying defendants’ motion to compel the production of documents listed on the privilege log of nonparty Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association, Inc. (“BCOA”) and certain other memoranda. The rulings of a magistrate judge are not to be set aside unle...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Although “[fjindings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56,” the Court nonetheless sets forth briefly its analysis. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). The background of this case is set forth in the related ease of Asia North America Eastbound Rate Agreement v. Pa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE Plaintiffs and Defendants bring a host of motions in limine. Having considered the parties’ arguments and authorities, the Court addresses two1 of the motions — Plaintiffs’ motion in limine regarding head apparel and Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to preclude the mentioning of the constitutionality of punitive damages and rules as follows: 1. With respect to Pl...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes to this Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 3, 1994. By order of this Court, Defendant filed a response on December 23, 1995. In its motion, Defendant also moved for summary judgment. On February 8, 1995, the Court held a hearing and heard oral argument on the cross-motions for sum...
Views: 0
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a § 1983 suit against several Indianapolis Police Department (“IPD”) officers and the City of Indianapolis for the death of Hersey Bryant. On August 9, 1992, Mr. Bryant disrupted a downtown church during Su...
Views: 0
ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Garner Johnson and Obie Turner for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, their motion is denied. I. Background Plaintiff June Christy Highsaw was admitted to Central State Hospital (“CSH”) in the summer of 1970, as a result of an admission agreement signed by her mother, Plaintiff Elizabeth Clark. At the time she wa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION At issue in this sequel to State of Qatar v. First American Bank of Virginia (“Qatar I ”) 1 is the meaning and legal significance of the phrase “for deposit only” following an indorsement on the back of a cheek. More specifically, the question presented is whether a depositary bank complies with the restrictive indorsement “for deposit only” wh...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER The parties have consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to have the undersigned conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of judgment. Plaintiff initiated this action to seek review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits, and the Secretary has moved f...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stattin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 5) and on Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 35). 1 Pursuant to the Court’s March 28, 1995 Order (Dkt. 51), Plaintiffs in consolidated Case Nos. 94-1567-CIV-T-21E, 94-1568-CIV-T-21A, and 94-1569-CIV-T-21B have informed the Court that they have no objection to th...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff, Pamela E. Long, brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), against the Defendant, Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., (hereinafter, “Ringling”) for sex discrimination based upon an alleged refusal to interview and hire Plaintiff ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT THIS CAUSE comes to this Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, filed on February 9, 1995. After requesting and receiving two extensions of time, Plaintiff filed a response on March 10, 1995. I.Factual Background Plaintiff worked in the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the Motion of Defendants Clement Messino and Christopher Richard Messino to Dismiss Indictment, filed two court days before their criminal trial is set to begin. The motion involves the double jeopardy implications of parallel civil forfeiture and criminal prosecutions. This court has already ruled on the double jeopardy effect of ...
Views: 0
OPINION and FINAL ORDER Plaintiff Shirley Gustafson brought an action against Defendant Southland Life Insur *856 anee Co. (“Southland”) for failure to pay life insurance proceeds on a $150,000.00 policy issued on the life of Plaintiffs decedent, Donald Gustafson (“Gustafson”). Am.Compl. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) to prevent Plaintiffs recovery un...
Views: 0
*967 OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs 1 filed this cause of action against defendants Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and James C. Dalrymple (“Dal-rymple”) in November of 1993. (D.I. 1) In December of 1993 Dalrymple filed a third party complaint against Peter C. Jones, Esq., the administrator of the estate of Winnita M. Sennett (the “Estate”). (D.I. 6) P...
Views: 0
The plaintiffs, Peter George Hoole Lowsley-Williams (“Lowsley-Williams”), individually and as a representative of certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (“Lloyd’s”) and nineteen London market insurance companies, brought an action pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under certain facultative reins...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an appeal from the bankruptcy court. The United States contends that the bankruptcy court erred (1) in finding that payments under a covenant not to compete were not property of the debtor’s estate and (2) in finding that a payment made by the debtor to the Internal Revenue Service was voluntary and that the IRS is equitably es-topped from applying this payment to...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (#25) filed by Plaintiffs on February 9, *4351995.1 Defendants filed an Opposition (# 29) on February 27, 1995, to which Plaintiffs Replied (#36) on March 20, 1995. After a hearing held on March 24, 1995, the Court entered an Order (# 40) requiring additional briefing on some of the relevant issues. Accordingly, Defendants filed a Supplemental Reply ...
Views: 4
ORDER Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss. Defendants Robinson and Hoover and Richard A. Robinson (“the Robinson Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss (#3) and Supplement (#9) thereto on March 1 and March 22, 1995, respectively. Plaintiff filed his Opposition (# 8) to this Motion on March 21, 1995. The Robinson Defendants did not file a Reply. Also before the Court i...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff, currently a Missouri prison inmate incarcerated in the Jefferson City Correctional Center, has brought this five-count complaint asserting claims of several kinds. Counts I through IV are claims pled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cape Girar-deau and Ripley Counties and several of their Sheriffs Departments’ personnel, alleging violations of plaintiffs constitutional right...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant, Walden Book Company, Inc., d/b/a Waldenbooks (“Waldenbooks”), filed a motion on January 18,1995 asking this Court for a judgment on the pleadings to determine whether same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Plaintiff has alleged that William R. Newberry was harassed by his immediate supervisor a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT CITY OF BOSTON’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (#4) COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge. J. INTRODUCTION In this removal action, the plaintiff Luis Gallego (“Gallego”) alleges claims arising out *1170 of an incident in May, 1991, during which he purportedly was assaulted and battered by police officers fr...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the Court are class plaintiffs’ and defendant Circle K Corp.’s (“Circle K”) cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Circle K was a fiduciary, as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), for the Fred Hervey Interests Employees’ Benefit Plan (“the Plan”) when it purchased certain real assets from the P...
Views: 2
ORDER This ease involves a challenge to the legality of United States Sentencing Commission commentary to its sentencing guidelines. The Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney’s office, maintains that the Commission has exceeded its powers. It therefore lies to court-appointed counsel for the defendant to seek to uphold the Commission’s actions. Although I have the greatest r...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Debra Carlson, has filed a disability discrimination action under The Americans with Disabilities Act, (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 1 She has alleged that her former employer, InaCom Corporation, violated the ADA by terminating her and failing to offer a reasonable accommodation for her disability. A three-day nonjury trial was conduct...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY PLAINTIFFS PEW AND KEENE The motion is Denied. The plaintiffs’ motion is essentially a reargument of their earlier opposition to summary judgment. I have already set forth in detail my reasons for granting summary judgment against the Pew and Keene plaintiffs. I make several observations on the state of the record in this case. First, I refer the p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the motions of defendants L.G. Dodson, Michael Matthews and the City of Charleston for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded and the defendants have replied. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff contends the conduct of the Defendants violated his constitutional and civil rights when he was subjected to an investigatory stop, searched, arres...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, a citizen of Colombia whose term of incarceration in federal prison ends in mid-April 1995, requests a writ of mandamus directing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings. After reviewing the petition, applicable statutory authority, and related federal jurisprudence, we dismiss petitioner’s motion. I. Background Petitio...
Views: 0
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons below, defendant’s motion is granted. I. FACTS Plaintiffs Stanley M. Katz and Charleene B. Katz seek recovery of $7,389.93 paid as self-employment taxes for the year 1987. Plaintiffs made two payments of estimated 1987 federal income ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is now before the court upon two matters. First, the court must correct a misstatement in a memorandum and order dated March 24, 1995, 881 F.Supp. 525. On page one of that order, 881 F.Supp. at 525, the court stated that Darrell Walters and Becky Williams had been dismissed from the case with the agreement of the parties. This is incorrect. Plaintiffs causes of act...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a review of an administrative proceeding pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq and Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. Section 405(g) of the Act provides for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”). Section 1383(c)(3) of the ...
Views: 0
OPINION Presently before the Court are (1) plaintiffs’ 1 motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. *163 R.Civ.Proc. 13(a) and (2) plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) to dismiss defendants’ claims against Bally Entertainment Corp. (“Bally Entertainment”) and Bally’s Health & Tennis Corp. (“Bally’s H & T”) for failure to state a ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. This cause was tried by the Court before this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the parties’ consents and the reference of the assigned district judge. The plaintiff asserts two claims. She sues under Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“F.L.S.A.”), June 25, 1938, chap. 676, 52 Stat. 1059, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (hereinafter cite...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER A Factual and Procedural Background This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for a jury trial. Plaintiff initially brought this action pro se on June 23, 1994, alleging violations of his constitutional rights during his detention and arrest by Chesapeake, Virginia police officers. Plaintiff subsequently retained Robert Haddad as counsel. Mr. Haddad’s first appear...
Views: 1
In the above-referenced prosecution, Defendants are charged with conspiracy to import, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute marihuana; distribution of marihuana; and possession with intent to distribute marihuana. Defendants Kenny, Peres, and Deciantis are also charged with certain weapons violations. Currently before the Court are various motions for pre-trial relief, including di...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Dispositive Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Request for Oral Argument (Dkt. 12) and the Plaintiffs response (Dkt. 29) in opposition thereto, the Statement of Material Facts in Dispute (Dkt. 26), and the supporting declarations (Dkts. 25 & 27). The Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. 1) alleges an action for patent infri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, TRW Title Insurance Company (“TRW”), and defendant, Security Union Title Insurance Company (“Security”), are title insurers.1 From 1984 to February, 1990, Security had an agreement with Liberty National Title Insurance Company (“Liberty”) whereby Liberty acted as Security’s title insurance agent.2 In December, 1989, TRW entered into an agreement with Libe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on motion by defendants Eitaro Itoyama (“Itoyama”), Shin Nihon Kanko Kogyo Co., Ltd. (“Shin Nihon Japan”) and Shinnihon Kanko Kogyo (USA) Co., Inc. (“Shinnihon USA”) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs Keiko Ono (“Ono”) and Atess...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Titan Security Ltd. (“Titan”) has brought this case pursuant to this Court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Count One of plaintiffs complaint is a claim to quiet title to a vessel and to cancel defendant Ronald D. Lauria’s (“Lauria”) purported lien on a vessel. Count Two of plaintiffs complaint seeks to recover costs,...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND *405 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. 405 II. ANALYSIS Removal and Remand. A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. B. Factors in Determining Status of an Entity. C. 1. Power to Sue and Be Sued in Its Own Name and to Enter into Contracts.•.. CO Degree of Autonomy Over its Operations. (M ^ CS Whether the Entity is Pe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT *382 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . 382 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT . 383 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.. CO cn A. Undisputed Facts. CO cn B. Disputed Facts . CO 05 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS . A. Disability Discrimination Under Federal Law. ...
Views: 2
Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiff The Sports Authority, Inc. (“TSA”), is the owner of a chain of 85 huge warehouse-type sporting goods stores called “The Sports Authority”. It has registered the name “The Sports Authority” and a logo that includes that name as service and design marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Defendant Prime Hospitality Corp. (“Prime”) ...
Views: 0
OPINION In an action before this Court brought in 1991, plaintiff insurance companies sought a declaratory judgment that they were relieved from any obligation to indemnify defendants for defendants’ losses in a certain products liability litigation. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging that plaintiffs had breached the terms of the insurance policy held by defendants by disclaiming coverag...
Views: 0
ORDER This longstanding school desegregation lawsuit was reopened last year when the plaintiffs — black school children and parents representing a class of people similarly situated — and plaintiff-intervenor United States filed motions for further relief alleging that defendant Randolph County Board of Education and its officials had violated prior desegregation orders and federal law. The c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BACKGROUND Defendant Patrick Nicolosi was indicted by a federal grand jury. He is charged with sending threatening communications through the U.S. mails in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. On April 5, 1995 the Government obtained a “so ordered” subpoena from this court directing the defendant to provide samples of his saliva. On April 7,1995, defendant moved...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendants Thomas Sherrett, Thanh Hai Vominh, and Tan Vominh move to dismiss the indictment in this action on the grounds that it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The government moves for an order staying the proceedings pending final resolution of the $105,089 case or, if no stay is issued, it argues that defendants’ motion...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Denise Trachsel has moved to dismiss a counterclaim for defamation filed by defendant Robert Sherman (“Sherman”). Plaintiffs complaint alleges sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, and related state law claims. 1 The defamation claim arises out of certain correspondence forwarded to defendant Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital (“Two Rivers”) by plaintiffs attorney prior ...
Views: 0
ORDER In January of 1989, Special Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration received information indicating that a large cocaine transaction was scheduled to occur on the evening of January 10, 1989. The special agents set up surveillance on a motel room in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and, after observing suspicious activity, arrested Eugene Chaney, Jr. They also seized a suitcase containing app...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The court has before it in this matter a motion by the plaintiffs (Doc. # 116) to establish a deadline by which the legislature of the State of Kansas must devise a form of election of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture and its Secretary which passes federal constitutional scrutiny. This court, in two rulings affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, found the previ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is currently before the court on the motion of defendant Employer Health Services, Inc., for a protective order (Doc. #58). Counsel for plaintiff John E. Aiken currently intends to interview various former employees of the defendant ex parte in an attempt to gather evidence in support of his claims. Defendant contends that these interviews would amount...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This case involves an action by plaintiff Federated Rural Electric Insurance Company (“Federated”) against defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) and International Insurance Company (“International”) in which Federated seeks judgment as an insured under separate insurance policies issued by defendants. The matter is ...
Views: 0
ORDER Petitioner, a convicted state prisoner currently confined at the Jefferson City Correctional Center in Jefferson City, Missouri, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1976). Petitioner challenges his 1988 conviction for first degree murder and the sentence of life imprisonment without parole imposed pursuant thereto. Petitioner raises the following gr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The Plaintiff in this action is an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup (MCIJ), who has challenged the State’s “co-pay” policy regarding inmate medical care. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant David Braverman has Moved this Court to Dismiss Count One of Plaintiff Maia Caplan’s Amended Complaint against him. Caplan was an associate with the Defendant law firm of Fellheimer Eichen Brav-erman & Kaskey (the Firm). Braverman is the principal shareholder and managing partner of the Firm. Caplan’s Amended Complaint alleges that Braverman and other members of the F...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a maritime personal injury case in which Plaintiff Bobby D. Adams (“Adams”) has brought suit against Defendant Weeks Marine, Inc. (‘Weeks Marine”) for injuries he allegedly received while working on a ship owned by Defendant. Before the Court now is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Adams is not a seaman pursuant to the Jones Act...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court upon the removal of five different actions from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County by Vector Whippany Associates (“Vector”). Presently before the Court are several motions of the parties. Balcor/Morristown Limited Partnership (“Balcor”), Misawa Homes Co., Ltd. and Tao International (collectively “Misawa”) and Schindler Elevator Corp...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the third time, this case is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment. Having granted summary judgment for the plaintiff/counterdefendant, Milton Koffman, on the underlying cause of action on February 3, 1995, the Court is now presented with this motion for summary judgment on the defendant/counterplaintiff corporations’ counterclaims. The counterclaim...
Views: 2
OPINION In 1989, plaintiff, the National Research and Development Corporation (“NRDC” or “plaintiff’) 1 , brought this action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 3,999,188 (“’118 patent” or “Hoult patent”) against Varían Associates, Inc. (‘Varían” or “defendant”). The Hoult patent discloses four claims. Claim 1 describes a nuclear magnetic resonance (“NMR”) apparatus made ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Jose Mario Garcia-Montalvo moved by letter for an order prohibiting the Government from offering at trial evidence of his 1985 conviction for conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The defendant is now charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute over one hundred kilograms of cocaine found in the dropped ceiling of the Isuz...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action seeks to require defendants to provide hearing-impaired patients with qualified sign language interpreters to assist them in communicating with hospital staff in the emergency room. Presently before the Court is (1) plaintiff Huberta Schroedel’s (“Schroedel”) motion, 1 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 23, to ame...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Mitchell Mass, a New York attorney, was retained by defendant Imperial Marketing, Inc. (“Imperial”) in February of 1992. Between that time and March of 1993, he advised Imperial and several affiliated entities, the other corporate defendants named in this action, on a range of corporate and litigation matters. In the fall of 1992, Bruce McClenahan, Imperi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM A verdict of $250,001 in a second jury trial *190 having become final, 1 plaintiff Russell Bolden moves for expenses, including attorney’s fees of $313,128 and non-taxable costs of $7,037.11. The verdict represented compensatory damages on plaintiffs claim that SEPTA had discharged him in violation of his civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I. As t...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 694 (1995) Velma CLARK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. No. CA 93-1365. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 4, 1995. *695 *696 *697 *698 *699 *700 Mignon D. Klein, Robert Ross, Alise R. Panitch, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman & Cohen, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Claudia M. Tesoro, Beth Anne Smith, Office of Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, PA, for defend...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this putative class action, plaintiff alleges a number of claims arising from defendant’s financing of retail motor vehicle purchases. In connection with such financing, defendant’s Standard Security Agreement (the “Agreement”) requires the borrower to obtain insurance for defendant’s benefit against “loss by fire, theft, and collision.” If the borrower fai...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey currently receiving welfare funding via the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“AFDC”) program, challenge the exercise *997 by the Secretary of the -United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) of her discretionary authority pursuant to § 1115 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1315(a), which permits the Secretary to w...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs have moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendants have moved for dismissal and summary judgment on various grounds. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion is granted as modified, Defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part as set forth below. The Parties Plaintiff Jennifer German has resided at ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. (“GE Capital”) brought this action against the Pinnacle Mortgage Investment Corporation (“Pinnacle”), Sandra Stevens-Miller, and Albert A, Miller, III (collectively, the “defendants”). GE Capital claims that the defendants have failed to make payments as required by the parties’ loan agreement. This court has jurisdiction over th...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc. # 30). The plaintiffs move the court to certify as a class action Counts 1-3 and 5-8 of their complaint. Defendants oppose class certification in this matter. Oral arguments were heard on the motion on March 27,1995. Following a thorough review of the submissions by the par...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On September 21, 1994, a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff William R. Dutton finding that defendant Johnson County Board of County Commissioners (“Johnson County”) unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Subsequent...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff, Shawn L. Shoen, a former Lance Corporal with the United States Marine Corps (Corps) at Camp Lejeune, originally filed this action on November 1, 1993 in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina for injuries he sustained resulting from a motorcycle accident. Former Lance Corporals Steven Reddish and Bruce Pheas*828ant were the driver and owner respect...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Kelly Lee Martin moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to *53128 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT In early 1992, defendant Martin was ...
Views: 0
ORDER The court has received defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (#203). The motion is denied. This court has recently ruled that a state forfeiture that precedes a federal criminal prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy barring the federal prosecution. See United States v. Ronald Lynn Branum, 872 F.Supp. 801 (D.Or.1994). In addition, this court has held that jeopardy will not ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT *1292 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................1293 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT..............................1294 III. FINDINGS OF FACT....................................................1296 A. Undisputed Facts...............................
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the Notice of Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and Order (# 22) filed by the defendant, Daikon Shield Claimants Trust (the Trust). BACKGROUND On August 8, 1994, the plaintiffs filed this action for products liability, negligence and fraud against the Trust in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. On September 6, 19...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This case involves claims brought by plaintiffs T.S.I. Holdings, Inc. (“TSI”) and New Progress, Inc. (“New Progress”) against defendants John C. Buckingham and Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”). New Progress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of *1459 TSI. Defendant Buckingham was president of TSI and New Progress and also...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Billy Ray Collins and Sheila Roberts move to dismiss the indictment, contending that this federal prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I have considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties and conclude that the motions must be denied. *517 FINDINGS OF FACT I. Proceedings Against Collins and Roberts O...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Judy Corrigan, has moved this Court for relief from this Court’s July 11, 1994 Order, and also requests a ruling in limine to introduce at trial the Minutes of the September 19, 1991 Quarterly Staff Meeting of Defendant Methodist Hospital. On July 11, 1994, this Court ruled that the Minutes were peer review material protected by Pennsylvania’s peer review act. Plaintiff pr...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 505 and the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), the defendants seek attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in this copyright infringement action. For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion is denied. I. In 19...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner, David L. Wells, filed a habeas corpus petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on December 9, 1993. Pending before this Court is: 1) a motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, John Marshall, on January 7, 1994, and 2) a-motion for summary judgment filed by petitioner on February 10, 1994. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Swartwood for Finding...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRW Title Insurance Company (“TRW”) seeks to bar the proposed expert of Security Union Title Insurance Company (“Security”), Ben W. Perks, from testifying in this case. TRW argues that Mr. Perks’ testimony is neither relevant nor expert on the issue about which he has rendered an opinion. TRW’s motion to exclude Mr. Perks’ expert testimony is granted. ...
Views: 0
OPINION Pursuant to the order of this court issued August 17, 1994, Pressman v. Estate of Steinvorth, 860 F.Supp. 171, 177 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (Carter, J.), plaintiff Alan Pressman seeks attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in the commencement of this interpleader action in the amount of $30,579.94. I. Guido Steinvorth, a Venezuelan citizen, died in March, 1984, leavi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff ICC Chemical Corporation (“ICC”) moves before me, as the Part I judge, ex parte for prejudgment attachment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 64 and New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 6211. The underlying claim is based on the alleged wrongful dishonor of a Letter of Credit (the “Letter”) by defendant the Industrial and Commercial Bank' of China...
Views: 0
DECISION OPINION and FINDINGS (in pari) NatWest loaned Century approximately $30 Million. The loans are in default. Century seeks to avoid repayment of and to invalidate the loan on a claim of lender liability by reason of alleged domination and control exercised by the bank over the debtor *603 during the course of the loans, making it “a mere instrumentality” of th...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Presently before the Court is David Lee Yohn’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Answer of Respondents thereto, 1 the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith, Respondent’s Objections thereto, and the record of the proceedings against Petitioner in the state courts of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff is an inmate at the Lancaster County Prison. In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, he alleges that the search and seizure which resulted in his arrest and conviction for a drug offense were unlawful. Defendants were members of the Lancaster County Drug Task Force. Plaintiff alleges that defendants stopped him in the Lancaster train station, asked him questions and s...
Views: 0
OPINION Preliminary Statement Plaintiff Robin Kershaw, individually and on behalf of certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, filed a complaint against defendant Nautica S.A. Ltd. (“Nautica”), owner of the yacht ALVA I, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for a declaratory judgment voiding a hull and machinery insurance contract (the “contract” or “policy”), claiming that (1) defenda...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, CIBC Bank and Trust Company (Cayman) Limited (“CIBC”), has brought this action relating to an alleged breach of the Multi-Year Deposit Facility Agreement dated September 22, 1988 (the “MYDFA” or the “Agreement”). Defendants, Banco Central do Brasil (the “Central Bank”), Banco do Brasil, S.A (“BdB”), and Citibank, N.A, in its capacity as agent under the ...
Views: 4
885 F.Supp. 1029 (1995) NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant. No. 1:94CV2008. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. May 3, 1995. *1030 Kevin F. O'Neill, American Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Raymond V. Vasvari, Cleveland, OH, for plaintiffs. Sharon Sobol Jordon, Charles E. Hannan, Jr., City of Cleveland, De...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Mitchell Caplan brings this diversity suit against defendant International Fidelity Insurance Company (“IFIC”). Plaintiff owns 53,000 shares of IFIC stock. Plaintiffs five-count complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty (Count I), conspiracy (Count II), fraud (Count III), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and asserts a...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Defendant United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS 1 Plaintiff Top Notch Food Center, Inc. (“Top Notch”) is a medium-sized grocery store at 5041 South Prairie Avenue in Chicago, Illinois and is a participant in the federal f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs in this action, former employees of the Town of North Hempstead, challenge the termination of their employment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, hereinafter “RICO”), and common law fraud. Plaintiffs bring this action against the ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Linda Limón appeals the final administrative action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying her Supplemental Security Income (“supplemental”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381-1383c. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Limón could return to her “past relevant job” as a housekeeper. (Recor...
Views: 0
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF BANKRUPTCY COURT Before the court is the appeal of debtors Herbert and Elaine Acosta from a bankruptcy court order finding that an assessment of tax liability was timely and that the IRS claim against debtors is entitled to priority status. For the following reasons, the court affirms both holdings of the bankruptcy court. On May 19,1992, debtors filed a Chapter 7 bank...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS On December 2, 1994, Plaintiff First Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) filed a complaint in *218 the Denver District Court against Gary R. Firth (“Firth”), James F. Byrne (“Byrne”) and Byrne, Beaugureau, Shaw, Zukowski & Hancock, P.C. (“the Byrne Law Firm”). Firth removed the action to this court on December 8, 1994 and filed an answer to the c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me is Defendant Ray Harper’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. Jurisdiction is found under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. I deny the motion. I. Background. Harper was one of many investors in the Ponzi scheme of M & L Business Machine Co., Inc. (“Debtor”). The Ponzi...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Luis Palacios Amaya moves to dismiss the indictment against him, contending that the prosecution violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT In November 1993, federal and state agents investigating a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me is Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1381, 1345 and 1355 and 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b). I grant the motion. I. Background. This case is a civil enforcement action brought by the United States pursuant to section 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties a...
Views: 1
ORDER The court has received petitioner’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied. The record establishes that petitioner entered a guilty plea in this case on March 25, 1987. At the time of the plea, federal administrative forfeiture proceedings involving a 1972 Mercury Lincoln Continental were underway, but a declaration of administrative forfeiture had not...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This ease has been brought before the Court by motion of the defendants, who have filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c) seeking to set aside the entry of default. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. 1. BACKGROUND The plaintiff in this case is Dr. Clement I. Momah, M.D., an aspiring obstetrician who has alleged, inter alia¡ that he was discharged ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs, the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund (the Fund), and the Assistant Administrator of the Fund, Joseph Samolewicz, have moved this Court for Summary Judgment against Defendants, Scranton Building Block Company, and an executive of Scranton, Theodore Lewis. Plaintiffs assert that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and therefore, summary judgment is ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Background This matter comes before the court on the motion of Troy Savings Bank, appellant-creditor, for leave to appeal an October 11, 1994 Decision and Order (“Order”) of the Bankruptcy Court. Following a hearing under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3012 and 11 U.S.C. § 506, Bankruptcy Judge Barry Schermer issued the Order which determined the values of the above captioned properties. F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I-Star Communications Corp. (“I-Star”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 47 U.S.C. § 555(a) against the City of East Cleveland and city council members Harold Miller, Isaac Jones, Gladys Walcott, and Jeremiah Johnson (the “council members”). This Court’s jurisdiction rests upon the federal questions raised. The council members move to dismiss, an...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This case is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a former women’s basketball coach at Utica College (the “College”), brought this action pursuant to Title VII, Title IX, and the Equal Pay Act, alleging that she was discriminated against based on her gender and that her employment contract was not renewed by defen...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel specific responses to interrogatory numbers 11 and 23 and responses to request for production of documents addressed to defendant. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff Paul Scaturro when a ladder, manufactured by defendant, allegedly failed, throwing plaintiff, Paul Scaturro, to the...
Views: 0
Today we must answer a question explicitly left open by the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) — namely, whether a member of the clergy may offer prayers as part of a public university’s graduation ceremony consistent with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Margie Osicka (“Osicka”) sues defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) alleging discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (count I), breach of contract (count II), and promissory estoppel (count III). Osieka’s claims arise out of Sears’ failure to rehire her after she took an extended pers...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION On February 10, 1994, Plaintiffs Douglas A. Johnson (d/b/a Douglas A. Johnston & Associates), and his construction firm Professional Management Co. filed a four-count complaint against Defendants Theresa C. Jones, Daniel A. Tosch, Tosch’s architectural firm (Progressive Associates...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Texas City, Mayor Chuck Doyle, individually and in his official capacity, Chief of Police Jerry Pur don, individually and in his official capacity, and unknown police officers’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ request ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert J. Kauffman that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. # 14] be denied, that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Docs. # 6 and # 8] be allowed as to Count One and denied as to Counts Two and Three, and that the pendant state law claims alleged in Counts Two and Three be remanded to the Circuit Cour...
Views: 0
ORDER AND JUDGMENT Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 23, 1995. The Plaintiff filed a response to this Motion on April 18, 1995. After reviewing the Motion, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. I. INTRODUCTION The underlying facts in this case are undisp...
Views: 1
OPINION Pro se plaintiff Richard Hodges commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a disciplinary proceeding held in March 1992 while he was incarcerated at Washington Correctional Facility (the “Facility”). Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and certain of the defendants’ mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action was initiated by International Association of Entrepreneurs Benefit Trust and related entities seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the Commissioner of Insurance . lacks jurisdiction under Va.Code § 38.2-3420 to regulate the IAEA Trust in its offering and providing of employee bene *1054 fits; (2) a declaratory judgment that application of V...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This case involves a number of claims of intentional and constructive fraud under the New York Debtor & Creditor law, as well as claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty, arising out of a bank loan and a series of intercompany transfers and defaulted obligations. Plaintiff initiated this action alleging that a subsidiary of the defendant Mel...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the sentencing of Defendant Chambers. On August 20, 1991, Defendant Chambers pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment, possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(A)(iii). The statutory minimum for this crime is 10 years and Defendant’s guide...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (“WMATA”) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Coramae Ella Gary has brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that "WMATA retaliated against and constructively discharged Plaintiff because of her complaints of sexual discrimination ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION This conflict arose after four private marinas began charging a $5 fee for use of their boat launching facilities at Center Hill Lake in May 1994. The marinas lease the property from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”). A group of boat owners brought suit against the Corps and the four marinas to put a stop to the user fees or, in th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellant/Debtor, Catherine Duffy Petit (hereafter “Debtor”) brings this appeal seeking reversal of the bankruptcy court’s April 26, 1994, Order Authorizing Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee. The Debtor argues that the record does not establish an adequate basis for the appointment of a trustee and that, therefore, such an appointment by the bankruptcy court const...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. REQUESTED EXPERT FEES UNDER § 3006A(e) Defendant seeks, ex parte, provisions for appointment of an expert in the analysis of *8hair, fiber and blood to assist his counsel in preparation and presentation of his defense. He relies upon United States v. Patterson, 724 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir.1984) (per curiam) for the proposition that the Court must grant such motions “wh...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION A. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 This is a police pursuit case. Plaintiff, Jacquelyne A. Smith, individually and as the *1088 Administratrix of the Estate of Shenita Renee Smith, deceased, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the LexingtonFayette Urban County Government (“LFUCG”); Harold Buchignani, in his official ca...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this litigation, Plaintiffs UNUM Corporation and UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (collectively “UNUM”) seek to amend UNUM’s 1986 tax return to claim a deduction for an alleged dividend distribution pursuant to UNUM’s conversion to a stock company. Now before this Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment fil...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is “Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration or to Alter or Amend Judgment or, in the Alternative, for New Trial” and its “Amended Motion” adopting and incorporating the same arguments as the previous motion. Having considered the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the motions. Backgrou...
Views: 1
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion for appointment of a special master, or, alternatively, for appointment of an expert. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the motion. Background This litigation arises from a long-term business relationship between plaintiff Livingston S. Hiern and defendant A. Lester S...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS The defendant, Kmart Corporation (“Kmart”), moves to dismiss this matter, contending that the cause of action in this tort diversity suit has prescribed.1 The Court considered this matter on memoranda only. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the applicable law and the record, the Court GRANTS the motion. Background On November 7, 1993, the plaintiff was allegedly in...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On May 1-3, 1995, this Court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. After considering the evidence presented, the argument of counsel and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion is due to be DENIED for reasons set forth in the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact On January 15,1995, a new area code we...
Views: 0
*1219 OPINION Civil Forfeiture. The claimant says she is an innocent owner. The facts say she is not an owner at all. At bench trial, the government sought to forfeit the defendant property as being purchased with the proceeds of drug sales and for being used to facilitate drug transactions. 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6) and 881(a)(7). The claimant said she was an inn...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 3, 1991, Mary Moore tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Building in Queens, New York. In July 1992, Moore brought this action against the United States and the Social Security Administration to recover damages for injuries she allegedly suffered in the fall. In her complaint, Moore alleges that the defendants were hable for the ...
Views: 0
*198ORDER RE USE OF DIGITAL ANALYZER On April 3, 1995, the United States of America (“applicant”) applied for an order to permit agents of the Orange County Regional Narcotics Suppression Program (“RNSP”) to use a cellular telephone digital analyzer. The application was denied without prejudice by order filed April 6, 1995, because the disclosure was insufficient for the court to determine the pr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs are required to return to Defendants interim attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $122,440.31 awarded in 1989, plus interest, in light of the mandate and decision of the Court of Appeals in Ayuda, Inc. v. Reno, 7 F.3d 246 (D.C.Cir.1993). BACKGROUND FACTS The original complaint in this action was filed on March 8, 1...
Views: 0
ORDER The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted. *1441Plaintiff John Gallará claimed that defendants damaged his business by engaging in a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation during which the SEC subpoenaed certain information concerning plaintiff’s financial transactions from third party banks,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-OPINION I. Introduction Plaintiff is a former candidate for governor for the state of Minnesota. In his complaint, he alleges that employees of J.W. Marriott inappropriately released to Minnesota reporters a receipt indicating that he had stayed at Defendant’s hotel and that such receipt provided corroboration for a story *1071 about an alleged lia...
Views: 2
ORDER DENYING REMAND Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for remand (D.E.#4) and defendant’s response. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED. This action, through which plaintiff seeks to enforce certain commercial insurance policies, originally was filed in Shiawassee County Circuit Court on January 9, 1995. On January 13,1995, plaintiff effected service by certified mail u...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The instant motion for summary judgment presents the question whether plaintiffs negligence action based upon on-the-job injuries is barred by federal labor law. Concluding it is, the court grants summary judgment and dismisses this action by judgment filed today. I This is an action by plaintiff Stephen Kirk Greenhill (“Greenhill”) against defendant Merchants Fast Mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER The Keene Corporation (“Debtor” or “Keene”) filed an adversary proceeding against twenty-seven law films (“Defendants”), alleging that Defendants forced Keene into bankruptcy. Defendants have moved for withdrawal of the reference of the proceeding from the bankruptcy court to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg (“LPK”) als...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Charles Booker brings this action against defendants City of Chicago and four Chicago police detectives, James Ward, Thomas Kelly, William Owens, and Torrence Lewis. The Amended Complaint contains two counts. Count I is a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which it is alleged that the four detectives 1 are responsible for arresting ...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on several motions to dismiss: (1) Defendants Winn-Dixie and Crawford & Company’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Dkt. 34) and Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. 51) thereto; (2) Defendants Broedell Plumbing Supply, Inc., FCCI Mutual Insurance Company, Florida Employers Insurance Service Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Dkt. 35) a...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter is before the Court for resolution following a bench trial conducted on April 3-4, 1995. The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52: I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs Michael Wayne Davis (“Davis”), Ivan Mallory (“Mallory”), Raehman Farrakan (“Farrakan”), Curtis Price (“Price”), and T...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant was convicted of tax evasion. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence. It remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Pfeiffer, No. 94-1331, at 4, 50 F.3d 3 (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 1995) (unpublished). While awaiting resentencing, the defendant filed a number of motions, including a motio...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is the Twiggs County defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion was initially couched in the form of a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 12(b). Alternatively, defendants sought a determination of the status of plaintiffs claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, allowing courts to award summary judgment. Because matters ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In June, 1993, Spectrum Holobyte (“Spectrum”) merged with Microprose Inc. (“Microprose”), a company co-founded by John Stealey. Pursuant to the merger, an Option Agreement was reached which allowed Spectrum to purchase up to one-half of the total number of shares in Microprose owned by Stealey if notice of exercise was given by *139December 18,1994.1 Spectrum mailed notice of ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Presently before this Court are the objections of the government defendants (“defendants”) and Woodfield-Chapin Associates (“intervenor”) to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Hon. Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York, recommending that this Court deny plaintiffs and defendants’ motions for ...
Views: 0
ORDER This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was originally filed before Judge Mary Johnson Lowe who, on March 18,1993, referred it to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a Report and Recommendation. In a Report dated October 15, 1993, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny Michael Robert’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, appearing pro se, filed tim...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the court are defendant Madison County Florida’s (“the County”) motion for summary judgment (document 54) and plaintiffs response thereto (document 57). The County has also filed a supplemental memorandum of law (document 73) to which plaintiff has replied (document 74). In her complaint, plaintiff alleges the County violated her rights to procedural d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, and was subsequently reassigned to the Honorable David Trager, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Thereafter, on June 15, 1994, this case was referred on consent to the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants now move for su...
Views: 0
ORDER Daytona Rescue Mission, Inc. (DRM) and Gabriel J. Varga (Varga) bring this action against the City of Daytona Beach (City) and the City of Daytona Beach City Commission (Commission) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-2000bb^4, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. DRM and Varga assert that the City code violates...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Currently before the court is Teamsters Local 1149’s (“Local 1149”) and the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or alternatively for summary judgment. This is the third time this action is before the court. Plaintiff originally brought this action alleging violations of: • Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff in this case, Joyce Schofield, is an African American woman and an employee of the defendant, the University of Pennsylvania. She has filed a complaint alleging that she was subjected to racial discrimination and sexual harassment at her place of work, and that she suffered psychological harm as a result. Because of the sensitive nature of the case, the parties...
Views: 0
The Court has before it the Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena filed by a party hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Witness” and the materials submitted by the parties relating thereto. The Court has held a hearing, including the taking of evidence, and had the benefit of the arguments of counsel. This case involves an ongoing grand jury investigation of certain matters including allegedly fraudul...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 1 Plaintiff Barbara Wytrwal started teaching behaviorally impaired students at Saco Middle School in the fall of 1990. 2 Ex. J-12; Tr. Vol. IV at 8; Tr. Vol. Ill at 79. Wytrwal, like all other new teachers, was in probationary status for the first two years. Ex. J-12; Tr. Vol. I at 8. At the end of a second probationary year, teac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING Before the court is a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” filed by American Telephone & Telegraph Company (“AT & T”). By this motion, AT & T seeks to limit the amount of damages recoverable by Corporate Investigative Division (“CID”) to the amount set forth in the tariff filed by AT & T with the Federal Communications Commission. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS Jill Lytle B...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is “Plaintiffs Second Motion for Summary Judgment,” which was taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. After reviewing the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part. Background Plaintiff, defendant in counterclaim and third-party defendant Laitr...
Views: 0
ORDER The defendant, Metropolitan Airport Commission (“MAC”), has refused to lease ground transportation services counterspaee at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport terminal to the plaintiffs. MAC leases this counterspace to regularly-scheduled, fixed-route, fixed-fee commercial ground transportation services. Plaintiffs allege that MAC’s refusal to lease counterspace to them ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Docket No. 6). This motion was originally part of a combined Motion to Dismiss or Suppress, most of which this Court denied previously in an Order entered on March 1, 1995 (Docket No. 19).1 In that Order, this Court reserved ruling on the issue of whether certain statements by Defe...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Based on the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court grants defendant’s motion BACKGROUND Plaintiff Greyson B. Morrow was employed by defendant Air Methods, Inc. in St. Paul, Minnesota, as a pilot from April 7,1985, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant Peter Bouchard is facing a six-count indictment which alleges that, on three different occasions, Defendant provided false information on a bank credit application and, on these same applications, used a false social security number (Docket No. 1). Now before the Court is ...
Views: 0
Sitting by Designation. OPINION OF THE COURT Appellant contends that the Territorial Court erred in its finding that Appellee was not speeding and in failing to consider the defenses of contributory negligence and "last clear chance." For *270reasons set forth below, this Court will affirm the decision of the Territorial Court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant, Paul Horsford, was involved in an automo...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action for damages brought by Jorge Rivera Surillo & Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as “JRS”, under the provisions of Act no. 75 of June 24,1964 as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 278 et. seq., otherwise known as Puerto Rico Dealers Act. “JRS” requests recovery of damages from Cerro Copper Products Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Cerro Copper”, for it...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This civil action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), is presently before the court on two motions for summary judgment: one from defendant SC Data Center, Inc., and the other from defendants Erickson, Sullivan and the Bureau of Correctional Enterprises. Because the proposed facts accompanying these two motions are .large...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon consideration of this matter, sua sponte, the court finds that it possesses no subject matter jurisdiction over the case at bar. Removal in this cause was improvident, and this matter shall be remanded to the County Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi. FACTUAL SUMMARY The plaintiff Charles Merkel is an attorney in Clarksdale, Mississip...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER This is an action arising from an alleged wrongful denial of long term disability benefits under an employee benefits plan subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 *585 (“ERISA”). The defendant has moved for an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice, alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failu...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a breach of contract and fraud action in which plaintiff, Fonar Corporation (“Fonar”), seeks damages for defendants’, Tariq Contracting, Inc. (“TCI”) and Applied Medical Systems, Inc. (“AMS”), failure and refusal to pay the final two installments due on the purchase price of a magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) system. Fonar also seeks recovery of the additional cos...
Views: 0
ORDER Ramiro Cabello presents the problem of how to correct a sentence that this court imposed and that Cabello and the government agree is more harsh than called for by the Sentencing Guidelines. The easy solution to this problem would have been direct appeal. What makes Cabello’s case difficult is that he has had his appeal and did not at that time raise the present issue. See...
Views: 1
*106 OPINION Presently before the court is the motion of defendant Barco Auto Leasing Corp. for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. I. Factual and Procedural Background On November 7,1991, a three vehicle collision occurred in the southbound lanes of Interstate 295 on the New Jersey side of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The vehicles ...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on appeal from a conviction by the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge had jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3401, and this court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3402. For the reasons explained below, the judgment is reversed. I. FACTS Appellant was convicted in Redding, Cali...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiff, Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A.’s Motion For Summary Judgment, Motion For Summary Judgment Of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56, Motion Of Marketing Industries Group, Ltd. (“MIG”) For Summary Judgment, Motion Of Defendant Bloomingdale’s, Inc. For Summary Judgment, and the respo...
Views: 0
*129 OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation moves for summary judgment on the ground that choice of law principles compel the application of New Jersey law in this diversity action, and that, under New Jersey law, defendant is not liable to plaintiffs Betty Ann Heisler and John M. Heisler (together ...
Views: 0
879 F.Supp. 28 (1995) Richard LOWE v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. No. 94-4404. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 14, 1995. *29 Craig Thor Kimmel, Kimmel & Silverman, P.C., Blue Bell, PA, for plaintiff. Raymond T. Le Bon, White and Williams, Raymond A. Swan, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant. ORDER DITTER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 1995, defendant's m...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before this court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on February 22, 1995. Plaintiff filed a response on March 13, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, the response, the exhibits and memoranda of law, this court is of the opinion that Defendants’ motion should be GRANTED. *581 ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER JURISDICTION This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara on April 7, 1994. The parties executed a consent to proceed before the undersigned on October 12, 1994. The matter is presently before the court on Defendant’s motion to compel, filed September 7, 1994. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs, Thomas and Shirley Jones, both New York residents, commenced th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. Defendant Painewebber Incorporated (“PaineWebber”) has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has asked this Court for leave to file a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a seaman’s action for maintenance and cure. Plaintiff, David T. McMillan, a former seaman and deckhand on the tug Jane A. Bouchard, claims to have injured his back while he attempted to lift a shackle and line on the tug. As a result of this injury McMillan alleges that he was rendered unfit for duty and, therefore, entitled to past, present and future mai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS OFFER OF JUDGMENT Before this court is Plaintiffs “Motion for Declaratory Judgment that Defendant’s Offer of Judgment is Null and Void as Contrary to Federal Law” filed on March 28, 1995. Defendant filed a response to Plaintiffs motion on April 7,1995. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a reply ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Bivens 1 action is before the court on the motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment of defendants United States of America (the “United States”), Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”), and U.S. Customs Service (“Customs Service”) 2 filed April 25, 1994. Defendants *230 contend the discre...
Views: 0
*7ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Defendants collectively filed a pretrial discovery motion that listed a variety of information they sought from the government. The government, in response, noted those areas of discovery where (a) it had produced the requested information, (b) it would produce the requested information at an appropriate time in the future, and (c) it felt disclosure wou...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a consolidated action consisting of an action brought by seven named probation officers including one Robert Kirehgessner, Jr. 1 (the “Kirehgessner Plaintiffs”), as members of a putative class of all present and future probation officers employed by the State of New Jersey, see Kirehgessner Plaintiffs’ Verified Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand (...
Views: 2
ORDER This case involves a relatively small shipment of magnesium phosphide, a relatively large shipment of arsenic trioxide, and a storm at sea. As such, it is both an admiralty and an environmental case involving the M/V SANTA CLARA I. For the reasons set forth in detail below, this court denies the summary judgment motions made by Third Party Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The saga of plaintiff, Ronald Eugene Henry, to upgrade his 1969 undesirable discharge from the United States Marine Corps continues. On February 5, 1991, this Court issued an Order finding that plaintiff was entitled to the relief requested, that is an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. Henry v. Department of Navy, 755 F.Supp. 1442 (E.D.Ark.1991). The Eighth Circ...
Views: 0
ORDER The federal officials/defendants, all represented by the United States Attorney, move the Court (Doc. #54) to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Although not specifically stated, the basis for the motion to dismiss is for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to dismiss (Doc. # 58) and defendants reply (Doe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the final decision of the Secretary of Health Human Services [42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ] denying disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits to the plaintiff, Gayland R. Tibbits. The case is ripe for decision on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dk. 7) and on the Secretary’s motion for an order affirming the Secretar...
Views: 0
ORDER This represents the second, and penultimate, chapter written by the court in this litigation — the trial being all that remains. 1 The court now has before it numerous motions, including three motions for summary judgment. The summary judgment motions are as follows: Carl Overholser and O’Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer [the “attorney defendants”] move for summary ju...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Dorothea Beckett (“Beckett”) brings this action against defendants Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”), Gene Farrell (“Farrell”) and Jeffrey Jack (“Jack”) for alleged violations of § 296 of the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”). Plaintiff asserts three causes of action under § 296: (1) “hostile environment” sexual harassment; (2) quid pro q...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant David C. Sabin’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and for failure to plead fraud with the required specificity, Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Martha Williams’s Complaint alleges three separate counts against the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before this court are several motions requesting sanctions, including monetary awards, dismissal of counter-claims and cross-claims, and other relief because of various acts of alleged discovery misconduct among the Esso Defendants and their counsel. I. THE JANUARY 15, 1993 ORDER The first series of motions for sanctions, relating to failure of the Esso Defenda...
Views: 0
OPINION INTRODUCTION Before the court is an action in trespass, libel, slander, slander of title, intentional interference with business relations, and to quiet title to Parcel 6p and Parcel 7a, Estate Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, by Newfound Management Corporation, plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff petitions for permanent injunctive relief against Irv...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I. INTRODUCTION This case is brought by Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (the “Secretary” or the “DOL”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), against Prive Corporation (“Prive”), Priba Corporation (“Priba”), and Salah Izzedin (“Izzedin”) (sometimes collectively “th...
Views: 2
OPINION & ORDER This action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises out of a disruption at the Bronx House *625 of Detention on July 31, 1989. The plaintiff, Keith Haywood, who was a pretrial detainee at the facility, charged defendants Captain Gonzalo Garcia and Captain Edward Small with using excessive force against him. The plaintiff also asserted a claim against Richard K...
Views: 0
OPINION DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS 2 AND 5-12 OF THE COMPLAINT This is a related case to Novo Nordisk v. Genentech which also involves some of the same patents on human growth hormone. In this case, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that United States Patent Nos. 4,342,-832 (the ’832 patent), 4,601,980 (the ’980 patent), and 5,221,619 (the ’619 patent) are i...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Hilton International Co., Inc. (“HI” or “International”), seeks a permanent injunction restraining defendants from using the name CONRAD in connection with hotels located outside the United States and otherwise enforcing the terms of a certain Trademark Agreement. This agreement, PX l, 1 was entered into...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is defendant Esso's Motion for a New Trial, Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, Remittitur. *220 Plaintiff has filed a response to this motion and defendant has filed a reply to that response. Both parties filed supplemental memoranda with the Court following the completion of the trial transcript. On January 26, 1995, the C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 6,1993, Cesar Albert Planas entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately one kilogram of cocaine in the District of Kansas. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss count one, which charged the defendant with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine and/or in excess...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the plaintiffs “Motion for Injunction In Camera” (Dk. 81) and “Motion to Reopen Case and Vacate the Memorandum and Order” (Dk. 82). The defendants, Lou Ann Smith and Judith E. Banks, have filed responses in opposition (Dk. 84 and 85) to which the plaintiff has replied (Dk. 86 and 87). After reviewing the written materials submitted, the co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an employment discrimination case in which the plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her age. The plaintiff, Karen Mayo, worked for approximately three years as a sales associate at the defendant, Dillard’s Department Store (“Dillard’s”), located in the Westridge Mall, Topeka, Kansas. Dillard’s fired Mayo in September of 1993 and told her the reason for di...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this ease, the parties vie for the proceeds of life insurance policies issued by United of Omaha Life Insurance Company and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company insuring Kermit L. Pope, who is now deceased, and the proceeds of an IRA issued by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. The plaintiff, Mary Diane Pope, is the widow of Kermit Pope. Kermit and Mary Po...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 14, 1994, the debtor/appellant, Kansas Office Associates, Ltd. (KOA) filed a notice of appeal in this case. KOA appeals a November 4, 1994, bench decision of the bankruptcy court, later memorialized in an “Order Conditioning Automatic Stay” filed on November 15, 1994, requiring KOA to make adequate protection payments to Master Mortgage Investment Fund (MMIF) as a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). The plaintiff, Thomas E. Johnson, brings this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) to recover medical expense benefits under a group health insurance policy issued by the defendant Centennial Life Insurance Company (“Centennial”). Thomas alleges that be...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 28, 1994, the court commenced jury selection for the trial of Torain and five of his codefendants; Arnett Rice, the sixth codefendant, had previously been severed from the other codefendants. See United States v. Ailsworth, 873 F.Supp. 1450 (D.Kan.1994) (explaining reasons for granting Rice’s motion for severance). During voir dire, each of Torairis remaining code...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant City of Topeka’s (City) motion for summary judgment. (Dk. 33). The plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was demoted twice and eventually terminated in retaliation for reporting and speaking about two other city employees’ mishandling of public funds. The plaintiff also claim...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 26, 1990, the jury returned a verdict finding Miteheal Edmonson guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately 10 kilograms of cocaine, and one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately 2.25 kilograms of marijuana. On June 8, 1990, the court sentenced Edmonson to a primary term...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the plaintiffs “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice.” (Dk. 2). Appearing pro se, the plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 1995, seeking judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to recognize his homestead rights in certain land in Brown County, Kansas. The plaintiff alleges his homestead redemption ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s motion to suppress (Dk. 24). At the hearing held on the morning of March 13, 1995, the court heard counsels’ oral argument and testimony from the defendant and Officer Jerry Stanley of the City of Topeka Police Department. The court has reviewed the parties’ written memoranda and researched the legal issues raised therein. The...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 14,1994, this court issued a twenty-eight page memorandum and order granting the defendant’s, Donna Shalala, as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, motion for summary judgment. See State of Kansas, ex rel. v. Shalala, 859 F.Supp. 484 (D.Kan.1994). On page 490, n. 5, of that memorandum and order it states: In any event, the court wil...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 22, 1993, the plaintiff, Santiago Aramburu, commenced this action against his former employer, The Boeing Company (Boeing). Aramburu’s amended complaint seeks to recover damages and secure equitable relief to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Titl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dorothy S. Steinle commenced this case seeking damages under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), as well as supplemental claims for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 4,1992, the court entered a memorandum and order which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s...
Views: 0
*229 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the plaintiffs motion for review (Dk. 25) of the magistrate judge’s order filed December 16, 1994 (Dk. 22), and on the defendant’s motion to strike (Dk. 28) the plaintiffs motion for review as untimely. The court denies both motions for the reasons now stated. Motion to Strike The defendant argues the plaintif...
Views: 0
ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS I. Introduction This matter comes before the court on remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The remanded issue is whether Plaintiff, Nathan Robinson, effectuated service of process upon Defendants Davis, Huss, Finley, Brodmerkel, Reimer, and Manor pursuant to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. 1 After considera...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. BACKGROUND Decedent, Rachel Neely, died on March 18, 1988 at the age of 78. She had been confined to a wheelchair since the late 1970’s and had required full-time nursin...
Views: 0
ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The question on remand is whether Plaintiff, Nathan Robinson, effectuated service of process upon Defendants pursuant to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. After much consideration of the briefs ...
Views: 1
OPINION & ORDER On February 7, 1995, a jury found the defendant, Jose Remedio Mancebo-Santiago, guilty of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 1 The defendant now seeks a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Proee *373 dure 29(e) on the ground that the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence at trial to prove that venue was pro...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York transferred this dispositive motion (and nine similar motions) to me, by order dated November 5,1994, due to the backlog in his district, for the sole purpose of resolving the motion. Plaintiff pro se, Murad Hasan Beyah (“Beyah”), brought this action...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Bradshaw Samuels, pro se, a former state prisoner, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that certain defendants used excessive force to restrain him during an August 1985 incident at Clinton Correctional Facility (“Clinton”), and that other defendants violated several of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights during two disciplinary hearings resulting from ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. MeAvoy of the United States District Court for the North-*30em District of New York transferred this dispositive motion (and nine similar motions) to me, by order dated November 5,1994, due to the backlog caused by a number of vacancies in his district. Plaintiff pro se, Marvin H. Schaurer (“Schaurer”), a former New York State prisoner, brought this suit i...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants in the above-captioned matter have submitted a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Having considered the papers submitted by both parties, the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Richard Urias is a tax protestor; he has consistently refused to pay federal income tax and t...
Views: 0
ORDER OF REMAND On April 26, 1995, the Court heard arguments on plaintiff’s motion for remand. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the applicable law, and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History Plaintiff Joe Le’s Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 24, 1995. Defendants timely answered the complaint in San Ma...
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff Billy Billups, pro se, originally initiated this civil rights lawsuit along with two other plaintiffs, Collin Fearon and Bradshaw Samuels, by complaint filed February 7, 1985. Plaintiffs brought a multitude of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(2) and (3), 1986 and 2000d seeking declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief from fifty-four defendants ...
Views: 0
ORDER This court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hemann issued in the above-captioned case on March 13, 1995, which recommends dismissing petitioners’ petition to quash the summons issued to Fidelity investments and overruling the petition to quash summonses issued to the other third party record keepers and granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Although pet...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 10, 1994, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) (“§ 1415(e)(2)”), 1 Oak Park and River Forest High School District No. 200 (“District”) sued the Illinois State Board of Education and Todd A. (“Todd”), seeking review of a special education administrative decision. On November 1, 1994, pursuant to Fed.R.Ci...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On June 7, 1993, following an eight-day jury trial, El Tora Graham was convicted of six counts of a seven-count indictment charging him with various narcotics offenses, including conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. Three co-defendants indicted with him having plead guilty prior to trial, Graham was tried alone. On August 25, 1993, this Court sentenced...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Andrew F. Karacsonyi, pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bill Radloff, a former manager of the Delaware Unit of the Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution, alleging that Radloff violated his constitutional rights by penalizing him for not participating in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). Radloff re *36...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a copyright infringement action in which the plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from unauthorized copying for profit of the publications of the news organization plaintiffs. 1 The news organization plaintiffs are members of the Russian press. They have sued the defendant Russian Kurier, Inc. and others for allegedly participat...
Views: 1
*887 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Olusola Oluwafemi was arrested on January 6, 1995 at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He was subsequently charged with participating in conspiracies to import and distribute heroin and with substantive counts of importation and distribution. The trial is scheduled to take place on May 30, 1995. Oluwafemi has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 45...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York transferred this dispositive motion (and nine similar motions) to me, by order dated November 5,1994, due to the backlog caused by a number of vacancies in his district. Plaintiff John J. Benyi (“Benyi”) pro se, a New York State prisoner, brought thi...
Views: 1
*376 OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. MeAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York transferred this case for the disposition of pending motions to the Southern District of New York, by order dated November 5, 1994, due to the backlog in his district caused by a number of judicial vacancies. I. Background Plaintiff pro...
Views: 0
This is an action brought by Barrington J. Fludgate (“Fludgate”) against Management Technologies, Inc. (“MTI”), Winter Partners, Inc. (“WP”) and Keith Williams (“Williams”), seeking recovery for claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., claims under New York labor law, and claims for wrongful interference with Fludgate’s employment agreement ...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 1043 (1995) Richard G. BROTHERS, Plaintiff, v. NCR CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 1:94CV0461. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. May 10, 1995. *1044 *1045 James L. Hamilton, Law Offices Of James L. Hamilton, Westlake, OH, for plaintiff. Martin T. Wymer, Duvin, Cahn & Barnard, Cleveland, OH, Shelley Reed, AT & T Global Information Solutions Co., Law Dept. ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York transferred' 1 this case for the disposition of pending motions to the Southern District of New York, by order dated November 5, 1994, due to the backlog in his district caused by a number of judicial vacancies. I. Background Plaintiff pro se, Robert D. Walton, Sr., c...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Chief Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York transferred this dispositive motion to me, by order dated November 5,1994, due to the backlog caused by a number of vacancies in his district. Plaintiff pro se Robert J. Golub (“Golub”), a New York State prisoner, brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of var...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF NATIONAL UNION’S INSURANCE POLICY AS EXCESS INSURANCE Counsel for the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Battaglia under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to decide the following issue: “Whether the policy issued by National Union at issue in this case is a policy of excess insurance excess over that policy issued by LMI...
Views: 1
*128 ORDER Currently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Doe. 55. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff began working as a part-time substitute on a rural delivery route with the Peterborough, New Hampshire Post Office on March 7,1981. Eventually, she became a full time regular carrier with the Peterborough Po...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On the 11th day of April the above-captioned action came on for hearing upon Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (doc. 118). Plaintiff appeared in person and by Gail M. Hudek and Kim Jones, her attorneys. Defendants appeared by Donna K. Fisher, their attorney. After giving due consideration to the motion...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The debtors, Merritt and Shirley Williams, appeal the bankruptcy court’s order filed February 9, 1994, which approved the trustee’s compromise with Caney Valley National Bank (“CVNB”) and the bankruptcy court’s order filed July 1,1994, denying the debtors’ motion to reconsider. Counsel for CVNB submitted the compromise approval order that was signed and filed on February 9t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a medical malpractice case filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a resident of Kansas, and the defendant is a resident of Nebraska. The plaintiff alleges the defendant physician, as the operating surgeon, was negligent in his care and treatment of her. As alleged in the plaintiffs complaint, the defendant’s negligent care an...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Petitioner Jose Matista, pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 Petitioner also moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), to modify his sentence. BACKGROUND Jose Matista (“Matista”) was convicted, after a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to possess heroin with ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-OPINION I. Introduction and Procedural History This is a suit brought by the Chamber of Commerce, Bridgestone/Firestone, and several corporate trade associations against the Secretary of Labor for declarative relief and an injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing or administering an Executive Order. Although the suit was filed against the Secretary of La...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of the plaintiff, Collins Music Co., Inc. (“Collins Music”), for costs, attorney’s fees, and other expenses of litigation. The plaintiff commenced this action seeking a tax refund. After a bench trial, this court awarded Collins Music two million, thirty-four thousand, thirty-two dollars ($2,034,032.00), plus interest. Collins Music orig...
Views: 0
ORDER The Internal Revenue Service is appealing a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court For the Northern District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Bankruptcy Court reduced the IRS’s secured claim by $784, which prompted the instant appeal. For the reasons given below, the Court reverses the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. The pertinent facts are summarized as follows: Debtor...
Views: 0
*2 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER The present case comes before the Court on Norton Company’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Memorandum-Decision & Order dated February 13, 1995, 177 B.R. 760. The motion is being made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9024, and Local Rule 7.1(g). I. On June 6,1988, Norton Company (hereinafter “Norton”) and C-TC 9th Ave...
Views: 2
OPINION Defendants Pass & Seymour (“Pass”) and Legrand S.A. (“Legrand”) have moved to dismiss the federal and common law trade dress claims of Plaintiff Hubbell Incorporated (“Hubbell”) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). In addition, Legrand has moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue. In the alt...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND The House of the Good Samaritan (“Hospital”) is a not-for-profit corporation which operates an acute care hospital in Watertown. The Samaritan-Keep Home, Inc. (“Home”) is a separately incorporated not-for-profit corporation which runs a nursing home in Watertown (together the “Respondents”). Local 721 of the Service Employees International U...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Salvatore Bacchi, proceeding pro se, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in 1991, upon a jury trial, of Rape in the First Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree. He is presently serving two concurrent prison terms of eight to sixteen years. Petitioner asserts the following claims in support ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks $12 million in damages for breach of contract, fraud, and tor-tious interference with contract. Their claims flow from and relate to defendants’ alleged failure to honor a February 20, 1992 “letter agreement” between defendant In-deck Corinth Limited Partnership and/or In-deck Energy Services of Corinth and plaintiff Glens Falls ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD Plaintiffs brought this action to enforce an arbitration award against defendants. Before the court is defendants’ motion to vacate the arbitration award. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) (E.D.Mich. Jan. 1, 1992), the court shall decide the motion without entertaining oral argument. I. Facts On December 6, 1991,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. I. Background From January 12, 1970 until his discharge on May 1, 1992, plaintiff Albert Lassiter worked as a Deputy United States Marshal for the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) in the Richmond Division...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS This case is before the Court on the United States of America’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint and its motion to dismiss the claimant’s counterclaims or alternatively for summary judgment on the counterclaims. This is an in rem action for seizure and con...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff has commenced this action for professional negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress relating to defendant’s alleged failure to properly pursue the negotiation and compromise of a default judgment hen on behalf of Chemical Bank and a federal tax hen on plaintiff’s house, which she was attempting to seh. Plaintiff claims that def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are legislative employees of the State of New York (“State”). They have been employed to provide services either for the duration of éach legislative session or on an annual basis. Each of these legislative employees is generally paid a bi-weekly salary pursuant to New York State Finance Law § ’200. Plaintiffs have not been paid f...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER In the case before the court, plaintiffs Roxbury Taxpayers Alliance and three voter-residents of Delaware County, challenge the system of apportionment which allocates weighted votes to members of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors. Plaintiffs al *244 lege that the system violates the one person, one vote principle implicit in the Equal Prote...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff Lawrence Dixon brought suit against the above captioned defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was unlawfully placed in a Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) for an indefinite period of time without a hearing because he refused to accept a prison job assignment. Furthermore, plaintiff contends that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. Background: TMs action seeMng damages for personal injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., came before the Court for a bench trial on April 3, 1995. Plaintiffs cause of action stems from the October 27, 1990 collision wMch occurred at Ticonderoga, New York, between an automobile owned by the United States Postal Service and operated by ...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE MJ’S RECOMMENDATION After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 1, 1995, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court with the following modification: Page 15, line 17: The ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations and motion for a protective order. On June 9,1994, this court entered an order commencing discovery on the issue of class certification. Defendants have deposed the four named Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have responded to Defendant’s discovery requests. Based on Plaintiffs’ depositions and answers to discovery, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ motion for taxation of costs (D.E.# 79) and plaintiffs response. In their motion, defendants seek to tax costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1923(a). In his response, plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion for several reasons. Defendants have not filed a reply. The Court will address these issues seriatim. I. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before the court is the habeas petition of Sing Chou Chung, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Petitioner Chung has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the narrow issue of whether he “entered” the United States within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). Briefs have been filed on both sides a...
Views: 0
*832 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, filed on December 16, 1994. Plaintiff originally brought suit in the Circuit Court of Elmore County, Alabama, on August 31, 1994. Defendants removed the case to this court on September 30, 1994. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the defe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a motion by the defendant, Rojac Company, Inc. (“Rojac”), to dismiss this case for improper venue. More specifically, Rojac alleges that the forum selection clauses in the subcontracts between itself and the plaintiff, R.W. Granger & Sons, Inc. (“Granger”), are unreasonable, and therefore, unenforceable. Rojac also contends that Massachuse...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion to alter the Court's judgment entered on December 12, 1994, plaintiff's motion to file the aforementioned motion out of time, and the defendants' motion for reconsideration.1 After thorough consideration of the parties' briefs, the Court will deny the plaintiff's motion to file its motion to alter judgment out of time. The Court ...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 1406 (1995) Jan ROWLEY, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, Defendant. Civ. No. 94-433-FR. United States District Court, D. Oregon. May 15, 1995. *1407 *1408 Darcy Norville, Portland, OR, Douglas L. Parker, Laura Rovner, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Steven O. Rosen, James M. Shore, Miller, Nash, Wiener, Hager & Carlsen, Portland, OR, for defendant. OPINION FRYE, Judge: The matter...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This matter came on for hearing on February 24, 1995, on the motion of the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service ("United States") for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At issue in this case are 10.7 acres of land on the east end of St. John over which the United States and cross-defendants Ella Samuel, Gloria P. Sam...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH RESPECT TO K & M ELECTRONIC INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH (Docket No. 01) AND ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL (Docket No. Oh) INTRODUCTION The above-captioned lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff ITT Electro-Optical Products Division of ITT Corporation (“ITT”) against Defendants Electronic Technology Corporation and others (“ETC”) on January 21, 1994 in the R...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs complaint seeking reversal of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”). Claimant, Mary Sue Madrick (Madrick) was first awarded disability benefits in 1971. These benefits ceased in 1973. The Social Security Administration (Administration) next awarded Madrick benefits under Title II of the S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Major Sherry McDonough, U.S.A.F. (McDonough) moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Air Force defendants “from using in any judicial or administrative action against [Major McDonough], any bank records obtained by grand jury subpoena, any similar bank records obtained thereafter by trial counsel subpoenas issued...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the defendant’s first motion for summary judgment (# 14). BACKGROUND On May 30, 1989, the plaintiff, Louis Scherzer Partners, LP and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) entered into a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (“the Agreement”). Under the terms of the Agreement, Louis Scherzer Partners, LP agreed to...
Views: 0
ORDER This action, filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., arises from injuries suffered by Eduardo Ortiz on August 23, 1987 when a military ordnance device handed to him by one of his sons exploded in his hand. The accident occurred in restricted waters off the north coast of Pifieros Island, adjacent to and part of the restricted area of the Roosevelt Roads Navy ...
Views: 0
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER 1 INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court is the issue of whether various animal mannequins are copyrightable under The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This issue arises out of *73 an action commenced on March 12, 1993 alleging copyright infringement, Lanham Acts violations, an accounting, unfair competition, pl...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on the pro se plaintiffs application for appointment of counsel, made following notice that the action was being placed on a trial-ready list. The underlying complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges violations of the plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights which occurred during his incarceration at the Clinton Correctiona...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on defendants’ motion of March 21, 1995 to vacate the court’s order dated March 7, 1995. 879 F.Supp. 116. After considering the filings and oral argument of counsel, and for the reasons more fully set forth below, the court hereby dissolves the injunction issued in its March 7 order, while denying the motion to vacate the...
Views: 0
ORDER Now before this Court is the Notice of Appeal and Defendants’ Objections to Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants Thomas Cyr, et al. object to the Magistrate *913Judge’s Findings and Recommendations filed on January 10, 1995 concerning Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Defendants’ Counterclaim brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S....
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court are (1) defendants’ motion filed March 8,1995, to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and (2) plaintiffs motion filed March 29, 1995, to remand this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Su...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This lawsuit is brought by several migrant farmworkers on behalf of themselves and their minor children, and as representatives of a proposed class of similarly situated persons. Plaintiffs seek an order from this court compelling the Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) to reverse his decision to terminate the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (“MSRTS”), a fed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jay C. Smith filed this section 1983 action 1 alleging the violation of his civil rights by defendant Joseph Wambaugh in connection with Smith’s April, 1986 murder conviction. Plaintiff was convicted of murdering Philadelphia school teacher Susan Reinert and her two minor children, Michael and Karen Reinert, and was sentenced to death fo...
Views: 21
MEMORANDUM and ORDER In this “dog-bite” case arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“the FTCA”) 1 , defendant United States of America moves for summary judgment. Such motion will be granted. Summary judgment is appropriate if it is shown that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FRC...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Transamerica Corporation (“Transamerica”), incorporated in Delaware, provides financial services throughout the United States and is based in San Francisco, California. (D.I. 16 at 5) Until April of 1993, Transamerica had an ownership interest in TIG Insurance Company (“TIG”) 1 , a California corporation with its main administrative offices in Texas. (Id....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the parties’ separate motions for partial summary judgment, the plaintiffs’ motion for a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing the government to complete the administrative record (“motion to compel discovery”), and the defendants’ motion to strike or deny the plaintiffs’ motion...
Views: 1
OPINION These are two civil rights cases. The plaintiff, Gary E. Blizzard, is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sussex Correctional Institution. The defendants in Civil Action No. 92-475, George Truitt and Earl Messick, and the defendant in Civil Action No. 94-212, Sam Hastings, are employees of the Department of Corrections of the State of Delaware. In his amended complaints Blizzard alle...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff has brought this action alleging malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 86). The motion has been extensively briefed, and the court is prepared to rule. 1. Facts This case arises out of a criminal fraud action brought against office...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 4). Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to reverse two administrative decisions of the Department of Education. These two decisions terminated the plaintiffs participation in federal student financial assistance programs under Title IV ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Plaintiff Edward R. Belmore (“Belmore”) commenced this action against Defendant City Pages, Inc. (“City Pages”) alleging copyright infringement, misappropriation and conversion. Belmore seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. This matter is currently before the Court on City Pages’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal offense, Doc. 14. The defendant is charged by indictment with escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). These charges are based upon the defendant’s conduct in leaving the halfway house, where he was residing as a condition of pretrial release on bond in an earli...
Views: 0
ORDER For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby ALLOWED as to Counts I, II, and III and DENIED as to Count IV. MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 37) I. INTRODUCTION Former sales representative, plaintiff Norman Gallant, challenges the termination of his e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant Wayne Warden is charged by superseding indictment with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, use of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm with serial number obliterated. Doc. 43. This case comes before the court on the defendant’s motion to suppress (Doc....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this action, plaintiff, Janet Pearlstein, alleges that her former employer, Staten Is *263 land University Hospital (the “Hospital”) 1 discriminated against her on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seg. (“Title VII”), by eliminating her managerial p...
Views: 1
*399 MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION This case comes before the court upon an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “bankruptcy court”) denying appellant The Columbia Gas System, Inc.’s (“Columbia”) motion for summary judgment against appel-lee The First National Bank of Boston (“FNB”). FNB is the successor in interest to the Indenture Trustee for certai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 4, 1995, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this case. Jury selection and trial were scheduled to commence on May 15, 1995. At the pretrial conference, counsel for the defendants stated their intention to move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Such a motion had been made twice before (once to each of the judges to whom ...
Views: 0
This is a civil rights case. At the time they filed their complaint, plaintiffs were pretrial detainees housed in the pre-trial building at Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”) in Georgetown, Delaware. Defendants are the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, the Governor of the State of Delaware, and the Warden, former Warden, and former acting Deputy Warden of SCI. On April 7, 1994, ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The issue presented is how to satisfy statutory sentencing objectives when the existing institutional structure cannot accommodate the appropriate sentence. The defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(B). Because of her extensive cooperation with the...
Views: 0
OPINION In this patent case, the parties have tried the damage issues, including willful infringement, to the court following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In this phase, plaintiff seeks an award of lost profits for sales of infringing as well as non-infringing batteries to three retailers and an award based on a reasonable royalty for the remaining sales of infringing dual-te...
Views: 0
OPINION When one travels the roads leading to the intersection of the Internal Revenue and Bankruptcy Codes, one may expect some curves. The present matter fives up to expectations! This bankruptcy appeal poses the question of whether an Internal Revenue Service claim for corporate income taxes, accorded seventh priority in a Chapter 11 reorganization case and contained in a confirmed...
Views: 0
*168 MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant, an inmate at the Ionia Maximum Facility, has been bound over to the Ionia Circuit Court to stand trial on a charge of inmate assault on staff, contrary to M.C.L. 750.197c. Defendant has not yet been arraigned in the state circuit court.1 Now before this Court is defendant’s petition for removal to federal district court on the ground that “[t]here is no defense...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Mary Bolt filed this diversity action against Robert L. Hickok, Jr., M.D., and his professional corporation, Robert L. Hickok, M.D., P.A., alleging medical malpractice in connection with his obstetrical care in the delivery of Mrs. Bolt’s baby. After an emotionally charged five day trial, a nine-membered jury rendered a verdict in favor of defend...
Views: 0
*920 OPINION Petitioner, Charles Venezia, filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking an order vacating his sentence and setting a new sentencing hearing before a “new” judge. The ground for the relief claimed is ineffective assistance of counsel at the original sentencing. I. Prior Proceedings On March 10, 1994, petitioner pleaded guilty to a one-count information chargin...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This case presents difficult questions as to the scope of preemption under the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 321-394. The devices particularly at issue — pacemaker leads — are Class III devices, the most sensitive classification, but were not required to go through the Food and Drug Administration’s ...
Views: 2
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s and Plaintiffs objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation filed March 13, 1995. I. Procedural History In this action filed August 12, 1994, Plaintiff Starlett Sheffield Kline states claims for negligence and malfeasance, breach of express trust, and breach of the duty of loyalty. Plaintiff seeks compensato...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action on a personal guarantee given as security for a bank loan to a corporation. The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. There are no genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On August 14, 1991, American Security Bank, N.A., the predecessor of plaintiff Nationsbank, N.A., established a rev...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM On March 16, 1995, the Court heard the motion of Byer Industries, Inc. and Abner Byer and the motion of Senate Masonry and Everett Greenstreet to dismiss the first amended counterclaim and third-party complaint of American Star Builders (“AmStar”) and Mary Merkle. On April 5,1995, AmStar and Mary Merkle moved to amend their counterclaim and what the motion now termed a fourth-party co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action by a New York bank against a Washington-based consulting firm seeks the return of $171,821.30 erroneously paid by wire transfer. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. There are no genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On December 24, 1993, Credit LyonnaisNew York made a wire transfer to Franklin Natio...
Views: 0
Before the Court in the above-captioned ease is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings, the entire record herein, and the law applicable thereto, the Court shall GRANT the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a local union which represents construction workers known as “rod-men” ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Johnston Lemon & Co., Inc. to vacate National Association of Securities Dealers Arbitration Award No. 92-00218. A ruling on plaintiffs motion will terminate this case, and, the parties agree, will also conclude the action these same defendants have brought in D.C. Superior Court to confirm the same arbitration award. This...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This proceeding raises the question whether valuable but uncompensated services rendered by a judgment debtor to a garnishee may be subjected to garnishment under D.C.Code § 16-579 without proof that the garnishee is liable to the debtor. On November 2, 1993, after a jury verdict, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered a money judgment against ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC.’,S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Before this court is the motion of Defendant Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc. (“Defendant”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, Defendant filed the affidavit of Peter J. Angelakos in support of its motion. Plaintiff did not file a response. Upon consideration of the mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action is here on remand from our Court of Appeals by reason of this Court’s original denial of the motion of Ruby Helm (“Helm”) for reconsideration of this Court’s earlier order of dismissal—a denial that had been grounded on this Court’s ruling that the reconsideration motion was untimely under *348Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 59(e). On appeal the Court of Appeals h...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THE COURT Plaintiff William C. Mauro was employed by defendant Borgess Medical Center (“Borgess”) from May 1990 through August 24, 1992 as an operating room surgical technician. In June 1992, Borgess officials became aware of reason to believe that plaintiff was infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). W...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 11, 1995, the defendant, Lewis Samuel Schulman, was convicted by a jury of four counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Presently pending before the court is the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1 Having considered the parties’ respective memoranda, and having heard...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1. BACKGROUND: The United States, through the Attorney General, brought this action under the recently enacted Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”). 18 U.S.C. § 248 (1994). The United States alleges the defendants violated FACE during their anti-abortion efforts relating to the Fargo Women’s Health Organization (“FWHO”) facility ...
Views: 1
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is defendants’ “Motion for Certification of Class Certification Order of February 17, 1995, and Preemption Ruling in Orders of November 15, 1994, and September 22, 1994, for Interlocutory Review and Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the ...
Views: 1
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before me is Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment re bad faith breach of insurance contract, punitive damages and consequential damages. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. I grant the motion in part and deny it in part. I. Background. Plaintiff, Carol Cook, is the mother of the decedent, Douglas E....
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Complaint basically alleges that Defendant (Plaintiff’s employer) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay him for time during which he was “on call.” I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Federal Rule of Civil Pro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the court on Dow’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 15, 1995. At a hearing held April 28, 1995, the court granted Dow’s motion in part. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dow and against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiffs Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief. The court took Dow’s motion for summary ju...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment of defendant Mercantile Business Credit, Incorporated (MBCI). Plaintiff Whirlpool Financial Corporation (Whirlpool) filed suit against MBCI, Richard Sullivan, Robert Bumberry, Richard Weber and Donald Hindman. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Counts I, II and III are against MBCI and are for an acc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the court on: (1) Arkansas-Platte & Gulfs (AP & G’s) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed November 7, 1994; and (2) Dow’s Motion to Dismiss, filed May 8, 1995. At a hearing held April 28, 1995, the court granted AP & G’s and Dow’s motions in part. The court permitted AP & G to file its First, Second, and F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before me for the second time on appeal. The bankruptcy court originally imposed sanctions against Gerald Priddy pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011 in May 1992. Priddy appealed. I upheld the bankruptcy court’s finding of Priddy’s bad faith and liability. Nevertheless, I reversed and remanded because the bankruptcy court did not expressly consider all the f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is defendant City of Man’s motion to dismiss defendant Steven Snead, and the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Mark Spurlock, Travis Grimmett and the Logan County Commission and by defendants Benny Adkins and the City of Man. Plaintiff has responded to the motions and the defendants have replied. The motions are ripe for adjudication...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a former deputy clerk of the County Court Clerk’s office in Jackson County, Tennessee. She brought this § 1983 action against her former employer, the Jackson County Court Clerk, claiming that defendant violated her First Amendment rights by terminating her after she engaged in protected political activity. Specifically, plaintiff announced her intention ...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION Before the court for resolution without oral argument is petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (Ct.Rec. 84). In his motion, Bradford asserts that his criminal conviction and the civil administrative forfeiture action against his property were separate proceedings constituting...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING HUHTAMÁKI OY, LEIRAS OY, LEIRAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC, DOW CORNING FRANCE, AND WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS Before this court is the motion of Defendants Huhtamáki Oy (“Huhtamáki”), Leiras Oy, Leiras Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Leiras Pharmaceuticals”), Dow Corning France (“Dow”), and Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc. (‘Wyeth”) to dismiss for lack of personal jur...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Defendant LaSalle Bank of Lake View (“LaSalle”) *651 to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). 1 For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Truth in Lending Claims Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that LaSalle engaged in deceptiv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 24, 1995, plaintiff, Robert Goldstein (“Mr. Goldstein”), brought this product liability action against defendant, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The three-count complaint charges Gore with negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty in connection with the manufacture and sale of a d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This case, involving the alleged wrongful death of Kurt A. Herriman (“Kurt”) is before the Court 1 on two motions for partial sum *1150 mary judgment: one filed by his parents, the Plaintiffs, Charles E. Herriman and Johnny Sue Herriman (“Plaintiffs”); and one by Defendants Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action arose from the administration of a Community Development Block Grant Program (“CDBG Program”) and a Section 235 Housing Program and from the alleged misuse of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) funds in those programs by the Village of Island Park, New York (“Island Park” or the “Village”) between 1979 and 1983. The government filed this action on M...
Views: 6
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF MET-LIFE’S AND DEFENDANT BARLOW’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT WHEELER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sixteen years before his death, Lawrence J. Larson named his wife Diana J. Larson (a/k/a Diana J. Barlow) beneficiary on his ERISA life insurance plan. Shortly after naming Diana J. Larson his beneficiary, he and his then beneficiary wife ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ARBITRATION CLAIMS AND ENJOIN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS The matter before the court is an action by petitioners The Ohio Company (TOC) and Andrew Wilhelm to enjoin respondents (the Nemeceks) from pursuing their claims before the Department of Arbitration of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Petitioners argue that the Nemeceks’ claims are s...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING RICO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO RICO CLAIMS ONLY AND DISMISSING SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW CLAIMS These lawsuits arise out of a contractual dispute as to how electric usage should be metered for tenants at the Detroit, Michigan office complex known as the Renaissance Center. The only basis for federal jurisdiction are plaintiffs’/counter-plaintiffs’/thir...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Peoples Security Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Pro se Plaintiffs Philip C. Brown (“Plaintiff’ or “Mr. Brown”) and his wife, Rosalie A. Brown, filed a complaint that, construed liberally, appears to set forth claims based on breach of contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional di...
Views: 0
ORDER OF REMAND On October 24,1994, defendant Desoutter, Inc. removed the above-captioned matter from the Wayne County Circuit Court to this court. Defendant based its removal of this action on the grounds that plaintiffs suit is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 & 1144, and cited Van Camp v. AT & T Information Systems, 963 ...
Views: 1
OPINION OF THE COURT This case presents an action for deprivation of various civil rights under color of state law. Defendants are participants in post-divorce judgment controversies concerning the care and custody of plaintiffs minor daughter, controversies that are still pending in the Kent County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals. Now before the Court are motions to dismiss broug...
Views: 0
Petitioner pro se Andrew Sims seeks a writ of habeas corpus to be discharged from the custody of the Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In Sims’ first petition to this court, he argues that in 1988 he was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United St...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 154 (1995) PASSALACQUA CORPORATION, d/b/a Mario's Corporation, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT II, INC., d/b/a East Side Mario's Restaurant, Defendant. No. 95-CV-70252-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 29, 1995. *155 Larry W. Bennett, Cox, Hodgman, Troy, MI, for plaintiff Passalacqua Corp. dba Mario's Corp. Ralph T. Rader, Dykema Gossett, B...
Views: 2
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff’s motion, in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction. Upon consideration of the entire record, the Court grants plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although “[findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decision...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Craig Muni brings this action against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or the Service) and its commissioner, Doris Meissner, challenging the Service’s denial of his visa petition. 1 In June or July 1993 Muni, a player in the National Hockey League (NHL), petitioned the INS for an immigrant visa, claiming that he was a worker with extraordinary a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the court is a proposed agreement settling objections to the Montgomery County Sheriffs Department’s 1993 selections for promotion to sergeant and lieutenant in the department’s law enforcement *1481 division. 1 The “Dodson intervenors,” who represent all white male officers in the department, object to the agreement. For the r...
Views: 0
OPINION On October 21, 1994, the Court granted the motion of Barnstead Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”) for preliminary injunction and required Offshore Broadcasting Corporation to withdraw an Informal Objection that it had lodged against an application to assign a television station construction permit from BBC to BAF Enterprises, Inc. (“BAF”). The Court found that BBC and intervenor BAF had d...
Views: 0
ORDER Currently before the court is defendant’s request for protective order. Doc. 22. For the reasons stated below, the request is granted. BACKGROUND The plaintiff and the defendant were both law students at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire. Plaintiff now resides in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The defendant resides in Maine. Subject to certain incidences occurring ...
Views: 0
ORDER In this civil action, plaintiff Robert D. Gill asserts that Franklin Pierce Law Center (FPLC) 1 violated his rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by dismissing him as a student and then by denying his application for readmission. Gill also asserts state-law claims for breach of contract and defamation. Presently before the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., requesting the Court to set aside its order of December 19, 1994, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case. Upon consideration of the motion, defendant’s opposition thereto and plaintiffs reply, the Court denies the...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an alleged toxic tort case resulting from an infant’s accidental exposure to a roofing sealant substance. 1 Plaintiffs assert several claims against the United States of America (hereinafter “the USA”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (hereinafter “FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. Jurisdiction for the FTCA claims is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . A confidential informant introduced the defendants to a Deputy Sheriff (“the officer”) in Alexandria, Minnesota, who was operating undercover posing as á purchaser of illegal drugs. The officer conducted a sting operation, in which he purchased crack cocaine from the defendants on- three occasions in Alexandria. The first transaction was audio-taped, and the next two we...
Views: 0
ORDER The Court having submitted the above-entitled matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno, and such magistrate judge having conducted a hearing in this matter on April 12, 1995, and such magistrate judge having submitted his Report and Recommendations for Disposition to the Court on April 13, 1995, and It further appearing that a copy of such memorandum opinion, findings and...
Views: 0
ORDER The opinion filed December 2, 1992, and reported at 811 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Cal.1992), is withdrawn. IT IS SO ORDERED....
Views: 0
ORDER In a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) dated August 30, 1994, Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended: (1) that defendant Schumer’s motion to dismiss claims one and two of the complaint be granted; (2) that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on claims one and two be denied; (3) that defendant Schumer’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims against him be granted; an...
Views: 0
OPINION These two cases are before the Court on plaintiffs’ motions to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with this Court’s Orders of March 17, 1995. The plaintiffs in the Petties case are minor students and their parents who represent a class certified by the Court on March 17, 1995, and defined as follows: all ...
Views: 0
ORDER Leopoldo Siao-Pao petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 2, 1992. On June 15, 1992, the petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Lee for a Report and Recommendation. Following oral argument on September 23, 1993, Magistrate Judge Lee issued an oral recommendation, subsequently memorialized in a written Report and Recommendation, dated Octob...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Shlomo Helbrans moves this court for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (“Section 1988”). Helbrans seeks reimbursement of the legal fees he incurred in this action against the defendants (the “State”) for in-junctive relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 19...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the court are the cross-motions for summary judgment of plaintiff Frank J. Soriero (“plaintiff’) and defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant Soriero’s motion for summary judgment and will deny the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment will be entered in favor of plainti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The parties are again before the court on defendants’, Centex Corporation (“Centex”) and Centex Construction Products, Inc. (“CXP”), motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). 1 A hearing on the motion was originally held on November 7, 1994. At that time the court granted plaintiffs additional time to conduct...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss or transfer this action for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, to transfer the action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the alternative, to dismiss defendant Mr. Christoph for lack of p...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled cause is the Defendant’s Response to the Court’s May 3, 1995 Order in which the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, and gave the Defendant until May 19, 1995 to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to its assertion of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) and § 552(b)(7)(A) to justify the withholding of requeste...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Chapman Roberts (“Roberts”) is a musical arranger for the currently running Broadway show “Smokey Joe’s Cafe” (the “Play”) 1 pursuant to an Agreement entered into by Roberts and defendant L & S Broadway Company (“L & S”) on May 1, 1994. The cast album for the Play is to be released by defendant Atlantic Recording Corp. (“Atla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant pled guilty to a single count of cocaine importation. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). Under § 841(b)(1)(A), he faced a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison. The “safety valve” provision of the 1994 crime act, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), permits the court to sentence the defendant under the Guidelines. The Guidelines call for a sentence of between 108 and 135 mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joseph Dydio (“Dydio”) brings this citizen suit against the Hesston Corporation (“Hesston”) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., as amended (1983 & Supp.1995), alleging that Hesston is responsible for petroleum contamination resulting from leaking underground storage tanks (“USTs”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Anthony Jones (Jones), an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, brings this pro se § 1983 action against defendant Charles Banks (Banks), a correctional officer stationed at the Stateville Correctional Center. Jones seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment righ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ABSTAIN, GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF-INTERVEN ORS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANTS PENNINGTON AND QUINN’S MOTION, AND DENYING OTHER MOTIONS INTRODUCTION Nine motions are before the court: (1) Plaintiff-Intervenors Robert and Betty Ann Sallee (the Sallees’) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (2) Defendant Arthur Thayer’s Motion for...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction On February 1, 1995, plaintiff C. Wayne Dice, a chiropractor licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, filed the instant action against CliniCorp, Inc. (“CliniCorp”), Mid-Atlantic Chiropractic, Inc. (“Mid-Atlantic”), and other *805 defendants, alleging claims for breach of contract, negligence, violations of the federal securities laws, fraud and deceit, an...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OVERVIEW Third-Party Defendants SNUBA of Oahu, Inc. and Daniel Rodan (collectively “SNU-BA”) move to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SNUBA asserts that there is no admiralty or maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The matter was argued and submitted on May 13, 1995. Jay Friedheim, Esq. appeared for Pla...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is the motion of defendant Quantum Chemical Corp. for summary judgment, (doc. 317). Aso pending is plaintiff Reich-hold Chemicals Inc.’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability on Counts I, II, and III of the complaint, (doc. 327). I. BACKGROUND Except as noted, the following facts are undisputed in the record. This lawsuit involves environmental con...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On September 9, 1994, the plaintiff, David Davis, filed his third amended complaint. *807 Davis, a fifteen-year employee of the Lawrence Police Department, alleges, inter alia, that he was wrongfully terminated from his position with the City of Lawrence Police Department. The third amended complaint seeks damages “pursuant to the United States...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s motions for summary judgment and dismissal (Dk. 12), the plaintiffs motion to strike and for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dk. 5), and the defendant’s motion to strike affidavit of the plaintiffs counsel (Dk. 30). The plaintiff, Ian Bruce Johnson (“Johnson”) filed this action alleging the defendant Kansas Supreme Court...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 27,1993, Carolyn A. Burchett, as Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD) of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, issued an eleven page decision addressing an appeal from a determination that Bohm Farm and Ranch, Inc., Logan Farms, Inc. (Logan Farms), Downs National Bank, Andre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER “Death is unique. It is unlike aught else in its certainty and its incidents. A corpse in some respects is the strangest thing on earth. A man who but yesterday breathed, and thought, and walked among us has passed away. Something has gone. The body is left still and cold, and is all that is visible to mortal eye of the man we knew. Around it cling love and memory. Be...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On February 22, 1995, the grand jury returned a sealed indictment charging the defendant, Kenneth Ray Reece, with two separate counts of possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute (in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), one count of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)), and one co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant Mutual Guaranty Corporation’s (MGC) motion for summary judgment (Dk. 65), on the plaintiff Central Kansas Credit Union’s (CKCU) motion for summary judgment (Dk. 69), and on the defendant’s objections to a magistrate judge’s order (Dk. 104). The court first will consider MGC’s motion regarding the settlement agreement an...
Views: 0
885 F. Supp. 1095 (1995) Dewey LINEBERRY, et al., Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Defendant. No. 3:94-0295. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. April 4, 1995. *1096 William Edward Farmer, Lebanon, TN, Susan Kerr Lee, John P. Konvalinka, Grant, Konvalinka & Grubbs, P.C., Chattanooga, TN, Michael E. Galligan, Galligan & Newman, McMinnville, TN,...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Zip Dee, Inc. (“Zip Dee”) has sued The Dometic Corporation (“Dometic”) in a dual effort (1) to prevent Dometic from continuing to manufacture recreational vehicle awnings similar to Zip Dee’s own and (2) to recover damages for asserted past violations of Zip Dee’s rights. As the owner and holder of both a patent and a registered trademark, Zip Dee advances...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Memorandum and Order addresses five outstanding discovery motions filed in this increasingly contentious action. The first two motions include a motion for a protective order filed pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(c) by the plaintiff, Edna Frazier, as well as Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs attorney, Bruce L. Neff, and for sanctions. The issue in ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS Plaintiff brought the instant declaratory judgment action to ascertain its rights and liabilities under two leases for real property. The first lease was executed in 1962 between defendant and Sharon Hill Center, which is not a party to this suit. In April of 1992, the leased premises were sold at a tax sale to plaintiff. Mistakenly ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendants, alleged to be aligned with the Orena faction of the Colombo Organized Crime Family (the Colombo Family), have been indicted (1) for conspiracy to murder members of the Pérsico faction of the Colombo Family in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), and (2) for using and carrying firearms during and in relation to the crime of violence charged in the first count...
Views: 0
*277ORDER Pending is the defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts II and III of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (doc. 7). I. BACKGROUND The following factual allegations are all contained in the complaint. Defendant City of Pensacola (“City”) owns and operates the Port of Pensacola (“the Port”). Plaintiff CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) is a rail common c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER At about 9 p.m. September 14,1992 City of Chicago (“City”) Police Officer Hugh Robinson (“Robinson”) shot and killed Lenardo Ayers (“Lenardo”) in the vicinity of 68th and Loomis Streets in Chicago. Lenardo’s mother Lillian Ayers (“Lillian”), both individually and as special administrator of his estate, brings this action against Robinson, Chicago Police Ch...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION At issue in this medical malpractice action is whether Virginia’s $1 million statutory limit on medical malpractice damages 1 bars a patient from recovering additional damages for certain injuries where, as here, the patient has already won a $1 million judgment against a hospital for the same injuries based on the hospital’s violation of the federal Emergenc...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND: On June 14, 1994, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a twelve-count indictment against defendant Merritt G. Stansfield, Jr. The indictment charges defendant with: mail fraud (Counts I-IV); use of fire to commit a federal felony (Count V); engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity (Counts VI-X); and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside or in the Alternative Certify the Class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) or Rule 23(b)(2).1 In the latter motion, Plaintiffs ask this court to reconsider its ruling of December 22, 1994 which held that this suit could not be brought as a Ru...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff filed a two count complaint which alleges a products liability claim and a claim for breach of express 1 or implied warranty. The action was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court for the County of Marquette, Michigan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. I. Background Facts The facts in this case are undisputed. On October 29, 1979, plain...
Views: 1
ORDER This order will dispose of two matters now before the court. The first is the motion of the Keystone Sanitation Company, Kenneth F. Noel, and Anna M. Noel (the “Keystone Defendants”) requesting reconsideration of the court’s October 19, 1994, memorandum and order directing limited production of the billing memoranda of their attorneys. The focus of the brief filed by the Keyston...
Views: 1
*171 OPINION This case was originally filed in state court and was removed to this Court because Count V tries to allege a claim for violation of subsection 1962(b) of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), over which this Court would have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The plaintiffs have been certified as a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RE: BANKRUPTCY APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is an appeal from the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, In re Ralar Distributors, Inc., 166 B.R. 3 (Bankr.D.Mass.1994). In that decision the bankruptcy judge held that BayBank, a secured creditor of debtor Ralar Distributors, Inc., was not entitled to a superpriority claim for lost interest, fees and costs on its secured ...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is the motion to remand filed by plaintiff Meridian Aviation Service (“Meridian”). Having considered the motion, the submissions on file, and the applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted. Meridian originally filed this action in County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas alleging breach of contract claims. ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mary C. Kluksdahl (“Kluksdahl”), a former Muro Pharmaceutical (“Muro”) employee, brought this action against Muro alleging wrongful discharge. She complains that her discharge was in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and in violation of the public policy of Virginia. This action was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. Muro...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, Neil E. Rogen, brings this action for breach of employment contract. Defendant, Memry Corporation (“Memry”), has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. This motion requires the Court to determine the applicability of a forum selection clause contained in the employment agreement. For the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is granted. BACKGRO...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF FELTNER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER On October 17, 1994, this court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing plaintiff Douglas L. Feltner. 867 F.Supp. 790 (N.D.Ind.1994). Judgment has still not been entered in this ease, because the parties are haggling over motions for sanctions and expenses. Such are currently pending before U.S. Magistrate ...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is the second motion of defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland for summary judgment. (Doc. 41). As discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. I. MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complex factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in my order of February 9, 1994, and need not be repeated. I add only some additional facts material to...
Views: 0
*163 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is granted. BACKGROUND This is not the first suit Plaintiff has brought before this Court. In December 1989, Meagh...
Views: 0
*578OPINION Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with an HIV antibody blood test before (mis)diagnosing him as having AIDS, and by segregating him in an AIDS Room in the prison infirma...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a Memorandum and Order dated March 20, 1995, this Court concluded there exists a statutory and Constitutional right to a jury trial in an action brought pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (hereinafter “CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the jury demand of...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendants’ Motion for an Order for Reimbursement of Copying Expenses. (Doc. 31.) The plaintiff has filed a timely response. A reply has not been filed. The court is now prepared to rule. On January 29, 1992, and February 27, 1992, the government obtained search warrants issued from the-United States District Court for the District of K...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This case illustrates the anomalies that develop at the intersection of the single sovereign doctrine, the double jeopardy clause, and the Speedy Trial Act. 1 Because we find that the reprosecution of petitioner by the Government of the Virgin Islands (“government”) is fundamentally unfair and severely prejudicial to the defendant, we will amend our earlier Order...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Doc. 60). Defendant argues, the underlying action was frivolous and requests that the court assess plaintiffs’ counsel the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses defendant incurred as a result of this action. The court has reviewed the parties’ factual...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Presently pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum in Opposition. For the reasons more fully discussed herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, this case will proceed to trial as scheduled to try Plaintiffs claim of employment discriminati...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT In this Chapter 11 ease, the Debtor-Appellant Catherine Duffy Petit (“Debtor”) brings an appeal seeking reversal of the Order Sustaining Trustee’s Objection to the Debtor’s Claim of Exempt Property entered by the bankruptcy court on November 29, 1994. In re Petit, 174 B.R. 868 (Bankr.D.Me.1994). The Debtor argues that the objec...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT In this Chapter 11 case, the Debtor-Appellant, Catherine Duffy Petit (“the Debtor”), brings an appeal seeking reversal of the Order entered by the bankruptcy court denying her Motion to Quash Notice of Renewed § 341 Meeting. In re Petit, 172 B.R. 706 (Bankr.D.Me.1994). The Debtor argues that the Notice issued by...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is once again before me to consider Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion (Filing 704). The motion seeks expansion of the non-final liability findings regarding Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (Title IX), set forth in my opinion in Klinger v. Nebraska Dep’t of Correctional Services, 824 F.Supp. 1374, 1431-34 (D.Neb.199...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Plaintiff Roger Fowles (hereafter “Fowles”) brings this action seeking damages for injuries he received as a result of Defendants’ alleged violations of his civil rights. Defendants are three Waldo County Sheriffs deputies, one corrections officer of the Waldo County Sheriffs Department, and ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff George McLaughlin retired voluntarily from his job at a Georgia-Pacific mill in East Millinocket, Maine on August 2,1991. He now brings suit alleging that he was denied vacation benefits owed him pursuant to his company’s Employee Protection Plan (“EPP” or “the Plan”). That denial, McLaughlin contends, violates the Employee Retirement Income Secu...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER comes before the Court on five motions by the parties. The plaintiffs seek summary judgment against both the federal and state governments. In addition, the plaintiffs move to certify a class action and to amend the complaint to add another party. Both the state and federal governments have...
Views: 0
ORDER The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on June 8, 1993. On April 20, 1995, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be dismissed and that respondent’s motion for summary judgment be dismissed as moot. The Court having carefully reviewed the ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Somers Realty Corp. (“SRC”) brings this action against William Harding, individually and as Supervisor of the Town of Somers, New York, and the current members of the Somers, New York Town Board (the “council members”), both individually and as town officials, for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 On April 21, 1995, we issued an order directing defendants to show cau...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This case involves a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of false imprisonment stemming from plaintiffs involuntary confinement for twenty-one days as a patient at the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center. As the constitutional claims underlying the civil rights action, plaintiff alleges a violation of his Fourtee...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Howard Cameron seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in 1991, after two jury trials, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.02(4)). As a second felony offender, he is presently serving a three-and one-half to seven-year term of imprisonment. In his application...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Gregory M. Thomas was an inmate awaiting trial and then sentencing at the Maximum Security Facility in Lorton, Virginia, from February 1993 through November 1993. He brought this civil action in November 1993, alleging sexual abuse and harassment by defendant Sergeant Charles Ingram, a corrections officer at Lorton. Plaintiff allege...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The cause is before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed February 15, 1995 (Docket Nos. 27-29), and response thereto, filed April 7, 1995 (Docket Nos. 31-32). This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANT UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause comes before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 15) and the opposition of the Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 20). STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for summary judgment should only be entered where the moving party has sustained its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This “disappointed bidder” case presents a threshold issue which, if not altogether of first impression, has nevertheless escaped a definitive resolution by any other court and must be addressed here before reaching any of the merits questions. The issue is, simply put, whether Congress intended that procurement decisions of the United States Postal Service (“USPS...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendants have moved this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to the Complaint, Defendant, Dick Enterprises, Inc., was hired by the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority (PCCA) as the prime contractor for the exhibit hall of Pennsylvania’s Convention Center in Philadelphia. Defendants, American Casualty Compa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Declare Purported Settlement Null and Void and for other Ancillary Relief. This motion for injunctive relief is opposed by Plaintiff and accordingly, an emergency hearing was held by this Court on May 23, 1995. Following are Findings of Fact, a discussion, and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, Maia ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Sasha Sophie Jablonski brings this two-count action, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Presently before the court is defendant Chas. Levy Circulating Co.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted in part an...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. I. Background In July, 1992, Plaintiff Jeff M. Hall went to work for Formica, a division of Ogden Allied Corporation. Hall was a full-time employee with Formica. He and his family...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The central issue in this case is whether the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485, requires a local school corporation to provide for a child with disabilities an instructional assistant at a private parochial school. Plaintiffs are K.R., who is seven years old, and her parents. The defendant is the Anderson Community Sch...
Views: 0
*847 ORDER Pending is the motion of defendants Hudson Construction Co. and Home Insurance Company to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, or in the alternative, to abate or transfer the case. (Doe. 6). Also pending is the plaintiffs motion for limited discovery and a hearing. (Doc. 8). I. BACKGROUND The following facts are...
Views: 1
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff William T. Clark (“Clark”) has sued his former employer, Hess Trucking, Inc. (“Hess Trucking”) for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act arising out of his discharge from his employment at Hess Trucking. Pending before the Court is Hess Trucking’s Motion for Summary Jud...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the court are the cross-motions of plaintiffs American Deposit Corp. (“ADC”) and Blackfeet National Bank, (“Blackfeet”), and defendant James W. Schacht, Acting Director of Insurance of the State of Illinois, (“Schacht”), for summary judgment. The American Council of Life Insurance (“ACLI”) and the National Association of Life Underwriters (“NALU”) have filed br...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Julie Lynam (“Lynam”), Robin Schmulbach (“Schmulbaeh”), and Jenny Luc *1445 chesi (“Lucehesi”) bring this sex discrimination action against the defendants 1 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1988 & Supp.1995) (count I). Invoking the Court’s supple...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Four years ago, this Court heard more than two weeks of testimony and accepted more than 1000 admissions in a trial which exposed the desperate condition of the District of Columbia child welfare system. The Court then issued a 102-page opinion reaching “[t]he inescapable conclusion” that the system was operated in violation of federal law, District law, and the Uni...
Views: 0
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff, Transportation Revenue Management, Inc. (“TRM”), brought suit against defendant First NH Investment Services Corp. (“First NH”) for failure to pay claims filed against a surety trust fund managed by First NH. Those claims were made by six motor carriers, and the parties have stipulated that TRM is the lawful assignee of the s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff John Ryder (“Ryder”) has filed suit alleging that Defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation (‘Westinghouse”) discriminated against him because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (1985 and Supp.1994), when they discharged him from his employment at *536 Westinghouse. Pending befo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's case insofar as it alleges causes of action under V.I.Code Ann. Tit. 24, §§ 451.62. 1 As Plaintiff concedes in his response that no action will lie against the defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the only issue before the Court is whether 24 V.I.C. §§ 451-62 ("Chapter 17") authorizes a private caus...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court disallowing a proof of claim filed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The relevant facts are not disputed. On July 27, 1988, Joseph S. and Betty Vancardo filed a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. On August 8, 1988, the *544 Bankruptcy Court issued a notice for a meeting of creditors t...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter came before the Court on July 5, 1994 for a hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress. At the close of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit post-hearing briefs on certain issues, which were filed by the United States on July 15, 1994 and by defendant on August 4,1994. At that time the parties appeared to be in substantial agreement that the questions presented...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs, the Southern New England Telephone Company (“SNET”) and SNET Diversified Group, Inc. (“the Diversified Group”) and Defendants, the United States of America, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), and Attorney General Janet Reno, in her offic...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have responded and Defendants have replied. This ease is ripe for adjudication. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The Defendants then removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1991). Plaintiffs’ complaint may be divided into two parts: (a)...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), has filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination on whether it is obligated to stack underinsured motorists coverage under certain policies of automobile insurance issued to Defendant Herbert Powell (“Powell”). Pending before the Court are three motions: Cross-Motions...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending is the motion of defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. (“A.M.S.”) to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, VI, and VII of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to strike the demand for punitive damages, (doc. 4). I. BACKGROUND The following factual allegations are all contained in the complaint. Prior to January 1990, plaintiff T...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is defendant Royal Insurance Company of America’s motion for summary judgment, (doc. 30). I. BACKGROUND Except as noted, the following facts are undisputed in the record. On March 11, 1991, a collision occurred between a van driven by an employee of Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola, Florida (“Sacred Heart”) and a log truck. The impact of the collision caused the ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART TRAVELERS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On January 30, 1995, the above captioned matter came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Rudi M. Brewster. After over an hour of oral argument, the matter was continued to February 17, 1995, when further argument was heard. John Leland Williams, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiff The Travelers I...
Views: 0
ORDER On this date came on to be considered Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Request for Remission of Excess Attorneys Fees and his supporting Memorandum, both filed on February 23, 1995. In these pleadings, Defendant requests that this court remit $120 or $150 of the $200 paid by Defendant for the fee of his appointed attorney, the Federal Public Defender. When Defendant appeared for his initi...
Views: 0
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff The Dow Chemical Company brought this action against defendant Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. for the breach of a bareboat charter for a tugboat and barge. The Court presided over the trial from March 20, 1995 to April 6, 1995. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) is a corporation registered in Delaware...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (1) Reference is hereby made to defendants’ motions to dismiss and to all other filings in this case. For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied. (2) Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. Gilmore Thompson, (“Thompson”), a black male, pursuant to § 812(o) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”).1 Defendants Jaime and Gr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction. This action was originally commenced in New York’s Small Claims Court in the County of Montgomery on September 6, 1994. The complaint alleges a cause of action for breach of contract under state law. On September 26, 1994, the action was removed by the defendant to this court pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C....
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Schools Excess Liability Fund’s and Employers Reinsurance Corporation’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure having come before the Court, and the Court, having considered the pleadings and having had the benefit of oral argument of counsel, grants the motions to dismiss. I. General Star Indemnity Compa...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from legislation regulating the hauling and tipping of waste in Onondaga County, New York. Specifically, New.York State Public Authority Law Title 13-B created the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (“OCRRA”), a public benefit corporation, N.Y.Pub.Auth. Law §§ 2045 et seq. (McKinney’s Sup...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Flagship Marine (“Defendant”) has moved this Court for an Order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, transferring venue to the Middle District of Florida. For the reasons which follow, the motion is denied. In September 1994, Plaintiff Commercial Union Insurance Company (“Plaintiff’) contracted to provide marine insurance coverage to Defendant, including coverage ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED STATES’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING TEXAS COMMERCE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING ROBERT FRAPPIER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Magistrate is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12), Robert Frappier’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 16), and Texas Commerce Bank’s Motion for Summary ...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a case brought to collect contributions and other benefits allegedly owed to several employee benefit plans. Defendants Transworld Mechanical, Inc., Transworld Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Danica Plumbing & Heating Corp., Danica Mechanical, Inc., Thomas Andreadakis and Helen Andreadakis move 1) to stay this case pending the resolution of a related criminal matt...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Plaintiff J.M. Huber Corporation’s Motion for Partial Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ counterclaim of unfair competition pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civfi Procedure. Instrument N...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) brings this action against Viskase Corporation (Vis-kase) seeking a declaratory judgment that seven of Viskase’s patents either are invalid or are not infringed by Dow or its customers. Viskase has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Marianne Lewin brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1395ff, as amended, (the “Social Security Act” or the “Act”), to review a final decision of Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”). Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Secretary denied Plaintiff Medicare benefits to cover services provi...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS 1 Melvin Wade is an Illinois citizen and resident of Chicago. On August 10, 1992, Defen *655 dant Oscar L. Byles (“Byles”) was employed by Defendant T-Force S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The court has received and conside...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The court has received and consid...
Views: 0
*162 ORDER This is a diversity action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs have served a subpoena duces tecum upon the Menninger Clinic for all medical records and other records related to Robert Bruce Brigden. The Menninger Clime, as movant herein, has filed a Motion for Protective Order (doc. 1) under a claim of privilege afforded by Kan...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights when they confined him to administrative segregation without proper hearings from January 23, 1991 to February 12, 1991, and from March 1,1991 to December 4,1991, respectively. Plaintiff also has claimed that the periodic denial of his pr...
Views: 0
OPINION & JUDGMENT Plaintiff Merlin C. Long (Long) brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Long is an inmate serving a life sentence at Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP). Plaintiff prefers to be addressed as Merlene and would like to be referred to as a female. However, to avoid confusion, the Court will refer to Long as a male. For example, it would be difficult to expl...
Views: 1
AMENDED ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability and Days of Violation and defendant Jim’s Water Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment came before the Court for hearing October 18, 1994. Appearing at the hearing for the United States were Aleksander D. Radich, Sarah Himmelhoch and Michael Northridge; appear...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant, Gary L. Snowden, seeks discovery of counseling records in the possession of the government and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (Tribes). A hearing on the motions was held on February 6, 1995. For the following reasons, relevant discovery will be allowed. BACKGROUND Snowden is charged with sexually assaulting a Warm Springs tribal member o...
Views: 1
DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter came before the eourt on March 24, 1995, for hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The court has considered Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the supporting memorandum, Plaintiffs Oppos...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER On November 29, 1994, I issued an order vacating two prior Orders in this case. In addition to those two orders, however, an additional order should have been vacated at that time. Thus, this Order will amend the November 29, 1994 Order. In addition to vacating the Orders of March 9, 1994, granting plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and March 31, 1994, granting pl...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction This is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s final Order entered on July 2, 1990 granting in favor of the Appellees their “Renewed Motion for Payment of Superpriority and Administrative Expense Claims” in the amount of $99,600.00 Jurisdiction is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. no. 8001. II. Facts Pertinent to the Appeal We restate briefly the ...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendants Edward Murphy, John Noonan, Ian Tink, Michael Fair and Thomas DaSilva object to a Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge, which recommended that this court deny their motion for summary judgment. For the reasons which follow, the court declines to accept the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, and grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1. ...
Views: 0
ORDER Upon consideration of the conditions of confinement complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff in the above entitled action, the application of plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the supporting affidavit submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court makes the following findings and conclusions. Without question, inmates confined in penitentiarie...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Tidal, for Reconsideration or for Rehearing on the Issue of Compactness relative to an Order of this Court entered on March 3, 1993, 814 F.Supp. 1346. At trial, Plaintiffs sought to have Defendants’ 1991 redistricting plan for supervisors in Lawrence County declared to be in violation of § 2 of the Voti...
Views: 0
*154 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a medical malpractice action against physician, Dr. Palmer Meek, and the United States of America, as the employer of certain Army physicians. The court held a pretrial conference in this case at which time plaintiffs’ counsel requested leave to take three depositions including that of Dr. Timothy Sifers. Dr. Sifers has been retained by defendant Meek and design...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2(d) the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without hearing. After reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. BACKGROUND On June 26, 1992 Petitioner Timothy Oral-lo (“Orallo”) pl...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO VACATE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The court received Plaintiffs Petition on March 28, 1995. Alexander Silvert, Esq., appeared on the briefs on behalf of Plaintiff; Beverly Wee Samashima, Esq., appeared on the briefs on behalf of Defendant. After reviewing the Petition and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court DENIES Plaint...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Special Parole *215Term (Doc. No. 348, filed December 23, 1994). The United States’ Response to Motion to Set Aside Special Parole Term (Doc. No. 349) was filed February 7, 1995. On April 19, 1985, the Honorable Susan H. Black, the United States District Judge; sentenced Herbert Randall Webb to ten years imprisonment and to ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Aaron Donald Franklin and Linda Franklin filed a complaint alleging violations of state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. Before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims. For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant de...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has reviewed the petition, all of the records and files in this action, the attached Report and Recommendation of the United *1337 States Magistrate Judge, and the objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court concurs with and adopts the findings...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Twenty-four plaintiffs bring this action as unpaid sellers of perishable agricultural commodities under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-s (“PACA”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 499e(e)(4). Defendants are Ron Andrews of L.I., Inc. d/b/a/ F. Wilson Smith (collectively, “Andrews”), a distributor of foods and produce l...
Views: 0
ORDER This civil action alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(l) and (2), 78j(b), 77e(a) and (e), and 78o(a)(l) is before the court on this court’s March 28, 1995 order to show cause why Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction should not be granted. Defendants filed responses and were represented at a hearing on the matter. Motions to dismiss, to accept for filing a response...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is a diversity action for breach of contract. Plaintiff is One Hundred Pearl Ltd. (“One Hundred Pearl”), a British Virgin Islands corporation, with its principal place of business in the British Virgin Islands. Defendants are Vantage Securities, Inc. (doing business as Reich & Co.) (“Vantage Securities”) and its parent company, Vantage International Corp. (“Vantage Interna...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This action alleges copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraud. Plaintiff is USAR Systems, Inc. (“USAR”). Defendants are Brain Works, Inc. (“Brain Works”) and Avi Telyas (collectively “defendants”). The substance of USAR’s copyright infringement claim is that USAR contracted to supply Brain Works with certain goods that contain a programming code on which USAR hold...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) brings this two-count complaint against Diversified Technologies Group, Inc. (“Diversified/Maryland”) and Charles E. Jensen d/b/a Diversified Technologies (“Jensen” or “Diversified”) for breach of contract.1 Defendant Jensen has brought two amended counterclaims for breach of contract, alleging that ComEd unduly delaye...
Views: 0
876 F. Supp. 1437 (1995) Steven AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 90-7497. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 17, 1995. *1438 *1439 *1440 *1441 Alvin J. Bronstein, Elizabeth R. Alexander, David Fathi, Washington, DC, David Rudovsky, Stefan Presser, Scott Burris, Angus R. Love and Robert W. Meek, Philadelphi...
Views: 4
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Barbara Kandrasiewicz’s motion, filed January 31, 1995, to cancel the registration and abate all proceedings to collect the February 14, 1979 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama registered in this Court on January 10, 1995, and to quash the Notice of Petition (or Motion) to Set Off Debtor’...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Petitioner, the Federal Election Commission (“the F.E.C.”), has served, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437d(a)(3), administrative subpoenas duces tecum on respondents, twelve vendors of goods or services to the Lenora B. Fulani for President Committee (“the Fulani Committee”). Currently before the Court is the F.E.C.’s motion for an order enforcing these subpoena...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me is the motion in limine of Defendant and Counter Claim Plaintiff, AMI, Inc. for an order precluding Plaintiff, Hi-Tec Plastics, Inc. from pursuing a claim of alleged lost profits for breach of an April 1992 document. AMI filed the motion on September 1, 1994. Hi-Tec filed a brief in opposition on September 27,1994. The case is set for trial on O...
Views: 0
DECISION GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND This matter came before the court on April 7, 1995, for hearing on Plaintiffs Resistance to Removal and Motion to Remand. The court has considered the Resistance to Removal and Motion to Remand and Supporting Memorandum, Defendant’s Response, the entire record in this ease including the Complaint and Notice of Removal, has heard argument of counsel and is fu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendants in this much-litigated case are former officers of plaintiff Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union, RWDSU AFL-CIO (the “Union”). Eight of the eleven individual defendants, having been granted summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims against them, now move for reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements. ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Allendale Mutual Insurance Company (“Allendale”), defendant in a declaratory judgment action brought against it on March 31, 1995 in the Circuit Court of Cook County by Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Northbrook”), first removed that action to this District Court and then promptly moved to dismiss the action because of the pendency of a prior ac...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Paving Equipment of the Carolinas, Inc.’s (PECI), appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of M & N Development Company (“M & N”). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action was originally brought by M & N in the Court of Common Pleas for York County, South Carolina to remove a hen on real property held by PECI. PECI then f...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER IN AID OF ACCESS and ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM RESTRICTING ENTRY AND ACCESS The plaintiffs Motion for an Order in Aid of Access came before the Court for hearing April 13, 1995. Appearing at the hearing for the United States of America were Carol Statkus, Lynn Penman, and Eduardo Quintana; appearing for defendant Mountaineer Refining Com...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court upon the partial motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs James and Inetha Shelton (the Sheltons) and upon motions for summary judgment filed by defendants John Benner (Benner), member of the Village of the Fair-fax, Ohio, Police Department; Joseph Staft (Staft), a member of the Blue Ash, Ohio, Police Department; Chris Wallace (Wallace), me...
Views: 0
ORDER Codefendants American Airlines, Inc., and Executive Airlines Inc., have requested the Court to issue a partial summary judgment, dismissing the claim of seventeen of the eighteen plaintiffs that have filed complaints in the above consolidated cases. Plaintiffs have opposed the request and after oral argument at a hearing conducted on April 7, 1995, and filing of briefs, on the i...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Brumlda Martinez Caraballo and her husband, brought this diversity products liability action against the manufacturers of the Quantum pacemaker and their insurers, alleging negligence in design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the pacemaker, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, failure to comply with governmental regulatio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The primary question in this case is whether Pennsylvania’s public policy protects an at-will employee who is the victim of spousal abuse from discharge by her employer. For the reasons stated below, I find that it does not. I. FACTS Defendant, Dr. Winston Murphy Bryant, employed plaintiff, Philloria Green, from December 1992 through August 1993. Plainti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this two count complaint, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Presently before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the retaliation claim in Count I of the complaint, which we have converted to a motion for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is g...
Views: 1
OPINION The Defendant Executive Telecard, Ltd. (“EXTL” or the “Coiporation”) has moved to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity between the parties. For the reasons discussed herein, the Defendant’s motion is granted. Parties Plaintiff Walter K. Krauth, Jr. (“Krauth”) is a resident of Jonesboro, Georgia. He and William Miller (“...
Views: 1
This is an action under the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 741-52, by the owners of the Hyundai New World and parties related in interest (collectively, “plaintiffs”) against the United States of America (the “Government”). Plaintiffs allege that the Hyundai New World ran aground off the coast of Brazil in 1987 as a result of the negligent publication and failure to update an inaccur...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Bruce Ornstein (“Omstein”) against Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (“PIA”), seeking recovery for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to use its best efforts to carry plaintiff and his baggage with reasonable dispatch, as it contracted to do, and that defendant ac...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Ercilio Gonzalez brings this three-count first amended complaint against the City of Chicago (“City”) and certain members of its police force. Defendant City has moved to dismiss Counts I and II, or in the alternative, to strike portions of Count II. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. I...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for injuries suffered by plaintiff in an automobile accident. The United States moves to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the FTCA. For the reasons discussed below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is grant...
Views: 0
ORDER On May 26,1995, Magistrate Judge Martin Ashman filed and served upon the parties his Report and Recommendation concerning plaintiff Joseph S. Beale’s (“Beale”) motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23. Defendants EdgeMark Financial Corporation, Roger A. Anderson and Charles Bruning (“defendants”) have filed objections to the recommendation on the class certification iss...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this “insider trading” action, defendants George Hirshberg (“Hirshberg”) and Alan Hirshberg (collectively, the “Hirshbergs”) 1 and Israel G. Grossman (“Grossman”) object to a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on March 2, 1995 (the “Report”). For the reasons set forth below, the Report is adopted in full....
Views: 0
OPINION Both the plaintiff Christopher Hynes (“Hynes”), an inmate in the state correctional facilities, and the defendants Michael Cobb (“Cobb”) and James Shope (“Shope”), state corrections officers, have moved under Rules 50(b) and 59(a) for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are denied. Prior Proc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case centers around the applicable standard in determining the propriety of a pension benefit eligibility determination made by an arbitration board established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between Trans World Airlines (“TWA”) and the Air Line Pilots International Association (“ALPA”). The arbitration board made an award in favor of d...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Wobble Light, Inc. (“Wobble Light”), entered into a subscription agreement with defendants, McLain/Smigiel Partnership, Denny McLain and Roger Smigiel, pursuant to which defendants promised to make certain payments in return for 51% of the shares of Wobble Light. Following the deterioration of the parties’ relationship, Wobble Light filed this lawsuit. ...
Views: 1
ORDER This is a civil rights action brought by plaintiff alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, defamation, and retaliation in employment. In early 1993, after an investigation authorized by the San Francisco Police Commission (“Police Commission”) and a subsequent closed hearing of these charges, the Police Commission determined that there was insufficient evidence to sustain th...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MERIDIAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS This matter came on regularly for hearing before this Court on April 10,1995 before the *399 Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, United States District Judge. This Court has fully considered all legal points and authorities, and arguments and now makes and enters its DECISION and ORDER. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, ...
Views: 2
*565 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Juan Castellanos, operating from Florida, was a major trafficker in cocaine destined for market in northern Illinois. He and twenty-six other defendants were arrested and charged with participating in a conspiracy to acquire, transport, store, possess, and distribute cocaine. Following a jury trial, Castellanos was convicted and sentenced to 16 years in prison o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Con. G. Cholakis by Order dated August 9, 1994 for all further proceedings and the entry of final judgment upon the consent of the parties and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. Plaintiff, a former General Electric Company (“GE”) employee, brought this action ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Procedure Rule 59(a)1, the defendants move for a new trial on the issues of damages for pecuniary loss and loss of society. This Court denies defendants’ motions. The jury’s verdict for plaintiffs financial loss and loss of society is fully supported by credible evidence. BACKGROUND: On April 3, 1995, this Court empaneled a jury to hear the cas...
Views: 4
OPINION On May 12, 1993, workers aboard the vessel SAMICK NORDIC off the coast of Saudi Arabia were welding a hatch on deck. Sparks fell below onto a cargo of plywood. First the plywood and then the ship caught fire. The ship burned for over a week, and the entire cargo was destroyed. The plywood was insured by defendants, Certain Member Companies of the Institute of London Under...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Plaintiffs Ronald and Arlene Battista bring this personal injury action against the United States Government, alleging inter alia negligence and violation of New York State labor laws, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) et seq. More precisely, the action seeks to recover for economic and non-economie losses all...
Views: 2
*660 MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: Petitioner James Henry Carpenter, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 20,1984, petitioner was convicted by a jury in York County, Pennsylvania, and was sentenced to death. A direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), Major Cunningham (“Cunning *542 ham”) appeals the final decision of the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (“Secretary”) denying his applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RECONSIDERING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 61) I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to reconsider defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the court previously denied in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to reconsider has focused the court’s attention on the “continuing violation” doctrine set forth in Sabree ...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an action brought under the authority of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. Carl Lee Johnson (“Johnson”), a black man, alleges the Housing Authority of the City of MeAlester, Oklahoma (“the Housing Authority”) engaged in unlawful discrimination when it terminated his employment as a s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from using his name and photograph in connection with their various publications. The court concludes that a preliminary injunction is warranted, but with a scope more limited than that requested by the plaintiff. A. Findings of Fact. The cour...
Views: 3
ORDER Plaintiff Deah M. Scales (“Scales”) brings this action under the authority of Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, claiming defendants, Sonic Industries, Inc. (“Sonic”) and Newton Investments, Inc. (“Newton”), terminated her employment in violation of Title VII by discharging her on account of her sex, pregnancy and husband’s race (black). S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a products liability action alleging both design and manufacturing defects of an *1403 artificial knee, a PCA Total Knee Prosthesis (the “PCA Knee”), manufactured by defendant Howmedica, Inc. (“Howmedica”). The PCA Knee was sold and implanted at Methodist Medical Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee by an orthopedic physician, Dr. Cletus McMahon. Curr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This action for personal injuries was tried before a jury between March 27 and March 31,1995. The action is now before the Court on Third-Party Defendant’s motions for renewal of its judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, pursuant to Rule 50 (Fed.R.Civ.P.); to set aside the verdict,- to vacate the second amended judgment, and grant a new tr...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW INTRODUCTION The above entitled cause came regularly for trial on February 23,1995 at 9:00 a.m. in Department F of the above entitled Court, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, Magistrate Judge presiding, without jury. Consent by the parties to trial by Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) was filed on January 3, 1995. Plaintiff, LEE...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on several pending motions: (1) Motion of Defendant GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, Inc. to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 7) and Plaintiffs’ responses (Dkts. 14 & 17) in opposition thereto; (2) Defendant, GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Against Defendant, GTE, Inc. (Dkt. 18); (3) Defen...
Views: 0
*877MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is before the court on the motion of the Postmaster General for summary judgment. White’s Complaint alleges that the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34, when it denied him the opportunity to interview for a promotion to Postmaster for Fredericksburg. Runyon has moved for summary j...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”) has moved for a dismissal of plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied in part and granted in part. BACKGROUND Shortly after her divorce in 1990, plaintiff was solicited ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Rodiriecus L. (“Rodiriecus”) and Betty H. (“Betty H.”), seek a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants, Waukegan School District No. 60 (the “School District”) and Alan Brown, from expelling Rodiriecus pending the outcome of administrative procedures initiated to determine whether Rodirie-cus is eligible for special education. Plaintiffs claim that...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the court on plaintiff United States of America’s motion for reconsideration [#31-1] of the court’s Order of February 22, 1995 [February Order] [# 29-1], United States of America v. One 1990 Ford Ranger Truck, VIN No. 1FTCR10TA-LUC08885, 876 F.Supp. 1283 (N.D.Ga.1995) [Ford Ranger I ], in which the court determined that the forfeiture ...
Views: 0
Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to remedy alleged violations of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff has applied for an order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently restraining and enjoining the New York State criminal proceeding currently pending against him in the County Court for the County o...
Views: 1
OPINION Declaratory Judgment. Is the insurance company required to defend here? No. I. Background “John Doe,” “James Doe,” “John Smith,” “John Brown,” and “John Jones” (Defendants) have filed a Complaint in the Sangamon County Circuit Court against Defendant Joseph Havey (Father Havey), a Catholic Priest, and the Diocese of Springfield (Diocese), along with oth...
Views: 0
OPINION Admiralty. A question of lost profits. On the morning of April 19, 1992, the tow of the M/V JOYCE HALE collided with a railroad bridge spanning the Mississippi River. The Plaintiff owns the bridge and the Defendants own and operate the vessel. The narrow issue before the Court is whether as a matter of law recovery for lost profits is limited to the period in which the bridge was out of...
Views: 0
*177 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-captioned case is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (“Def. Motion to Dismiss”); the Plaintiffs Opposition (“Plaintiffs Opp.”); the Defendant’s Reply (“Def. Reply”); the Plaintiffs Motion Under Vaughn v. Rosen to Require Detailed Justification, Itemization, and Indexing (“Pl...
Views: 1
Final Judgment 1. This court adopts the memorandum and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge signed April 25, 1995. 2. Acceptance Insurance Company has no duty to defend, indemnify, or provide insurance coverage to Melanni Walkingstick, Individually and as Next Friend of Gabriel Walkingstick, Maria Espinosa, Daniel Espinosa, and Weyel L. Foster and Nguyen Phung Kim, In...
Views: 0
ORDER I. FACTS According to the evidence before the court, many complaints have been lodged with the Alabama State Bar against Rose M. Sanders, the plaintiff in this case. The Alabama State Bar, through its counsel, has investigated each complaint and made a ruling as to what action, if any, should be taken. Six of these complaints were made between 1989 and 1993. The subject of one of these co...
Views: 0
ORDER I. FACTS In December, 1990, the plaintiff, Rose M. Sanders, engaged in protests against both the treatment of African-American children and poor Caucasian children by the Selma public school system, and against the holding of secret meetings by the Selma City Board of Education. Complaints were filed against Sanders with the Alabama State Bar, and she was privately reprimanded. In February...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter was submitted to ah arbitrator pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff, the Jacksonville Area Association For Retarded Citizens (“JAARC”), asks the Court to vacate the arbitrator’s decision. Defendant, the General Service Employees Union, Local 73 (“Union”), counters seeking an affirmance and the enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision. In part I of this op...
Views: 0
ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case presents several questions concerning interest payable on benefits subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiff Debra L. Hizer claims that defendants have failed to pay her all the interest required by Indiana statute on the proceeds of a life insurance policy that her late husband purchased. Becaus...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Came on for consideration the motion petitioner, Noble D. Mays, Jr., (hereinafter “Mays”) filed on February 16, 1995, titled “Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Re-Enter Judgment to Allow Timely Appeal and Brief in Support Thereof’ (hereinafter “motion to vacate”). The court has concluded that the motion to vacate and all relief sought by such motion should...
Views: 0
OPINION Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a), the parties in this case have stipulated to a bench trial in this matter based solely on a stipulated record and written briefs. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Plaintiff Dean Cohen (“Cohen”) brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violation of his First Amendment rights. He asks the Court to grant injunctive r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Pending is the Defendant Square D Company’s motion for summary judgment. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. *100 I. Background Plaintiff was employed by Olsten Corporation (“Olsten”), a temporary employment agency, and was assigned by Olsten to perform maintenance work at Defendant Square D Company’s (“Square D”) warehouse. He was injured while operating...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs submit ten motions in limine. Defendants submit various parallel motions in limine, as well as motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs’ first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth motions in limine will be granted. The plaintiffs’ sixth and ninth motions in limine will be granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is petitioner’s motion to quash the issuance of two subpoenas. A previously convened grand jury had issued a subpoena1 against petitioner, requesting production of business documents pertaining to specified clients for a definite time period. Adjournment of that grand jury mooted petitioner’s motion to quash that subpoena. Now, a reconvened grand jury has again issued subp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants, Whitehall Convalescent and Nursing Home, Inc., have filed a Motion to Reconsider the portion of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 27, 1995, granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The issue in this Motion is whether the Court may compel the production of documents listing the names and prescription drugs taken by non-party patients at Whit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 23, 1993, after having been counseled on the subject and following several warnings and two suspensions, plaintiff Emma Brewster Barfield was discharged from her job with Bell South Telecommunications, Inc., d/b/a South Central Bell (SCB) for excessive absenteeism. She filed this lawsuit charging that her termination violated the Americans With Dis...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ISSUING PERMANENT INJUNCTION. This case is before the court on a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ request that the court issue a permanent injunction against officials of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Plaintiffs are motorcyclists who have been issued citations under the California Mandat...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Ann Williams sues the Gillette Company, alleging that it infringed her patent. The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that res judicata bars Williams’ suit. For the reasons explained, the motion is denied. BACKGROUND Ann Williams holds United States Patent 4,017,970 for a Tile and Tub Scraper (the “ ’970 patent”). 12(M) ¶ l. 1 Since 1982, Gillett...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In May, 1994, the plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City alleging gender discrimination and harassment. The original complaint contained only state law causes of action. On September 1, 1994, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss a counterclaim that had been filed, and in that Motion the plaintiff indicated that a Title VII claim based upon the alleg...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Introduction Plaintiffs have brought actions under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), alleging that they suffered hearing loss as a result of the defendant’s negligence in failing to provide them with a safe place to work. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (D. 9) argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are bar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Richard Salute and Long Island Housing Services have brought this purported class action 1 against Stratford Greens, Gerald Monter, Elliot Monter and Holiday Management Associates, alleging that the defendants’ refusal to rent Salute an apartment in the Stratford Greens apartment complex constitutes a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 ...
Views: 2
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT CRUTTENDEN & COMPANY TO JOINT LEGAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFS AND WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ON CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY CLAIMS On May 8, 1995, the above captioned matter came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Rudi M. Brewster. Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Defendant Wilshire Technologies (“Wilshire”) was represented b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before the Court today is Defendant’s Motion for Counsel Fees and Expenses from Plaintiff, Dr. Norman Johnson, and his attorney, Donald Bailey, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). 1. FEES FROM DR. JOHNSON Both 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) give the prevailing party in a civil rights action t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This diversity case has been brought before the Court by motion of Defendant Inter-scope Records, Inc. (“Interscope”), which has filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c) seeking to set aside the entry of default judgment. For the reasons that follow, In-terscope’s motion will be granted. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff in this case is East Coast Express, Inc. (“East Coast”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendant Eye Care Centers of America, Inc. d/b/a EyeMasters’ (“EyeMasters”) Motion for Summary Judgment (#33) and Plaintiff Tammy J. Gearhart’s (“Gearhart”) Response and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#41). EyeMasters seeks summary judgment on Gearhart’s claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of em...
Views: 1
ORDER On this date came on to be considered Movant’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing filed on March 17, 1995 and the Government’s Response filed on March 24, 1995. Movant asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which mandates that a hearing be held “An-less the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that [Movant] is entitled to no...
Views: 0
886 F.Supp. 1494 (1995) Constance L. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS, Defendants. No. 88CV2247 JCH. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. March 27, 1995. *1495 Steven L. Groves, Schlichter and Bogard, St. Louis, MO, for Kevin L. Smith. Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter and Bogard, St. Louis, MO, for Constance Smith. Frank N. Gundlach, Armstrong and Teasdale, St. Lo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on appeal from a final judgment of the bankruptcy court. Debtor Patti Hilton perfected her appeal after entry of judgment against her and in favor of creditor Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) as receiver for the original lender, Republic Bank for Savings, FA (Republic). The court, having considered the memoranda of authorities presen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This ease involves an action by plaintiffs Stokors, S.A. and Mission Bank for judgment on a personal guaranty executed by defendant Clifford D. Roth. The matter is currently before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc, # 16). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion is granted. II. Factual Background The following facts ar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs in this case filed a motion for summary judgment against defendants Lee McCarty, Jr. and Benefit Providers, Inc., in response to which McCarty and Benefit Providers filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the merits. Thereafter, these defendants filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment in which they contend that the court lacks ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the summary judgment motion of defendant Eastern Livestock Company (Eastern). Plaintiff First Bank has responded to the motion, and the court, having considered the memoranda of authorities along with exhibits presented by the parties, concludes for the following reasons that defendant’s motion should be denied. 1 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This action arises out of plaintiffs discharge from his employment with the Business and Industry Health Group (BIHG), an operating division of defendant Employer Health Services, Inc. The plaintiff, John E. Aiken, M.D., contends that the defendant wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy and, in addition, that his terminati...
Views: 1
*1402 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction The defendant, Matt A. Pledger, has filed identical motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking a sentence imposed by this court in case nos. 92-20051-01 (Doc. # 67) and 92-20082-01 (Doc. #37). In his motions, defendant contends that his convictions in the criminal cases violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy because,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION and ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. Procedural History On August 20, 1993, the Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting the Defendant is liable for 1). sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, 2). retaliation in violation of Title VII, and 3). intentional infliction of emotional distress. On...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Guy F. Atkinson Co., Inc. and Kiewit Construction Co., d/b/a AtkinsonKiewit J.V. (collectively “Atkinson-Kiewit”) move this Court for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint as time barred, or, in the alternative, for leave to amend their answer to assert the defense of limitation of liability. The remaining defendants join the motion for summary judgme...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is the latest chapter of the long and complicated litigation history between Robert Haft (“plaintiff’) and several of the companies controlled by his family: Dart Corporation (“Dart”), Crown Books Corporation (“Crown”), and Trak Auto Corporation (“Trak”). Plaintiff, a former employee and board member, inter alia, of Dart and Crown, brought suit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, John W. Von Holdt, an individual residing in Niles, Illinois (“Von Holdt”), and Plas-Tool Co., an Illinois Corporation with its principal place of business in Niles, Illinois, (“Plas-Tool”) sues the Defendants Husky Injection Molding System, Ltd. (“Husky Canada”) and Husky Injection Molding Systems Boston, Inc. (“Husky Boston”) for patent infri...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Examination Outside the Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) Notices. The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Plaintiff served three Rule 30(b)(6) notices which requested Defendant to designate representatives to testily as to three issues. Defendant produced two representatives to testify ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Harbor Software has asserted six causes of action against defendant Applied Systems, all of which involve the alleged *88 copying or misappropriation of part, or all, of Harbor’s computer software package “Sales Center Manager” (“SCM”). Defendant produced and put on the market a computer software package called “The Agency Manager” (“TAM”) whic...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. (hereafter, “Bayer”), the owners of a patent for an antibacterial agent known as “ciprofloxacin,” sued Barr Laboratories, Inc. for patent infringement as a result of Barr’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of a drug containing the same ingredients as ciprofloxacin. In May 1992, shortly after this suit began, the par...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER We address today the motion of Gregory R. Noonan, Esquire to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Barry Bayges in this matter. For the reasons articulated below, we will grant Mi’. Noonan’s motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Barry G. Bayges and Margaret Boorse were demoted by their former employer, Defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”), after thei...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 9] filed by Plaintiff Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (“Reich”). Reich brings the present suit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., seeking injunctive relief and liquidated damages. Reich alleges in his complaint that Defendants Scherer Buiek Company and James Scherer (“Defendants”) violated th...
Views: 0
ORDER If a private individual sues a credit reporting agency for publishing incorrect credit information, does the Fair Credit Reporting Act empower a district court to enjoin further reporting of this information? *284 I. Factual Background Plaintiff Henry Mangio alleges that Defendants, several credit reporting agencies (the “Credit Agencies”), have reported inaccurat...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Government’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s April 10,1995 order granting pretrial release on bond of Defendant Avelino Corzo (“Corzo”). Having reviewed the record, considered the argument of counsel, and been advised on the premises, the Court orders that' the Government’s appeal is GRANTED. I. Factual Background Corzo was apprehended by the Feder...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This nonjury trial came on to be heard before me on February 28 and March 17, 1995. Plaintiffs, who invested a total of $200,000 in defendants’ failed real estate development, bring this action to recover losses suffered as a result of defendants’ alleged misrepresentation. Plaintiffs contend that defendants deliberately provided them with false and misleading information ab...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The issue before the Court is whether the defendant may withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing because he was represented by an Assistant Public Defender who had been forbidden by the Public Defender from representing clients in Federal Court on a substantive basis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the defendant may withdraw his plea. *4 Background O...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have authorized this Court to conduct all proceedings in this case. Currently pending is the defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (“WMATA”) motion to dismiss Counts II and III of the plaintiff Alice Whitaker’s complaint. . Because the plaintiff has stipulated that she will withdraw Count II, the Court h...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER Are a foreign corporation’s operations within the United States subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s prohibition of age discrimination? I. Factual background 1 Defendant Kloster Cruise Limited (“Kloster Cruise”) is a Bermuda subsidiary of a Norwegian parent corporation. In addition to its overseas operations, Kloster Cruise maintains office...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Douglas McIntosh, brought this action against his former employer, Irving Trust Company (“the Bank”), on September 4, 1987. The plaintiff, who is African American, alleged that the Bank had intentionally discriminated against him because of his race by failing to promote him from the position of Customer Relations Assistant to that of Assistant Secreta...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Michele Hansen (“Hansen”) brought this action under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 (McKinney 1993), claiming sex and pregnancy discrimination by her former employer defendant Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. (“Dean Witt...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Matthew Noble’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking credit for his time served on parole. Petitioner is currently under parole supervision of the United States Parole Commission (“U.S.P.C.” or “Commission”). On May 28, 1993, the Commission issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest for an alleged parole violation. Beca...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner has moved this Court for an Order compelling arbitration and ordering the Respondent to appoint an arbitrator. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. On December 6, 1994, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Contract of Transportation (“Contract”) whereby Petitioner agreed to hire and Respondent agreed to let the M/V ZODIAK for an agreed rate. Petiti...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiffs, Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”); Dingletown Music, a Division of Frank Gari Productions, Inc.; Alley Music Corp.; Trio Music, Inc.; Andrew Gold and Charles Plotkin, a partnership d/b/a Luckyu Music; Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.; Irving Music, Inc.; Paul Hardy Kennerley, d/b/a Little-march Music; EMI Blackwood Music, Inc.; Scoop Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Bruiser Music; and...
Views: 2
*525 ORDER This civil action “arises from the fraudulent conduct of an attorney who forged check indorsements and absconded with a widow’s money.” Kenerson v. FDIC, 44 F.3d 19, 21 (1st Cir.1995). Plaintiff Jean Kenerson, serving in her capacity as administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate, seeks to recover those losses from defendants Morgan Guaranty Trust Co...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................1272 II. FINDINGS OF FACT...................................................1273 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................1274 A. Review Of A Report And Recommendation.................
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Sharon M. Smart (“Smart”) brings this action against The Gillette Company Long-Term Disability Plan (“Gillette” or the “company”) for long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp.1993) (“ERISA”). Gillette and Smart have agreed that the Court resolve, based upon the stipulated facts set ...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a regulation that requires booths, in which sexually explicit videotapes and films are displayed, to have at least one side open to a public lighted aisle to permit an unobstructed view of occupants. Plaintiffs assert this regulation violates their rights under the First Am...
Views: 0
OPINION In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act, the Securities Exchange Act, RICO, and Mississippi state law in connection with the embezzlement activities of one of the defendants. This cause is presently before the court on the motions of the defendant brokerage firms for summary judgment. *920 FACTS In 1986, the defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The present action was commenced by the plaintiff, Glickman, Inc., to compel its insurer, The Home Insurance Company, to provide coverage and a defense to pollution-related claims advanced against Glickman in Barton Solvents, Inc. v. Southwest Petro-Chem, Inc., No. 91-2382-GTV (D.Kan. Nov. 3, 1994). In response to Glickman’s claim, Home had originally reserved its right...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This appeal of a decision and judgment of the Bankruptcy Court involves a single narrow issue hotly contested and frequently litigated — with contradictory results — across the country. The question is whether, under the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), the rejection of a commercial lease by the bankruptcy trustee or the debtor-in-possession is effective at once upon...
Views: 1
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a “Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration on Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Henkels & McCoy’s Counter-Claim” filed by Henkels & McCoy, Inc. This motion was submitted without oral argument on a previous date. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion only to explain its rationale ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment on liability filed by the parties. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the applicable law and the record, the Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment of defendants/counterclaimants and DENIES the motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiff. *1308 Backgrou...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, which were taken under submission on a previous date. The first is a motion for partial summary judgment by both defendants on plaintiffs federal and state antitrust claims. The second is a motion for partial summary judgment by defendant Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2' on the grounds th...
Views: 0
*209 ORDER Now before the Court is the plaintiffs motion to remand. Plaintiff originally filed its complaint in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas on August 5, 1994. The defendant’s agent was served on August 9, 1994. The defendant answered and counterclaimed on September 9, 1994. On December 27, 1994, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint together with an Application for an...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is the “Motion of Defendant, Shell Oil Company (sic) For More Definite Statement Pursuant to Rule 12(e).” This matter was taken under advisement without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, defendant’s motion is DENIED. Background Plaintiffs filed a “Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Equitab...
Views: 0
*899 ORDER AND REASONS Thomas Lee Ward has filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to overturn his conviction of first-degree murder and death sentence. Petitioner also seeks a stay of his execution scheduled for May 16, 1995. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court DISMISSES the petition without hearing and DENIES petitioner’s mo...
Views: 0
ORDER Samuel Stoia was one of thirty-seven defendants originally charged in this 1987 case with multiple counts relating to a conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. Although several multidefendant trials were heard by different juries (cases were tried in *12301988 and 1989) Stoia was tried alone on the four counts he faced in 1990. At his trial, he was represented by attorneys Vincent ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is defendant’s motion in limine to prevent the introduction of any evidence by plaintiff as to a bankrupt*60cy court ruling in 1982 as to defendant and his wife.1 Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion. Background In February 1993 defendant Donald Strauss applied for health insu...
Views: 0
ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion For Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Declaration,1 it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) in this copyright infringement action, 1 claiming that she no is longer able to prosecute her suit. For reasons which follow, we grant her motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a prominent photojournalist who is best known for her work documenting domestic violence aga...
Views: 1
ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie 6. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), on April 28, 1994. On July 14, 1994, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 16, 1995, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending granting defendant’s motion on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation o...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Paloma Picasso (“Paloma”) moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss all counts against her in the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Museum Boutique Intercontinental, LTD. (“MBI”). 1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. 2 BACKGROUND The full background to this case is set forth in the Court’s Februar...
Views: 5
ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on March 11, 1992. Defendants filed motions to dismiss Counts II, III and portions of Count I of the Indictment, and also to suppress evidence seized pursuant to three search warrants. On August 9, 1994, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending denial ...
Views: 0
*286MEMORANDUM OPINION KAPLAN, District Judge. This motion is the product of plaintiffs failure to ensure that the defendant was properly named in the summons- and complaint and raises the question whether such a defect may be corrected long after the case has gone to judgment. In the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that it may. Plaintiff PacifiCorp Capital, Inc. (“PCI”) obtained a...
Views: 0
Memorandum and Order Defendant HPI Corp. moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) to dismiss the claims against it. HPI, a South Carolina corporation, contends that this court does not have jurisdiction over it in this patent infringement action because it does not do business in New York and has not sold the product at issue to any New York customers. BACKGROUND The followin...
Views: 2
OPINION On the eve of trial of the so-called Pacific Lumber Class and Shareholder Trading actions, six in number, brought by former shareholders of Pacific and consolidated in the above-captioned multi-district litigation, a Settlement was reached on May 17, 1994, providing for a settlement fund of up to $52 million less reserves for taxes and adminis*553tration. Those six actions were consolid...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Dale Tippins seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on the following assertions: (1) that the trial court improperly failed to rule that trial counsel’s sleeping during a substantial portion of the trial constituted a per se violation of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) that...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Dido Kurtin (“Kurtin”) against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), seeking recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as the result of a fall from the Hell’s Gate Bridge (the “Bridge”). Amtrak brought a third-party action against George Campbell Painting Corporation (“Campbell” or “plaintiff’), Kurtin’s employer, seekin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, plaintiff Anthony Pappas brings a pro se civil RICO action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) against various persons associated with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America and South America [hereinafter, the “Archdiocese”], and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Flushing, New York [hereinafter, the “St. Nicholas Church”], of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pablo Martinez, proceeding pro se, petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in 1990, after a jury trial, of one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree (N.Y.Penal Law § 220.18[1]), four counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (N.Y.Penal...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Costs [20-1]. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Costs. BACKGROUND Plaintiff James J. Grady was employed with Bunzl Packaging Supply Company. Defendant Bunzl Packaging Supply Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bunzl pic, and Bunzl USA, Inc. Defendants supply packaging for various products, including food to manufacturers ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This is an action for declaratory and in-junctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought by Dennis J. Bowen, Sr. (“Bowen”), in both his individual capacity and in his capacity as the President of the Seneca Nation of Indians (the “Nation”), to enjoin Justices Vincent E. Doyle, Jr. and Penny M. Wolfgang of the New York State Supreme Court (the “S...
Views: 6
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DOC. 22 AND DENYING DOC. 29 AS TO THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUE IN THIS CASE — PLAINTIFF’S TITLE VII DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIM; AND (2) THEREFORE TERMINATING THIS CASE UPON THE DOCKET This is a Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) appeal for which both parties have consented to entry of final judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, an African-American, is c...
Views: 0
The parties seek the Court’s ruling as to the availability of the attorney-client privilege for certain documents written by in-house counsel for Defendant Martin Marietta Corporation (“Defendant” or “Martin Marietta”). Defendant filed a Brief to the Court Regarding the Attorney-Client Privilege which the Court and the parties have treated as an informal Motion for Protective Order. The Court h...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ronald Jefferlone was an employee of the defendants Canadian Pacific (U.S.), Inc., Canadian Pacific Limited, and Railway Reorganization Estate, Inc., formerly the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, from 1976' until he was denied the position of trainman/freight conductor in 1990. Item 15 at 2. Plaintiff commenced action in state court, seeking recovery ...
Views: 0
In C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, —U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994), the Supreme Court declared that a municipal ordinance which required trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a specified transfer station, thereby forbidding them from depositing the waste out of state, violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In December 198...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the multi-million dollar market for operating systems, the machine language programs that coordinate the activities of a computer’s hardware components. 1 Plaintiff Addamax Corporation, a producer of security systems for the computer industry, is suing Hewlett-Packard (“H-P”), the Digital Equipment Corporation (“Digital”),...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on Counts I and II of the Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND In Count I, plaintiffs Katherine Shields and Cheryl Ann Zuber allege violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder on the part of defend...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiff, who seeks to represent all those who purchased the eommon stock of-Defendant, Compuware Corporation, during the period of September 22, 1994 through October 24, 1994 (“the Class Period”), comes before this court alleging violations of § 10(b) 1 and § 20(a) 2 of the Securities Exchange Act *1014 ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM In the present federal declaratory judgment action, plaintiff United States Liability Insurance Company (“USLIC”) seeks a declaration of its rights, duties and responsibilities under several liability insurance policies issued to Warren Realty Limited Partnership (“Warren”). The subject of this memorandum is the court’s sua sponte decision to decline jurisdiction. ...
Views: 0
ORDER On Friday, March 11, 1994, the Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment against several former employees of the American Honda Motor Company, Inc. The indictment named Stanley James Cardiges in two counts, charging him with a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza *719 tions Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(e), and conspiracy to defraud American ...
Views: 2
ORDER Currently before the court is plaintiff, Steven J. Nowaczyk’s Petition for Writ of Habe-as Corpus. Docs. 3 and 4. BACKGROUND The petitioner, Steven Nowaczyk, was arrested by the North Hampton police on February 2, 1994, on a complaint of criminal stalking. RSA 638:3-a. At the time of the *19arrest, petitioner was on probation from a federal conviction involving bank fraud. Because of the pro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In this diversity action, Plaintiff Joseph Nuzzo claims that his discharge by defendant *29Northwest Airlines, Inc., violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 12, § 111, because it came in retaliation for his refusal to testify against himself in an internal company investigation into conduct which was the subject of a grand jury ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before pleading guilty to a misdemeanor count in the Somerville District Court, Michael Indelicate, a licensed gun owner, specifically asked his attorney whether the plea would affect his ability to own firearms in Massachusetts. His attorney answered “no.” Unfortunately for Indelicate, his attorney’s answer was correct under state law but not under federal law. Neither Ind...
Views: 2
MDT Corporation, Exitron Corporation and Adir Jacob (collectively, “MDT”) move for summary judgment on Abtox’s claim that MDT has infringed Abtox’s U.S. Patent 4,321,232 (the “ ’232 Patent”). The ’232 Patent describes a plasma sterilization device which Abtox currently manufactures and sells. MDT owns several patents, including U.S. Patents 4,917,586, 4,931,261 and 4,801,-427 (respectively, the...
Views: 0
Memorandum Plaintiff James Ferrara was injured when the fishing boat he captained, the JOSEPHINE MARIE, sank off the Massachusetts coast. He is now suing A & V Fishing, owner of the JOSEPHINE MARIE, claiming *27 that his injuries were caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel. At issue are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. I. Facts The facts sur...
Views: 0
891 F.Supp. 1482 (1995) Rodney Joe FILLMORE, Plaintiff, v. KHP Trooper John EICHKORN, et al., Defendants. No. 93-4211-RDR. United States District Court, D. Kansas. May 18, 1995. *1483 *1484 *1485 Rodney Joe Fillmore, pro se. David C. Wetzler, Bennett, Lytle, Wetzler, Martin & Pishny, L.C., Prairie Village, KS, Carol R. Bonebrake, John W. Campbell, Office of Atty. Gen., Topeka, KS, for defenda...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION This is yet another chapter in the multivolume saga of litigation which has arisen out of the break-up of the Bell System and the deregulation of the telephone industry. The subject of this episode is “Consumer Owned Coin Operated Telephones,” better known in the industry as “COCOTs.” A COCOT is a type of coin-operated pay telephone...
Views: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT On July 19,1994, the government filed a 3-count information against SP, JF, and WR, pursuant to the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq. Count One charges the defendants with a conspiracy from June, 1993 until May, 1994 under 18 U.S.C. § 241 to intimidate Jewish citizens in the Brockton area. Count Two c...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Before the Court is the Defendant Northwest Airlines’ (“Northwest”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Complaint, brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Terrance Hogan (“Hogan”) commenced this action in federal court, alleging a single claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabili...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, the Boston Company Real Estate Counsel, Inc. (“the Boston Company”), brings this action against the Home Insurance Company, Inc. (“Home Insurance”) seeking insurance coverage under four “all-risk” insurance policies for severe foundational settlement damage to one of its buildings in Illinois. When Home Insurance denied coverage, the Bosto...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Brendan M. McGuinness (“McGuinness”) was at all relevant times an inmate lawfully incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institute at Cedar Junction (“MCI-Cedar Junction”). Following an altercation with numerous prison guards, his placement in the West Wing Segregation Unit (‘West Wing”), conviction in a disciplinary hearing, and the imposition of sanctions, McGuinness *21...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Roger Ringuette brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the police violated his rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments and state law while he was in civil protective custody because of incapacitation due to substance abuse. Plaintiff seeks ...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION /. INTRODUCTION On October 7, 1994, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a second report and recommendation in the above-entitled matter. Magistrate Judge Williams recommends that the court grant plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and deny defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. INTRODUCTION On October 7, 1994, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a second report and recommendation in the above-entitled matter. Magistrate Judge Williams recommends that the court grant plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and deny defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Manuel Ferreira (“Ferreira”), proceeding pro se, seeks damages for the defendants’ alleged violations of his equal protection and due process rights during his confinement in the Departmental Disciplinary Unit (“DDU”) as a result of his leadership role in a group demonstration on June 12, 199...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction On February 2,1988, defendant, Steven A. Silvers, was found guilty by a jury of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, (2) operating a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848, (3) three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violatio...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. FINDINGS OF FACT A The Parties. 1. Plaintiff John Labatt Limited (“La-batt”) is a Canadian corporation with its *238 principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. 2. There are two main segments to La-batt’s business: “Brewing” and “Broadcast, Sports and Entert...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Presently pending is Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The sole question presented is whether 12 *109U.S.C. § 1818(n) confers upon this Court the power to issue nationwide service of process and, therefore, acquire personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. Answering the question in the negative, the motion is granted and the petition i...
Views: 0
ORDER FOLLOWING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On October 25, 1994, plaintiffs and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing. Pursuant to court order, the parties submitted additional briefing. The motion came under submission on January 26, 1995. Plaintiff Kenneth Schendel sued Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Pension Plan and the Trustees of the Plan...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION The following motions are before the Court: ■ Insurance Company of North America (“INA”) moves for summary judgment on its claim for a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation under the insurance policy at issue in this case to make any payments upon the alleged loss in question. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) moves for summ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a Report and Recommendation dated January 17, 1995 Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold recommended that the Government’s motion to intervene in this action be granted. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GOLD, United ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On September 25, 1992, plaintiff Andrew Seymore was terminated from his employment as a captain with defendant Lake Tahoe Cruises Inc. after he refused defendant Joseph Thiemann’s1 order to take the Tahoe Queen, a 500 passenger vessel, on its morning cruise. Seymore brings this action for wrongful termination under 46 U.S.C. § 2114(a),2 federal maritime law, and ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 12, 1993. The defendant has responded to plaintiffs arguments, and both sides have submitted cases from other jurisdictions that support their positions. The plaintiff originally brought suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. Defen...
Views: 1
OPINION This is an employment discrimination case brought by plaintiff William Babcock under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the “ADEA”) and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law § 290 et seq. Defendant CAE-Link Corporation (“CAE-Link”) moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment dismissing pla...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. INTRODUCTION On October 7, 1994, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a second report and recommendation in the above-entitled matter. Magistrate Judge Williams recommends that the court grant plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and deny defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Before the Court in this tax refund case is the Plaintiff Carole A. Carstens’ Motion for Summary Judgment, brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Carstens seeks (1) a refund of $4,435.37 from the Defendants United States of America and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); (2) an injunction preventing the defendants...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction Defendants Ricky Joe Shugart and Lori Ann Leach, who are brother and sister, were indicted and arraigned on various charges relating to their alleged possession and manufacture of methcathinone, a controlled substance. Trial in the above-entitled criminal action is currently set to commence on May 15, 1995. Defendants have filed motions to suppress ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Motion of Defendants the City of Pickens, Mississippi, Phillip Yarbrough and Larry Edwards to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment on the federal and state law claims asserted against them by Plaintiffs David Simpson and Paulette Wade. Both Defendants Yarbrough and Edwards are sued in their individual and official capacities. Having cons...
Views: 0
OPINION Trial of this matter was held on January 4, 1995 in Lafayette, Louisiana. Technically speaking, the central issue in this case is whether Elizabeth D. Edmundson’s failure to give the I.R.S. proper notice of a foreclosure sale results in the survival of the I.R.S.’ lien on her property. If we hold that the I.R.S.’ lien survives, the I.R.S. has the power to levy on Mrs. Edmundso...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Knight’s claim that Wal-mart' -is hable for selling a firearm to a mentally incompetent customer who later killed himself with it. For reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED as to federal statutory liability and DENIED as to common law liability. I. Summary Judgment Standard Summa...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, John Bigda, alleges the breach of his employment agreement and the termination of the stipulation of settlement entered into between defendant Fisehbaeh Corporation (“Fisehbach”) and Victor Posner which, while allowing Posner to gain control of Fisehbaeh, sought to bar his interference with the company’s management and operations. In his first cause of action, Bigda...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER This action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and presents allegations, inter alia, that the defendants, in violation of the Act, withheld overtime compensation due the corporation’s employees and altered its records to disguise that such withholdings had occurred. The parties having...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons explained, the motion is granted. The plaintiffs in this case are the four Union Trustees of the Electrical Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust (“EJATT” or “Plan”). They have filed two lawsuits. The first suit, which is brought a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER On May 13,1994, Plaintiff Rebecca Skydell filed the present class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants Ares-Serono S.A., and Tucker Anthony, Inc., had violated § 14(e) of the Williams Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(e), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Th...
Views: 4
OPINION Defendants Walter L. Rogers (“Rogers”), Belgrave Investment Trust, N.V. (“BIT”), St. Jean Financial, Inc. (“St. Jean”) and Cambridge Phase II Corp. (“Cambridge”) (collectively the “Rogers Defendants”) and Defendants Basil Vasiliou (“Vasiliou”) and Vasiliou & Company, Inc. (“VCI”) (collectively the “Vasiliou Defendants”) and Triangle Acquisition Inc. (“Triangle”), have moved fo...
Views: 0
Memorandum Decision Granting Defendant’s Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) for Judgment as a Matter of Law This case came on for jury trial on May 15, 1995. 1 Defendant, Steven Silverman, submitted a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) following the Plaintiffs ease in chief on the issue of liability and on the issue of qualified immunity. 2...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a civil rights action filed by an inmate in the custody of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections. Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated by his placement in administrative segregation. Defendants have filed a motion for dismissal (Doc. 19). Despite being granted extensions of time to respond, plaintiff...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a person formerly incarcerated in the Harvey County Jail, Newton, Kansas. 1 Plaintiff claims that during his incarceration there, his constitutional rights were violated by the provision of inadequate medical care and an improper diet, denial of access to a la...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Background In May 1989 Robert Page pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 94 months in prison. No appeal was taken. In 1992, Page filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to set aside his sentence. That motion was denied on the grounds that the reasons cited by Page lacked merit and because Page had failed to assert them on direct appeal....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an inmate in the Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, Kansas. The procedural history and facts of the case as outlined in pages two through four of respondents’ answer and return are adopted by this court and made a part of this memorandum and order by reference. Petitioner was sentenced ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 52). Defendant has filed a response (Doc. 54). Having reviewed the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition to the motion, and the relevant law, the court finds the motion should be denied. Plaintiff raises ten issues, six of which claim the court erred by its instructions to the jury and four...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (“Rule 56(c)”) in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, this motion is granted, and this case is hereby dismissed. I. BACKGROUND FACTS A. Findings of Fact: The plaintiffs, John Kendrick and his father, James Kendrick, are ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the court’s sua sponte examination of Garry and Mary De Young’s notice of removal, which the court also construes as a complaint against Judge Frederick Lorentz. I. BACKGROUND On January 7, 1992, Mr. and Mrs. De Young borrowed money from the Community National Bank (“the bank”) to refinance a loan on their 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier. They sig...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate in the custody of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections. Defendants have filed a motion for dismissal (Doc. 27), and plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 30). Having examined the record, the court makes the following findings and order. Factual Background...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on OMI Holdings Inc.’s, formerly Ogilvie Mills, Inc. (“OMI”), motions for stay (Doc. 1393) and to approve supersedeas bond (Doe. 1398). The issues have been joined. The court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda, as well as the relevant law, and shall rule without oral argument. See District of Kansas Rule of Practice and Proced...
Views: 0
After careful review and absent objection, Magistrate Judge Eagan’s Recommended Ruling is hereby AFFIRMED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED. SO ORDERED. RECOMMENDED RULING ON APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER (Doe. # 6 in 3:94CV1550) EAGAN, United States Magistrate Judge. The instant action involves, inter alia, a priority dispute between the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of City-trust (he...
Views: 1
ORDER Rolf Siegmund was arrested in this district on March 28,1995. The government of Austria seeks his extradition to that nation. The magistrate entered an order on April 13 ordering Siegmund held without bad pending an extradition hearing. This is an appeal from the magistrate’s denial of bail. I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review The government maintains, initially, that this cour...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court following trial without a jury. Plaintiff claims she was discriminated against and denied employment as a federal civilian technician by the Kansas Army National Guard because of her gender in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Defendants must prevail in this case. After carefully con...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs, eighteen former employees of the defendant, Wyman-Gordon Company (‘Wyman-Gordon” or “the Company”), bring this action against Wyman-Gordon alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and breach of contract. The plaintiffs assert that Wyman-Gordon’s early retirement offers constituted a retirement “plan” under ERIS...
Views: 7
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (“Rule 56(c)”) in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, this motion is granted, and this case dismissed. I.FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff Gary McKnight, a black male, formerly resided at 9105 West Howard Avenue in Greenfield, Wi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff, Dr. Marjorie McMillan, a veterinary radiologist, brought this lawsuit against her employer, the defendant Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), and two of her supervisors, Dr. Gus Thornton, and Dr. Paul Gambardella. McMillan was employed as the Head of the Radiology Departm...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Today this Court resolves two discovery motions of Defendants LifeQuest, Inc. and Occumed, Inc. Both motions are opposed by Plaintiffs with diametrically opposed arguments. On February 17,1995, this Court entered a Revised Scheduling Order that set a discovery deadline of May 1, 1995. On April 14, 1995, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a Request for Admissions. On April 24, 1995, Plain...
Views: 0
*1315 ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court upon the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation dated December 9, 1994. All parties have been furnished copies of the report and recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion for summary judgment of Defendant Indopco Incorporated, doing business as Unichema North American (“Unichema”). For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. FACTS 1 Plaintiff Iona E. Johnson (“Johnson”) is a former employee of Unichema, where she held the position of Executive Secretary for the Sales...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Gayle Curcio, Penny Verest, Ellen Waltz, and Connie Weng bring this action against defendants Chinn Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Bob Chinn’s Crab House (“Crab House”), and Bob Chinn (“Chinn”), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation *192 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e e...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant moves this Court to reconsider its May 22, 1995 ruling denying his motion to transfer this case to the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons stated herein, the motion to reconsider is granted, and the motion to transfer is granted. Background Plaintiffs, College Craft Companies, Ltd. and College Craf...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Liability of the Estate of Steve Martell under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) filed by Plaintiff on March 18, 1994, and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Affirmative Defenses Applicable to the United States’ Claim under the Comprehens...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on defendant WRC Properties’ (“WRC”) motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. I. Factual Background This action involves office space (“the Premises”) located in the “8500 Building” at Keystone at the Crossing (“the Building”). I...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #5); DECISION AND ENTRY DECLARING MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE CERTAIN DECLARATIONS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ' FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCS. ##'12 AND 18) The Defendants in this case, Tuente Livestock, Ronald W. Tuente, and Roger B. *1418 Tuente, buy hogs from farmers (producers) and sell them...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On April 21,1994, plaintiffs First of Michigan Corporation and Norman Zerfas, a former registered representative of First of Michigan, filed this Complaint and Petition for injunctive relief barring arbitration by defendants. Defendants Roger L. Swiek, individually and as trustee of his IRA, and Mary L. Swick, individually and as ...
Views: 1
ORDER This action is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to certify a class action and on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court’s rulings are summarized below. BACKGROUND Plaintiff has filed this action against defendants for alleged security fraud. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of all purchasers of the common stock of Longhorn Steaks, Inc. (“Longho...
Views: 4
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“Empire”) brought this action by complaint, dated December 6, 1991, and amended complaint, dated January 17, 1992, for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)-(d), and common law claims for fraud, and breach and recision of c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Resat S. Keles brings this action for, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of an educational agreement and common law fraud. Defendants Yale University (‘Tale”), Dr. Katepalli R. Sreenivasan and Dr. Gary Haller move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. ...
Views: 1
OPINION This marital dispute was originally brought on 3 May 1994 by the now-deceased plaintiff, Henry G. Groh (“Plaintiff’), against defendant Theresa P. Groh (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part, Sussex County (the “Superior Court”). Defendant filed the in *168 stant notice of removal (the “Notice of Removal”) on 17 April 1995. Re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Joseph M. Coleman & Associates, Ltd., (“Coleman”) a Maryland corporation, has brought this action against Colonial Metals Co., (“Colonial”) a Pennsylvania corporation, claiming that Colonial failed to pay a consulting fee allegedly due Coleman in connection with the successful negotiation of amendments to a truck leasing agreement between Colonial and a third party, Penske Truc...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Perkins, acting pro se, brings the instant civil rights action against the New York City Department of Correction (the “NYC DOCS”), Andrew Phoenix, *93 the former Warden of the House of Detention for Men (the “HDM Center”) and Catherine M. Abate, the former Commissioner of the Department of Correction Services (collect...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jodi Perry brings suit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against defendant Michael Dowling, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, and defendant Joan Sinclair, individually and in her capacity as Commissioner of the Allegany County Department of Social Serv...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brings this action against defendant Johnson and Higgins (“J & H”) pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Agreeing with plaintiffs contention that J & H’s mandatory retirement policy, which requires those of its employees sitting on the Board of Directors to retire...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S UNEARNED WAGE CLAIM THIS MATTER comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiffs unearned wage claim. Having reviewed the motion together with all documents filed in support and in opposition, and being fully advised, the court finds and rules as follows: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On J...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER On August 27, 1993, General Motors [“GM”] filed a seventeen count complaint against the defendants, Johnson Matthey, Inc., Johnson Matthey, PLC and Johnson Matthey Limited, which are in the business of coating ceramic materials with thin layers of precious metals for use in catalytic converters. Johnson Matthey, PLC is the parent corporation of the other two defendants....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Defendant, the United States of America, for summary judgment dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 of the claims asserted against Defendant by the Intervening Plaintiff, Windsor Insurance Company (‘Windsor”), on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and, un...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Hayne, Miller & Farm, Inc., [“HMF”] commenced the above-captioned action on April 14,1994, by filing an application to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 and Rule 81(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Wis.Stats. § 788.10 and Minn.Stats. § 572.19. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein for pretrial processing. HMF ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER On May 29,1973, the plaintiffs commenced the above-captioned action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The action was resolved with the entry of an order for partial consent judgment [“consent judgment”] on July 22, 1975. Presently before the court is successor defendant Leticia M. Smith’s [“the defendant’s”] motion for relief from judgment. Ms. Smith is the current cour...
Views: 0
ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Motion to Suppress Evidence in the above-styled and numbered cause. Following a hearing on December 22, 1994, the Court is of the opinion that the motion is meritorious and should be granted. Statement of Facts On August 30, 1994, while working in an undercover capacity, Special Agent Sal Martinez (“SA Martinez”) of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On this day came on to be considered the appeal of a bankruptcy court order granting a constitutional mechanic’s lien in favor of the South Coast Supply Company, Inc. (“South Coast”) for $309,464.32 and a general unsecured claim of $24,544.72. After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the decision of the lower court should be affirmed i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a defamation suit brought against the Hearst Corporation d/b/a The Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., the Associated Press (“AP”), John M. Doyle, a writer with the AP, S. Beville May, an attorney and her client.1 Before the Court are the defendants’, AP, John M. Doyle and The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, motions for summary judgment and the defendant’s, S. Bevill...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case presents a conflict between two correctional officers’ rights to the free exer *570 cise of religion and a grooming regulation that has been applied to them. The plaintiffs, two African-American correctional officers at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing” or “facility”), are members and followers of the Rastafarian Church. The plaintiffs w...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 1, 1995 the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for Permanent Injunction for Violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act, filed as a part of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition on March 6,1995. During the hearing the Court heard testimony as well as oral argument. On May 10,1995, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order. Pursuant to Rule 52(...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court is the Appeal of IBM Credit Corporation from a final Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which granted the Motion of Appellee, Compuhouse Systems, Inc., to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and Bankruptcy Rule 1011(b). Jurisdi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Defendants United States Postal Service and Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General (collectively, the “Government”), move this Court for an order pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting defendant Postmaster General summary judgment on plaintiffs second claim for breach of contract and his third claim requesting punitive damages. Further, t...
Views: 1
ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lords Guirola, Jr. regarding Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from his position as deputy sheriff in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that they have articulated ...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an in rem civil forfeiture action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The government has moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The claimant-owner’s sole argument against the proposed forfeiture is that it would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The motion will be granted for the reasons stated below. Backgroun...
Views: 6
MEMORAND UM-DE CISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to New York State’s Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Insurance Law § 5101, et seq. (McKinney’s 1985 & Supp.1995), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively the “No-Fault Law”). Plaintiff Mario Introna, D.C. (“Dr. Introna”), a licensed chiropractor, seeks to recover fro...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER On January 31, 1992, the plaintiffs filed a twelve-count complaint asserting claims based upon breach of contract and quantum meruit. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. A seven-day jury trial was held beginning on January 17, 1995. Presently before the court are three post-trial motions: (1) “Defendants Samuel W. Shoen’s, Michael L. Shoen’s and Christa Shoen’s, Mar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case came on for hearing before the court on May 16, 1994, at which time the court ruled on the following motions: (1) Motion by plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (“National Union”), for summary judgment, and in the alternative for sanctions, and for continuance of the trial (Doe. 150); (2) Motion by defendants Count...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on appellants’ motion and amended motion for stay pending appeal (Doe. 22 and 26). For the reasons that follow, the motion for stay is denied. I. Background The debtor in this bankruptcy case operates a hotel. To help finance the hotel’s construction, the debtor entered into an industrial revenue bond (IRB) transaction, as authorized by K...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS The Motion to Review and Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment on Prescription filed on behalf of W.R. Grace & Co. — Conn. (“Grace”), the only remaining defendant, was submitted on memoranda. For the following reasons, I respectfully reject the Magistrate’s report and recommendation. I conclude that there ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the following: Motion of Defendants Anne P. Henry and Clarke L. Henry for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27); Motion of Plaintiff Resolution Trust Corporation to Withdraw the Reference (Doe. 37); and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference (Doc. 40). Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that defendants Overland Par...
Views: 1
DECISION and ORDER On March 28, 1995, a federal grand jury returned an eleven-count indictment charging defendants Wag-Aero, Inc., Richard H. Wagner, Roberta L. Wagner and Robert Basterash, with conspiring to deprive and depriving the United States of customs duties in connection with the importation of aircraft transceivers into the United States. Mr. Basterash was also charged with maki...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the case as barred by the statute of limitations. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 12, 1993, Eva Turner was arrested along with other family members by Newport, Kentucky police officer Mike Scott. Turner was charged with a felony for conspiring to extort money in exchange for stolen vehicles. This c...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants, seeking permanent injunctive relief under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deliberately infringed its trademark or trade name “Committee for Idaho’s High Desert” (hereinafter “C...
Views: 2
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER We address DuPont’s motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims in negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty against hidden defects. See Docket Document Nos. 240, 251, 257, 264, and 266. Having carefully studied plaintiffs’ motion in opposition and the relevant decisions by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, we deny defendant’s motions. The trial will p...
Views: 3
ORDER This matter is before the court on motion by defendant to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and on plaintiffs motions for leave to amend a reply, to strike and for partial summary judgment. The motions have been briefed and are now ripe for decision. 1 I. FACTS A Background Plaintiff has owned a retail Amoco ...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER The plaintiffs commenced this action on May 13, 1993, with the filing of a complaint asserting claims against the United States and twelve individual defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. In a decision and order dated December 22, 1993, I dismissed numerous counts of the plaintiffs’ complaint. Kaufmann v. United States, 840 F.Supp. 641, 6...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER I. Introduction The plaintiff, Grace Ann Tolliver, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleges that her civil rights were denied as a result of her removal as acting superintendent of the Harlan County Schools. She also asserts a supplemental state law claim alleging that the Harlan County Board of Education (“Board”) failed to recogn...
Views: 0
*848 OPINION State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”) appeals the confirmation of the Debtor’s plan of reorganization under Chapter 11. After obtaining bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11, the debtor-in-possession, Elmwood, Inc. (“Elmwood”), proposed a “cramdown” plan of reorganization (the “Plan”), which would forcé a writedown on the secured lender’s note and all...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff seeks review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ decision denying her Social Security benefits. Claimant asserts she is entitled to benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefits) and benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (Supplemental Security Income). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(e)(3), this cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a motion by appellant, Elaine J. Vaudreuil, to vacate the order of summary judgment entered by the Bankruptcy Court in favor of appellee, Lewis J. Busconi. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 9, 1981, Ms. Vaudreuil (“the Wife”) and Mr. Busconi (“the Husband”) entered into an ante-nuptial agreement which provided that if they divorced...
Views: 0
RULING I asked him whether, as a moralist, he did not think that the practice of law, in some degree, hurt the nice feeling of honesty. Johnson: “Why no, sir, if you act properly. You are not to deceive your clients with false representations of your opinion: you are not to tell lies to a judge.” 2 Boswell’s Life of Johnson 47 (G.B. Hill ed. 1934). With Johnson’s admonition in mind, we repair to...
Views: 0
OPINION The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case for consideration of Nathan S. Jim, Jr.’s religious freedom claim under the newly enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4 (1993). An evidentiary hearing was held on October 20 and 21, 1994, and briefing was completed on February 17,1995. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 1992, Jim was arrest...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for money damages and civil penalties pursuant to the Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Act, R.I.G.L. §§ 28-48-1 to 28-48-10 (the Act). The plaintiff Lisa Reid (Reid), an employee of defendant Citizens Savings Bank (Citizens), has filed a complaint against Citizens alleg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to enjoin the defendants from condemning certain real estate in Leavenworth County, Kansas, to be used in connection with a highway construction project. The court had previously granted plaintiffs’ requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A trial to the court on the merits of the ease was then held *1409 on March 20-21, 1...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on the Motion of Defendants Wilson M. Williams and David D. Padgett, Sr. for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 241). In this action, plaintiff Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), as receiver of Colonial Savings Association (Colonial), seeks monetary damages from defendants Wilson M. Williams and David D. Padgett, Sr., former officers and directors...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This is a trademark infringement action in which the owner of the beverage marks “ROYAL MISTIC” and “MISTIC” seeks to enjoin the owner of “MYSTIC SEAPORT” from bringing out a line of beverages under that mark. I conclude that an injunction should be issued. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The plaintiff, Best Flavors, Inc., owns the trademarks “ROYAL MISTIC” and “MISTIC...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is now before the court on “Defendants’ Motion to Review Magistrate’s Order” (Doc. 81). Plaintiffs have responded and oppose the motion. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court’s scope of review of a magistrate’s decision is whether the order has been shown to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION ■ AND ORDER Defendant Long Island Jewish Hospital (“LIJ”) and plaintiff Gleniss S. Schonholz cross-move under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment. Schonholz brought this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), to recover benefits allegedly owed to her under her former e...
Views: 2
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO CERTAIN COUNTS This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration or Leave to Amend as to certain Counts. (Docket No. 10) and response thereto. 7. FACTS The following facts are asserted and are relevant to the issues before the Court. Ill will between Anthony Distributors, Inc. and Anthony Distr...
Views: 2
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS This cause of action is before the Court on Defendants’, duPont Publishing, Inc., and Thomas L. duPont (hereinafter “duPont”), motion to dismiss Counts I and II, in their entirety, and Count IV as to Thomas L. duPont only, filed January 26, 1995 (Docket No. 7), and opposition thereto, filed February 23, 1995 (Docket No. 15). Defendants claim that Counts I an...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Nearly twelve years ago — on July 1, 1983 — Arthur L. Guptill Jr., who had been brought into this action as a third-party defendant, filed claims against C. Joseph Man-fredo, a defendant in the original action. All of the other claims in this suit were settled a decade ago, leaving only the claims by William L. Guptill — who, as personal representative of his father’s estat...
Views: 0
Memorandum and Order Plaintiff, Citibank, N.A., filed this action in New York state court to foreclose a mortgage on a condominium apartment unit in New York City. Defendants James F. and Marlene C. McGuirl, two of five defendants, removed the action to this Court and seek summary judgment. Plaintiff, on the other hand, seeks rejection of the motion for summary judgement as improper, and, either...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos. 31-34) and Plaintiffs Response and Request for Oral Argument (42-44). BACKGROUND Plaintiff, SHORT, has filed a complaint against the defendant, Immokalee Water and Sewer District, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Van Russell and Evans ask for a writ of habeas corpus. Both were sentenced to prison and to special parole terms; Van Russell for heroin related offenses in Illinois and Kent for marijuana offenses in Georgia. Both men served their time in prison and were released on special parole and both ran afoul of the terms of release, and the Parole Commission revoked their pa...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER This request for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., by a 32-month old child who suffers from severe respiratory and cardiac conditions as a result of her extremely premature birth raises an unique issue of first impression in any court. That i...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 7. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND....................965 77. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...............................967 777. FINDINGS OF FACT.....................................................968 A. Undisputed ...
Views: 0
*429 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before me is the habeas corpus petition of David Logan, a pro se petitioner who is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) Logan’s petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edwin E. Naythons who recommended denying the petition. Logan filed written objections to this rec...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, in a o...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT CMM Cable Rep., Inc. (“CMM”) has sued Ocean Coast Properties, Inc. (radio station WPOR), several of WPOR’s executives, and its graphic design consultant for federal copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement and certain related state law claims. The defendants, whom I shall refer to c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This product liability action comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment of the Positive Safety Manufacturing Company (Doe. #33). Defendant Positive Safety Manufacturing Company (“Positive Safety”) claims that it is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff Kathy D. Grider cannot overcome the ten-year useful safe life presumption imposed by the Kansa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a wrongful discharge case arising out of the January 3, 1994, termination of Plaintiff Warren Astrowsky from his position as a loan officer with Defendant First Portland Mortgage Corporation. Plaintiff has also named Atlantic Staff Management Corporation and Eduard P. van Loenen as Defendants. Pl...
Views: 1
879 F.Supp. 1099 (1995) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its corporate capacity, Plaintiff, v. Paul HINCH, individually, et al., Defendants. No. 94-C-728-K. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. March 6, 1995. *1100 *1101 Pamela H. Goldberg, James M. Reed, R. Mark Petrich, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Tulsa, OK, for F.D.I.C. W. Robert Dyer, Joseph W. Spence, Gar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court upon plaintiffs claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging sex discrimination, which resulted in her termination as a pre-school teacher for the defendant’s pre-school, Little Harding. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was discharged because of her unwed pregnancy, and that her discharge for t...
Views: 0
ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, Ricky Flamingo Brown, an inmate at the West Tennessee High Security Facility (WTHSF) in Henning, Tennessee, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sues WTHSF associate warden Wayne Carpenter, food service manager Larry Seay, disciplinary board chairman Joel Smith, and board members Diane McDaniel, Bobby Herron, and Peggy Holcomb. This complaint a...
Views: 0
ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, Stephen R. Stamps, an inmate at the Cold Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF)1 in Henning, Tennessee, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Plaintiff sues TDOC regional administrator Billy McWherter, CCCF warden Fred Raney, CCCF grievance board chairman Sharon Wilson, CCCF job coordinator Bill Hendrix, and job coordinator-personnel clerk Carolyn Tatum. This co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion to amend the complaint. In his motion to remand, the Plaintiff contends this Court lacks jurisdiction over this dispute because the parties lack diversity. The motions have been briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED and the ease is...
Views: 0
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND ORDER TO ISSUE SERVICE FOR REMAINING DEFENDANT Plaintiff, Brent McKinney, an inmate at the Special Neéds Facility (SNF) in Nashville, Tennessee, who was formerly confined at the West Tennessee High Security Facility (WTHSF) in Henning, Tennessee, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sues WTHSF Warden Billy Compton, WTHSF nurses Beverly Donvan and ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Food Lion has brought this action against Defendant Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (“ABC”) for injuries suffered as a result of ABC’s undercover investigation of Food Lion’s operational practices and subsequent broadcast on Prime Time Live, an ABC television production. Specifically, Food Lion alleges (1) state tort law violations of intentional misrepres...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Tom Scott, Jr. brings his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [30] on four of the five claims for relief asserted against him by Plaintiff Resolution Trust Corporation. The Court, having considered the supporting and opposing memoranda, is of the opinion that the Motion should be granted. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case comes before the court on an appeal by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) from an order of the bankruptcy court denying the RTC’s proof of claim for income tax refunds and ruling that the refunds are property of the bankruptcy estate by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 541. RTC contends that the debtor holds the tax refunds in trust for the RTC and that it i...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, Jerome Hinds, an inmate at the South Central Correctional Center in Clifton, Tennessee, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, with an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The clerk of court is ORDERED to file the case witho...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded only to the motion for summary judgment, and defendants have replied. These matters are ripe for adjudication. I. Mr. Marcum filed this action against 1) his former employer, Zimmer, Inc. (“Zimmer”), 2) Thomas L. Jacobs & Associates, Inc., a claims ad...
Views: 0
*1090 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Harlan L. Jacobsen edits and publishes a singles newspaper called Solo RFD. After the City of Ottawa, Kansas, seized his newsrack, arrested him, and charged him with the crime of distributing newspapers without a license, Jacobsen filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jacobsen claim...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunc-tive relief and declaratory judgment prohibiting the defendants from enforcing Chapter 2 of the Johnson County Adult Entertainment Code (“Adult Entertainment Code” or “AEC”), Resolution 68-92. 1 The case, which also included a challenge to Chapter 1 of the Adult En...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a breach of contract action seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs originally brought this action in state court and defendants removed it to this Court based upon diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs simultaneously seek a temporary restraining order and move this Court to remand the action to state court, contending that the amount in controversy does not ex...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for leave to conduct limited *445discovery (Doc. # 82). Plaintiffs oppose the motion and request an award of the costs associated with responding to the instant motion. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion will be denied. This is a patent infringement action involving an apparatus for restraining wheelchai...
Views: 0
ORDER Now before this Court are motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Dillon Family and Youth Services, Inc., d/b/a Shadow Mountain Institute (“SMI”) and by Plaintiff Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc. (“ODLC”). Both parties agree that there are no material facts as to which genuine issues of fact exist and that the only issues remaining in this matter are ones of law whic...
Views: 0
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BEFORE THIS COURT, in the above-captioned cause of action, is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen H. Capelle, filed April 6, 1995. Magistrate Judge Capelle submits this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction barring defendants from using certain advertisements which refer to plaintiffs trademarks. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. *325 Background. Plaintiff, Club Gene and Georgetti Limited Partnership (“G & G”), owns and operates a restaurant...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The perfect tragic figure, according to Aristotle, is “a man not preeminently virtuous or just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice and depravity but by some error of judgment____” Aristotle, The Poetics 238 (Friedrich Solmsen ed. & Ingram Bywater trans., Modern Library 19...
Views: 2
*900 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this patent infringement suit involving heat shrinkable film, defendant American National Can Company (“ANC”) has indicated that it mil assert reliance on the advice of counsel as a defense to the claim of willful infringement. Accordingly, ANC has produced three written opinions from outside counsel that were written after suit was brought by plaintiff ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tawana Fairley has filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), alleging unconstitutional arrest and detention on the part of “P.O.” Zelenik (plaintiffs terminology) and P.O. Lucas. Count I is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for deprivation of constitutional rights, and Count II is a supplemental false imprisonment action. Officer Zelenik has moved to dismis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Carolyn Jefferson (“Jefferson”) has filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Opinion”) of April 13, 1995, denying Jefferson’s Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23. After reviewing our Opinion and the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that the denial of certification is appr...
Views: 3
OPINION Defendants CBS, Inc. (“CBS”), Ed Bradley (“Bradley”), Andy Rooney (“Rooney”), and Mike Wallace (“Wallace”) (collectively the “Defendants”), have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Tony Anyanwu (“Anyanwu”) for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. In addition, Defendants moved for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the government’s motion' in limine to prohibit the defendant from presenting a defense of diminished capacity at trial. For the reasons stated herein, this motion is denied. Background Defendant, James Rusin (“Mr. Rusin”), is a real estate broker. Mr. Rusin is charged with two counts of knowingly converting appr...
Views: 1
ORDER AND OPINION Trial in this cause was held before the undersigned. Based on the testimony and evidence received during trial, and the applicable legal standards, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs, Armco Chile Prodein, S.A. (“Armeo”) and Compañía De Seguros Cruz Del Sur, S.A. (“...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Stanley Caming (“Caming”) moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate his judgment of conviction, convicting him of violating 31 U.S.C. § 5324, on the ground that the conduct for which he was convicted is no longer unlawful pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ratzlaf v. United States, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 61...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT GARY P. RUTH Plaintiff sued defendants in state district court for personal injuries. Defendants re*69moved the action to this Court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing that plaintiff had fraudulently joined Ruth, a resident of Texas, for the sole purpose of destroying diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moves to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Deborah H. brought this action under Title IX of the Educational Amendment Act of 1972, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88. While enrolled at San Elizario High School, she took part in an afterschool karate class taught by John Contreras. The program was run by San Elizario Independent School District through its special programs office. While enrolled in this class, Deborah cl...
Views: 1
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & SEVERED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION After carefully reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s instructions and the parties’ papers, this Court DENIES defendant Northrop’s renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff Leocadio Barajas’s (“Barajas”) first amended complaint and severed complaint for lack of subject...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The relevant facts on this bankruptcy appeal may be briefly stated. John Driggs, a debtor in a Chapter 11 proceeding, owed a tax liability to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS, in turn, owed Driggs a refund for another tax year. During the course of the bankruptcy proceeding Driggs proposed a plan of reorganization to which the IRS did not object and which has now been confirmed....
Views: 2
*15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO COUNT V OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, the Maine Education Association (“MEA”) and four classes of public school teachers as members of the Maine State Retirement System (“MSRS”) bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging amendments enacted by the Maine Legislature in 1993 w...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR PREVAILING ON RCRA CLAIMS I. Introduction and Background Defendants were previously granted summary adjudication of plaintiffs environmental claims brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972.1 The parties’ respective cross-motions for summary adjudication of plaintiffs claims u...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ fifth, sixth, and ninth causes of action. 1 After a hearing on March 13, 1995, the motion was taken under submission, and is disposed of herein. I. THE COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Audrey Rodgers and Nellie Walters, were employed in the Animal Control Unit of the Yolo Co...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Robert Ford, the petitioner, is a prisoner in the Illinois Department of Corrections and has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At this time, the court grants the petition and orders the writ. This court finds that Ford is in “custody in violation of the Constitution ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Specifically, the state fai...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, The Prairie Island Indian Community (“the Community”) and Anne Burr, for alleged acts of discrimination. At the time suit was commenced, no tribal court existed. Since that time, a tribal court has been established. The Community asserts that its sovereign rights require plaintiff to first seek relief in the recently-established tribal...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed February 9, 1995, pursuant to Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff filed a response/motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on April 4, 1995, in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a response and...
Views: 9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 8, 1995 this matter came on for trial to the Court. Following the presentation of evidence, the Court took the case under advisement and it is now ripe for adjudication. 1 Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (1992) 2 and 2671, et seq. (1988). Plaintiff previousl...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION TO COMPEL I. INTRODUCTION The above-entitled matter is before this court on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Presently before the court are plaintiffs Motion For Class Certification, filed February 8, 1995, and plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to First and Second Set of Interrogatories, also filed February 8, 1995. The...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court. The appeal arises out of an involuntary Chapter 7 case commenced against the debtor, Dorrough, Parks & Company (“Dorrough Parks”), on April 27, 1992. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and is not in dispute. The Bankruptcy Court held that a federal tax lien asserted by the appellant, the Internal Reve...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY ISSUE Upon full consideration of the pleadings, the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the evidence submitted by the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Introduction This a...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION William Foxley (“Foxley”) has filed a Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging seventeen causes of action against Sotheby’s, Inc. (“Sotheby’s”), a leading auction house for fine art. Foxley seeks damages in connection with his purchase at auction of a painting subsequently regarded as inauthentic. Defendant moves to dismiss all counts. I. FACTS ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Raymond Chandler (“Chandler”) sues defendants Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc. (“Southwest”) and Calumet National Bank (“Calumet”) seeking redress for alleged misrepresentations and unfair and deceptive practices in connection with Southwest’s standard retail installment contract. Counts I and II of the complaint, the class claims, are alleged only against South...
Views: 3
OPINION In an Opinion dated March 27, 1995, this Court concluded that the State of New York, the State Board of Regents, and various other State education officials (collectively, “the State”), as well as the Urban Development Corporation, were not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the conditions of unlawful de jure segregation that the Court had previously found to exist in th...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 15, F.R.Civ.P. and Rule 3 of the Local Rules for leave to file a second amended complaint to amend its cause of action based on § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“the 1933 act”), 15 U.S.C. § 111 (1988), and to add causes of action based on § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the 1934 act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j (1988); o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Robert Fauver, the former Warden of the Bradford County Prison, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, has been charged with mail fraud and money laundering arising out of his alleged misappropriation of funds that were intended to benefit the Bradford County Prison and its inmates. Specifically, the Grand Jury Indictment, returned on November 22, 1994, accuses Fauver of cashing ...
Views: 0
OPINION In this criminal prosecution for money laundering, the government seeks to introduce, on cross-examination of the defendant, his two prior misdemeanor convictions for failure to file New York State income tax returns. The lack of any precedent squarely in point in this circuit justifies explaining the analysis. In Cree v. Hatcher, 969 F.2d 34 (3rd Cir.), cert...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AppeUant, First Union National Bank of Virginia, held judgment hens totalling approximately $177,500 against the residence owned by Douglas and Ann Schroeder, appel-lees and the debtors in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The Schroeders’ equity in the residence, as of the time of their *724 bankruptcy filing, was $1,000 (after deduction of consensual liens), and the amount of the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION New York’s so-called “no fault” law, broadly speaking, precludes recovery for noneconomic loss arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle in this State except in case of serious injury. N.Y.Insurance L. § 5104(a) (McKinney 1985). The issue in this case, which is tendered by defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is whether pl...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On March 27-30, 1995, the court tried this section 1983 first amendment case involving an alleged politically motivated refusal to rehire two deputies of the Nelson County Sheriffs Office. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Consequently, this court is now called upon to determine whether the victor in the 1991 N...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This Memorandum and Order emanates from defendants’ request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, for a pretrial conference. Defendants seek this conference to resolve a discovery dispute that arose between defendants and certain non-party deponents. Defendants seek discovery from these non-party deponents, and these deponents contend that defendants’ discovery req...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company (“Mt. Vernon”), seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured East Side Renaissance, Ltd. (“East Side”) in a personal injury action brought against East Side by Juana, David and Charles Pichardo (the “Pichardos”). Mt. Vernon contends it has no obligation to ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal of a final judgment entered by Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler after the parties consented to his jurisdiction over dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The plaintiffs are farmers who would like to apply sewage sludge to their land located in Rappahannock County (the County). The County, however, passed an amendment to its zoning ordinance...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff in this ease, Virginia Panel Corporation (VPC), filed a complaint and amended complaint against the defendant, Mac Panel Company (MPC), for patent infringement and false advertising. MPC responded with several counterclaims and affirmative defenses. The court decided several of the issues at the summary judgment stage and bifurcated the trial into two ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This tempest in the art world involves defendants’ alleged monopolization of the market in Jackson Pollock paintings. Defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss plaintiffs antitrust and related claims. Defendants also moved for an order imposing sanctions on plaintiffs counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of ...
Views: 6
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs College Entrance Examination Board (“CEEB”), Graduate Record Examinations Board (“GRE”), Test of English as a Foreign Language Policy Council (“TOEFL”) and Educational Testing Service (“ETS”) (referred to collectively as “the moving plaintiffs”) move for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants (collectively referred to as “t...
Views: 1
ORDER The above-styled matter is presently before the court on Thomson Newspapers (Wisconsin), Inc.’s, (d/b/a Griffin Daily News) motion to intervene, for modification of the consent order of dismissal and for access to settlement agreement [Docket No. 42] and motion for hearing [Docket No. 43]. Background On February 16, 1993, plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U....
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.....................................675 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS........................................................677 A. Motions To. Dismiss.........................................'...........677 1. Want of prosecution...............................................678 2. Insufficiency of service.............................................679 3. Mo...
Views: 3
*769 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant C.D. Cairns Irrevocable Trusts Partnership (“Cairns”) Motion to Remand this action to Chittenden Superior Court. For the reasons stated briefly below, the Motion is denied. Plaintiff Beatrice P. Ailing (“Ailing”) originally filed this interpleader action in Chitten-den Superior Court on December 28, 1994. In...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In this action, plaintiff Borschow Hospital & Medical Supplies, Inc. (“Borschow”), alleges that in May 1985 Becton Dickinsoris predecessor, Parke Davis & Company (“Parke Davis”) entered into a distribution agreement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff was appointed as the exclusive distributor of a line of products manufactured by Deseret Medical, Inc. (“Deseret”), a subsid...
Views: 9
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Jeanine Goodstein (“Good-stein”) and Linda McCauley (“McCauley”), filed their original Complaint in state court on March 11, 1994. The original Complaint contained three counts alleging gender discrimination,- sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by Defendants Bombardier Capital, Inc. (“BCI”), and three individual defendants. Pl...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory relief and damages pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants now move to dismiss the Title IX claims against individual defendants Gordon and Bouchard and the constitutional claims against all defendants. For the reasons stated below, Defend...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by an inmate at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (“USDB”). In this action, petitioner challenges the decision of the US Air Force Clemency and Parole Board (“Parole Board”) to award no credit on his sentence for “street time”, time spent on p...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM RULING The complaint in this case seeks judicial review of a Remedial Order issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on October 19, 1993. The plaintiffs, Pel-Star Energy, Inc. (“Pel-Star”) and John H. Harvison filed a motion improperly styled as one for summary judgment. That motion was denied in a Memorandum Ruling issued on February 13, 1995. Plaintiffs...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Madeira Bennett brought this suit in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, against defendants Beiersdorf, Inc., her former employer, and Irene Valles, a former supervisor. While the bulk of the complaint references state law, two of the nine counts include a federal claim of discrimination on account of race in violation of Title...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING Deborah Sims (“Sims”) has brought a sexual harassment claim under federal and state law against Brown & Root Industrial Services, Inc. (“Brown & Root”) and state tort law claims against Frank Brossett (“Bros-sett”), a former employee of Brown & Root. Brossett has, in turn, filed a third party demand against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), seeking c...
Views: 2
*1132 ORDER This is a declaratory judgment action by an insurance company requesting the Court to determine it has no indemnification liability and thus no duty to defend defendant Laws in a wrongful death charge in Jackson County. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Stay this Action pending final disposition of the underl...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are Defendant Bradley E. Brink’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion of the remaining Defendants for an abstention stay. For the following reasons, the former motion is granted. The court will reserve ruling on the latter motion. I. BACKGROUND 1 This action is brought by the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. I. Background On April 1, 1985, Plaintiff, Carolyn A. James (“James”), began work as an Illustrator at the Defense Printing Service (“DPS”) Detachment Branch Office at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. In October, 1990, the Department of the Nav...
Views: 0
OPINION The current action for injunctive relief stems out of tax penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) against plaintiff for failure to report income allegedly derived from the ownership of certain foreign corporations. As a result of an audit of plaintiff’s personal tax returns from 1979 to 1990, the IRS concluded that plaintiff had a controlling interest in fifteen foreign...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On September 15, 1994, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned a two-count indictment charging defendant Virgilio Soto Vasquez with first-degree murder and possession of a prohibited object. The indictment relates to a stabbing *173 incident at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Union County, Pennsylvania, on March 19,1991. A...
Views: 1
The creditor, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court granting the debtor’s motion to impose sanctions on GMAC for violating the automatic stay provisions of section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Act. It appears that counsel for the debtor has been relieved of his representation in this case and the debtor has not filed a brief in opposition. ...
Views: 0
ORDER The above-captioned case is before the court on motions for summary judgment filed *1187by Plaintiff and the Federal Defendants.1 In this lawsuit, McKnight Construction Company, Inc. (MeKnight Construction) seeks a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction barring the Federal Defendants from implementing and administering a federal construction contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This RICO action is brought by the City of New York against several building “expediters.” Expediters are employed by building owners, builders, contractors or architects to facilitate the processing of the permits needed for the construction or alteration of buildings in the City of New York. These permits must be obtained from the Department of Buildings...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Plaintiff Evelyn Pettyjohn was the prevailing party in this lawsuit challenging the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 410-433 and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI. Through her counsel, Colorado Rural Legal Services, Pettyjohn now p...
Views: 0
ORDER January 4, 1995, this Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ action brought pursuant to the citizen’s suit provision of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 505(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(2). At the time, Plaintiff had not sought leave of this Court to file an Amended Complaint to add a claim for unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In a supplemental memorandum ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner challenges his conviction for first-degree murder and use of a knife or dangerous weapon in the commission of a felony, and the sentence of death with a consecutive 20-year prison term which resulted. (Filing 18, Am.Pet.Writ Ha-beas Corpus, at 1-2,11.) Pending before me are Magistrate Judge Pi...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is a diversity action for defamation. Plaintiff, a citizen of Washington acting pro se, alleges that the defendants composed and caused to be printed certain allegedly false and defamatory statements concerning her in The Oregonian, a daily newspaper published in Portland, Oregon. The case is before me on defendants Advance Publications, Inc.’s, Samuel I. New-house Jr.’s,...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT I. JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of copyright infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The second claim for relief, a state claim for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, § 6-1-101, C.R.S., et seq., also subject to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM- OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Miller and Molson brewing companies, together with certain related importing and distribution entities, move to dismiss brewing rival Coors’ antitrust claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The three Molson defendants that are Canadian entities also...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today we address Defendants’ Motion for Counsel Joan Sheak’s Fees and Expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). There is a second Motion for Counsel Robert Hanna’s Fees and Expenses that we do not address at this time. FEES AND EXPENSES AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS Both 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and 42 U.S.C. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Presently before this Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D) (1993 & Supp.1995). Defendant concedes that an award of fees is mandatory, but argues that Plaintiffs’ fee statement includes costs that are excessive and unexplained, and that the request is therefore unreasonable. Consequently, the sole issue before this C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants, city correctional officials, alleging that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution in connection with an incident at the Philadelphia Detention Center during which he was allegedly beaten and subsequently deprived of neede...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Tammy Woods brought this action against defendant Lloyd Bentsen, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, claiming that she was treated unlawfully while employed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a Tax Examiner in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-l to -17 (“Title VII”). Currently before the Court is t...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Hypolitus Nwachia brings this petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seek *191 ing to have his sentence vacated to allow for the entry of a “not guilty” plea, or, in the alternative, to have his sentence reduced to correct for alleged double-counting and/or to rescind the determination that petitioner qualifies as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Background On April 1,1984, in Knysna, in the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division in the Republic of South Africa, the petitioner Johannes Albertos Beukes and two others set out to rob a fast food establishment. One of Beukes’ accomplices had a handgun. He went into the store while the petitioner and the third man waited outside in Beukes’ car. The owner went to the...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner filed the instant petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent filed an answer, to which Petitioner responded. This matter is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Komives’ Report and Recommendation of May 10, 1994, in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Carrie Rice (“Rice”), commenced this action against defendants, Rochester Laborers’ Annuity Fund (“the Fund”), Robert Brown, a member of the Fund’s board of trustees, and Shirley Jenkins (“Jenkins”), administrative manager of the Fund, pursuant to various provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., (“ERI...
Views: 2
This action is brought pursuant to the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 781-790, and the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.CApp. §§ 741-752, by the owners and operators of a fishing net located within plaintiffs’ licensed fishing grounds in the vicinity of the town of Hwasan-ri, Republic of South Korea. Plaintiffs’ claim is that during the course of joint American-South Korean amphibious military...
Views: 0
ORDER On April 13, 1995, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which recommended that claimant’s motion for return of property be denied. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Three motions are currently pending before us in this complex and contentious case. Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., for leave to file a second amended complaint, and plaintiffs and defendants have each moved for summary judgment to recover monies allegedly improperly withheld by the other. This order deals only with plaintiffs’ motion to amend the ...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 9). THE COURT has considered the Motion, response and the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Wieslaw Klaskala (“Klaskala”) i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Judsen Rubber Works, Inc. (“Jud-sen”) seeks to vacate a labor arbitration award in favor of defendant Manufacturing, Production and Service Workers Union Local No. 24 (“Local 24”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 24 counterclaims for enforcement of the arbitration award. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. ...
Views: 0
OPINION In this class action brought by deaf and hearing-impaired inmates in the custody of New York’s Department of Corrections, plaintiffs move for declaratory judgment as to the existence of the statutory and constitutional rights they assert, for summary judgment on all their claims pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The claims ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Procedural History Plaintiffs, Kirk and Margie Stewart, filed a complaint on July 7, 1993, (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 1), and an amended complaint on July 13, 1993, (D.I. 4), alleging that the defendant, Walbridge, Aldinger Company (“Walbridge”), injured Mr. Stewart on Monday, June 10, 1991, by negligently stacking construction materials which, as a result, fell on him. They furt...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases have brought challenges under the dormant Commerce Clause 1 to portions of the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 to -207 (“SWMA”), the Solid Waste Utility Control Act (“SWUCA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, N.J.A.C. 7:26, a group of statutes and regulations that the Court shall...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a § 1983 action alleging violation of plaintiffs First Amendment rights. Plaintiff is an art teacher at Johnston High School and a member of the Johnston Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Local 1702. According to the verified complaint, Plaintiff videotaped violations of the Rhode Island Health and Safety Code at the High Sch...
Views: 2
RULINGS ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS This matter is before the court on post-trial motions filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants. The motions are opposed. This is a wrongful death and survival action brought under state law and removed to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Etta Lois Pullard Dunn and her three children, Cedric Darnell Dunn, La-driyka Dunn,...
Views: 1
*1013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 28, 1995. Defendants Fort Deposit Bank and Muffin Miles filed a response and supporting brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion on April 13, 1995. 1 Defendants supplemented their response on April 18,1995. A thorough examination and analysis of the facts and applicable...
Views: 0
*1112 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion filed March 27, 1995, seeking dismissal of the complaint as to defendants Paul Kennedy and Lassie Wooifolk, employees of the United States Postal Service. As grounds for dismissal, the defendants assert that in a suit alleging employment discrimination against the United States Postal Service, the prope...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the State of Alabama’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment” filed April 17, 1995. After careful consideration of the arguments of *1114counsel, the caselaw and the record as a whole, the court finds that the State of Alabama’s motion is due to be granted. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The petitioner originally filed a motion for a temporar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Marilyn Mandel, Barbara P. Bennett and Arthur R. Spencer, three former employees of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Robert F. Crawford, a current employee, instituted this action in state court. It was removed to this court by the defendants, who are Virginia’s Governor, several cabinet secretaries and several other state executives. The plaintiffs seek damages a...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs, the Town of Secaucus and its Mayor, seek to enjoin preliminarily and permanently the expenditure of federal funds for the construction of a $448 million transportation hub in the Town of Secaucus. Defendants, who are two federal and two state parties and a private property, oppose the preliminary injunction, and have filed cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. Pl...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 28, 1994, defendant Mark Longshore, a security officer at the Cache Creek Indian Casino, made a citizens’ arrest of plaintiff Terry Baugus. Baugus brought this action seeking recovery against Long- *910 shore and various other defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Longshore now moves for summary judgment. The court heard arguments on the motion on May 1, ...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter is before the Court on appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Bankruptcy Court. That decision established the priority of a deed of trust in favor of Maryland National Bank (“MNB”) over Kenneth 0. Harris, the debtor in possession (“Harris”), and the estate of Melvin Friedman, holder of a subsequently filed deed of trust (“Friedman”), even though the MNB deed of trus...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1.Proceedings. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act (“Act”) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying plaintiffs claim for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Act. The parties filed cross-motions f...
Views: 0
OPINION Unison Industries Limited Partnership (“Unison”) holds four United States Patents that cover a class of devices generally known as ignition exciters or igniters. See U.S. Patent 5,065,073; U.S. Patent 5,155,437; U.S. Patent 5,245,252; U.S. Patent 5,343,-154. 1 Igniters are devices that generate a spark to ignite fuel in turbine engines. Lucas Aerospace, L...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION J. INTRODUCTION This action arises over a dispute concerning an obligation to pay a species of interest called “contingent interest” which is grounded in a note (“Note”) and mortgage (“Mortgage”). 1 The plaintiff, Albert H. Marta (“Marta”), assumed the Note which was secured by the Mortgage on an apartment complex when he purchased the complex fr...
Views: 1
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is a diversity action brought by plaintiff John T. Oglesby to collect insurance benefits under a disability policy issued in February 1987 by defendant The Penn Mutual Insurance Company (Penn Mutual). Penn Mutual has denied liability for plaintiffs claim. At summary judgment, Penn Mutual sought and was granted partial rescission of the policy based on...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed January 24, 1995. A supporting brief accompanied Defendants’ motion. On April 10, 1995, Plaintiffs filed a response and supporting brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion. After a full and complete review of all the relevant evidence and law, as well as the factual background and pleadings, the cour...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Presently before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint *1540 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed April 7, 1994. Plaintiff filed a response and supporting brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion on May 3, 1994. A comprehensive and detailed analysis of the pleadings a...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, Robert Harrington, previously held the position of Superintendent of Schools pursuant to a contract of employment with defendant Clinton Township Board of Education (“the Board”). The initial contract was entered into on June 1, 1990, and was due to expire on May 31,1993. The parties entered into another contract on April 8, 1993, whereby they agreed to an additional te...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Pursuant to the authority granted it under section 20(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), and section 21(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(l), plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks the entry of a negotiated consent order granting a preliminary injunction a...
Views: 1
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND REMAND 1. The court adopts the memorandum and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge signed May 11, 1995. 2. Janice Bontoris RICO claim against Archer Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice. 3. Bonton’s claims for breach of contract, conversion, conspiracy, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and neglige...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants Sylvester Stallone and Tony Filiti moved for an order, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint for, inter alia, breach of contract regarding the sale of three Stallone paintings. On June 8, 1995 this motion was taken on submission by agreement of the parties. For the reason...
Views: 0
ORDER OF REMAND Before the Court is the Notice of Removal filed June 7, 1995. This case is one of several cases recently removed to the Northern District of Texas from state district court in Dallas County whereby the plaintiffs, women who have allegedly been damaged by defective silicone gel breast implants, bring suit against manufacturers of the implants and various health care providers. ...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Tomiser, a retired New York City firefighter, injured his back and was retired on Ordinary Disability Retirement (“ODR”) rather than on Accidental Disability Retirement (“ADR”). Tomiser complains under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that defendants deprived him of property — the more lucrative ADR — without due process by not permitting him to appear before the medical boards and trustees wh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiff Pamela L. Traylor’s motion filed September 12, 1994, to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court or, in the alternative, to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Elmore County. 1 The plaintiff moved for withdrawal after the bankruptcy judge questioned the authority of a non-Article III tribunal to conduct a jury trial. 2...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is now before the court on the plaintiff, Kimberly James Bond’s, motion for preliminary injunction and the defendants Harold P. Smith’s and Carl R. Hampfs motion for summary judgment, filed March 6, 1995. The plaintiff responded to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 20, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs motion for injunctive re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Before the court is plaintiff Mark Dunning Industries, Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunction filed January 20,1995. The plaintiff challenges the United States Department of the Navy’s award of a contract to the apparent low bidder for collection and removal of solid waste at the Pensacola, Florida Naval Air Station. The plaintiff, as the incu...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW And now this 20th day of June 1995, upon consideration of the government’s motion for revocation of release order filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) and following an eviden-tiary hearing held June 15, 1995, I find that the government has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no conditions of release or combination of conditio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter stands submitted on motion by defendant, United States of America (“United States”), to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff, Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion will be granted. I Safeco’s complaint alleges that on November 7,1992 Richard J. Brown (“Brown”) negligently operated a motor vehicle owned by...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Equitable Beneficial Life Insurance Company has, for the fourth time, moved this Court to dismiss a complaint filed by Plaintiffs David and Carol Arber and their employer, Omni Finishing Systems, Inc. This, the Third Amended Complaint, alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (1985 & Supp.1994) (ERISA) and c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The issue in these cross-appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerns the extent to which the customers of a brokerage firm liquidated under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa, et seq. (“SIPA”), can recover the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the l...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Defendant, the United States of America, has requested a summary judgment in its favor in the litigation that Plaintiff, Rother Jones, has brought against it. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue of material f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Johnston Industries, Inc. (“Johnston”) has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Bethlehem Iron Works, Inc. and Steel Structures Corp. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) raise claims pursuant to section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and section 1101 of the Pennsylvania Hazard...
Views: 2
OPINION The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), prohibits employment discrimination against persons with disabilities who are able to perform the essential functions of their jobs, either with or without reasonable accommodation. The New York City Department of Correction (the “Department”) has terminated, or seeks to terminate, plain...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Industri & Skipsbanken A/S (“I & S” or “the Bank”) has moved under Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment to enforce the guaranty of the Defendants Andrew A. Levy (“Levy”) and Ragnvald Gabrielsen (“Gabrielsen”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). Levy has cross moved under Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 19, Fed.R.Civ.P. to dismiss the complaint for failure to join necessary parties ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendants, Jamil “Jimmy” Hamdan and Omar Adel Mohamed, are charged with receiving and possessing goods known to be stolen, and with conspiring to commit that offense. They have moved to suppress certain evidence that the government intends to offer at trial. In January of 1995, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) was notified by J.B. Hunt, a company ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE PATENT INFRINGEMENT, AND DENYING INTERVENOR’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Plaintiff J.M. Huber Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re Patent Infringement (Instrument No. 63) and Intervenor Enterra Oilfield Products Inc.’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summ...
Views: 1
OPINION ON DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Background This ease arises under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. (1994), and the New York common law doctrine of unfair competition. Plaintiffs are several corporations associated with designer Giorgio Armani. Plaintiffs have placed Defendants in three categories: (1) the r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case presents the question whether the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), as the administrator of an arbitration conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), may be sued on the theory that the arbitrator was biased and failed to sequester witnesses during the arbitration hearing. The Court concludes that it may not. Petitioner Deidra C. Richa...
Views: 0
ORDER Pro se prisoner Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 6, 1994. Plaintiff, who was incarcerated at Charlotte Correctional Institution at the time the alleged events occurred, claims that: 19. On September 22, 1993 Plaintiff was and had been while on administrative confinement being utilized as an inmate orderly in housing H...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER We address today the motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Defendant in this diversity case, in which it seeks the dismissal of Plaintiffs request for punitive damages. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be denied. I. BACKGROUND For the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we must accept as true the facts as allege...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter was tried before the court. Plaintiff, Kathy Smith, brought breach of contract and sexual discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)) claims against her employer, F.W. Morse & Co. The court dismissed plaintiffs breach of contract claim but tried her discrimination claim. Plaintiff alleges that F.W. Morse & Co. (“F.W. Morse”) discriminated against her based on pregnancy a...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiffs pro se amended complaint is written in a style difficult to understand. He seems to be raising federal and state causes of action based on discrimination at the hands of his alleged employer because of his disability, seasonal affective disorder. His federal claim(s), at least, suffer from fatal defects. To the extent plaintiff attempts to assert a claim under the Rehabilit...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on March 31, 1995. Plaintiff Cornwall & Stevens Southeast, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, (“Cornwall & Stevens”), brought this action to enforce the terms of a *1491 1992 employment contract between the parties. Defendant, Ralph M. Stew...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, seeking that defendant National Football League (“N.F.L.”) “take some affirmative action to stop fans from subjecting black football players to racial abuse.” PL’s Letter Br. at 1. The parties stipulated to dismiss the action without prejudice, agreeing that the Court would re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Rachel Brem, M.D. filed this action against Drs. DeCarlo, Lyon, Hearn & Pazourek, P.A. (“DLHP”), in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on September 20, 1994. On January 6, 1995, she amended her complaint by adding claims of religious and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e). On January 23, 1995, the case was removed to this court pursuant to ...
Views: 0
ORDER The recommendation of the Magistrate to which no objection has been filed is adopted. *172 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CHREIN, United States Magistrate Judge. By order dated September 12, 1994 the above referenced matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. BACKGROUND:...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 8, 1992, defendants Guillermo Leon-Lopez (“Lopez”), Jairo Alvarez-Buitra-go (“Jairo”) and Ivan Alvarez-Buitrago (“Ivan”) 1 were convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and' possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Currently before the Court is defe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING REQUEST FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL This cause is before the court on the defendants’ motion for the empaneling of a three-judge court to review the plaintiffs’ claims for violation of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. The plaintiffs do not dispute that a three-judge court is necessary. Additionally, the defendants have filed a motion fo...
Views: 0
OPINION-ORDER On December 12, 1994, Defendant Washington County Public Health Service ("WCPHS”) motioned for summary judgment. WCPHS argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiffs did not provide them with written notice of this suit as is required by New York’s notice of claim statute. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion For Summary Judgment, contending that WC...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are motions to dismiss the indictment filed by codefendants Miguel A. Collazo-Diaz (Collazo-Diaz), Marina Santiago-Rivera (Santiago-Rivera), and David Garcia-Beltran (Garcia-Beltran), and the government’s opposition thereto. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 24, 1994, all defendants were present at a party at Karla Rodriguez’ house, located in Toa A...
Views: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Elbert Crosby, Administrator of the Estate of Goodwin E. Crosby (“the Estate”), brings this suit against Defendant United States of America, to recover the $10,000 which the Estate submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) when the Estate requested an extension of time to file a 1988 fiduciary tax return. The IRS refuses to refund the $10,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I. The standards for professional conduct of attorneys in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico are the Model Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the American Bar Association on August 2, 1983. See Local Rules Dist. P.R. R. 211.4(B). Rule 4.2 of the Model Rules provides as follows: Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel. In representing ...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER Pro se plaintiff, James Griffin, currently incarcerated at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, has filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-named defendants. Mr. Griffin’s complaint is accompanied by a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition will be granted to the extent set forth in this decision and order. In order to authorize a litigant to pro...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER On August 23, 1993, the plaintiff filed a four-count complaint against the defendants arising out of the purchase by the plaintiff of the assets of Zycron Systems, Inc. [“Zycron”]. The defendant, Paul Landino, the former president and a principal shareholder of Zycron, filed a counterclaim on March 24, 1994, alleging that the plaintiff violated the terms of their employment agr...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendants’ Motion to Transfer the Complaint, dated March 23, 1995, docket 3, defendant’s Memorandum of Law, dated May 18, 1995, docket 9, and plaintiffs opposition thereto, dated April 12, 1995, docket 6. Defendants, M.K.M., Industries, et al., have moved this Court, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1406, for an order to dism...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Docket No. 29) I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jeffrey T. Spear is a resident of Wilbraham, Massachusetts and the administrator of the estates of his daughters, Amy Elizabeth Spear and Alison Elaine Spear. He commenced this action on July 13, 1994, for various claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident on June 27, 1994. On ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Linda Carol Moran alleges that defendant David Marker caused two arrest warrants to be issued against her that lacked probable *285cause. Plaintiff is also seeking damages for a state law claim of malicious prosecution. Before the court is defendant’s motion for su...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs Branch International Services, Inc., Charles Garavaglia, Mary Ann Garavag-lia, B.I.S., and C & G Consultants, Inc. brought this action against James A. Budde and Joseph Ellery, Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, alleging that defendants have unconstitutionally i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Antonio Balderas (“Balderas”) has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”) petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”). Balderas challenges his 1989 convictions for murder, attempt murder and armed robbery, for which he is now serving a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and a concurrent 30 year prison term. 2 For t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. (“Schering-Plough”) is suing defendants NBD Bank, N.A. and NBD Bank Dearborn, N.A. (Collectively “NBD”) for breach of contract. Before the court is NBD’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the co...
Views: 0
*667 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION I. INTRODUCTION This matter is presently before the Court on the petition of Suzan Marwan Abdul-Khalek for review of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s denial of her application for naturalization. The INS concluded that Ms. Abdul-Khalek’s repeated lengthy absences from the U.S. during the fi...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Finamar Investors Inc. commenced this action under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, seeking an order compelling respondent, The Republic of Tad-jikistan, to arbitrate a dispute arising out of respondent’s alleged rejection of a freight transport agreement. On February 4, 1994, this court entered an order compelling respondent to arbitrate the dispute...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all Defendants. Plaintiff, Myra Reyes (“Reyes”) opposes the motion. Factual Background On June 11, 1991, Laredo Police Department Detective Gilberto Magana (“Magana”) was assigned to investigate the circumstances of a burglary report filed by Officer Bertha Reyes on behalf of her niece, Plaintiff Reyes. At ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER This action comes before the court as an appeal from orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the Honorable Massie Tillman presiding. The court, having reviewed the briefs of appellant, Ber-ryman Products, Inc., 1 and appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the record on appeal,...
Views: 0
OPINION OF THE COURT This action arises out of a snowmobile accident that occurred on a snowmobile trail in Iron County, Michigan. Plaintiff David Kruse proceeds in negligence and gross negligence against defendant Iron Range Snowmobile Club (“Snowmobile Club”). The Snowmobile Club was responsible for grooming and signing the trial. This Court’s jurisdiction is based solely on the parties’ dive...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is this Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, which was heard on November 4, 1994. Both sides thereafter filed briefs in support of their respective positions. The factual background recited in the Government’s brief of November 18,1994 is generally accurate, and the Court adopts it for purposes of this memorandum. Marihuana was found in two locations. The majorit...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on the Defendant (City) motion for summary judgment, memorandum and exhibits in support thereof (Docket Nos. 36 to 40); response thereto (Docket No. 44); and the defendant’s motion to strike (Docket No. 48). The action arises from the termination of the plaintiffs employment as an “Office Support B” wi...
Views: 0
ORDER ON APPEAL FROM DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE This cause of action is before the Court on appeal from a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Honorable Thomas E. Baynes, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge, presiding and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The legal issue on appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court committed reversible error by dismissing, with...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a civil forfeiture action brought by the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) against fourteen firearms with an appraised total value of $6,690. The firearms were seized on May 5, 1994 from the business location of Karl V. David (“David”), d/b/a Karl’s Gun Shop in Milford, Virginia. On July 29, 1994, David was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, formerly husband and wife, received marriage counseling and therapy from Betsy S. Haarmann, a Licensed Professional Counselor (L.P.C.) from 1985 through 1992. In late 1991, after approximately six years of allegedly negligent care and treatment, and while the McConaghys were still her patients, Haarmann began a romantic and sexual affair with Mr. MeConag...
Views: 0
OPINION Petitioner, Balarangini Ratnam, challenges the failure of the United States Department of Justice to grant her either asylum or withholding of deportation and seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. On April 28, 1995, I held a hearing on petitioner’s application. Thereafter, the respondent, Warren A. Lewis, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, file...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction This matter currently is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Unity Real Estate *820 Co. (“Unity”) for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 4). Unity seeks to restrain enforcement of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776, 3036-66 (codified at 26 U.S.C. §§ 9701-9722) (the “...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Defendants are charged with several counts of distribution/aiding distribution of cocaine or cocaine base and conspiracy to distribute cocaine or cocaine base. Presently before the court is defendant Beckett’s motion for the production of Brady materials and defendant Williamson’s consolidated pretrial motion. (D.I. 45, 50) The issues have been briefed and a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is Defendant Patricia Orozco’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. This motion was originally referred to Magistrate Judge Notzon, who has recommended that Defendant Orozco’s motion be denied. The Defendant objects to the Magistrate’s recommendation. This case arises out of the July 5, 1992 arrest of Plaintiff Mar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER At issue are Defendant, General Motors Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of punitive damages; and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ “Air Bag” Claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). This Court’s jurisdiction over the instant suit is based upon diversity of citizenship of the parties pursuant to 28 ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM RULING Presently before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se petitioners Joseph V. Citrano and Kevin R. Chapman. The petition is based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs are currently confined at Allen Correctional Center in Kinder, Lo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 52(a) Plaintiffs, a welfare-rights association and two of its staff members, sue to gain access to the waiting/reception area of a state-operated welfare office for the purpose of talking to welfare recipients and distributing and posting materials regarding their views on welfare reform. Defendants have denied Plaintiffs access to the area for this p...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE AND ORDER OF REMAND THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company’s (“Paul Revere”) Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike Claim for Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Strike Prayer for Jury Trial, filed November 7, 1994, and upon Defendants Sapoznik Insurance and Associates, Inc. and Rachel Abitbol Sapoznik’s (“S...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the unambiguous language of the contract at issue required the defendants, who were guarantors of certain renovations, to pay Chase the amount required to complete said renovations. Defendants, Samuel Zell, B. Ann Lurie, and American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed their answer, contending that the petition should be denied and dismissed on various grounds. This matter is ripe for judicial action. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 1989, a state grand jury charged petitioner with three counts of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon (1) the Government’s appeal from United States Magistrate Judge Palermo’s March 10, 1995 Oral Order denying pretrial detention for Defendant Allen, and (2) Defendant Francis’s appeal from Magistrate Judge Palermo’s Oral Order of March 10, 1995 and written Order of March 29, 1995 remanding Defendant Francis to pretrial detention. The Magistrate Judge...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM UNDER MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT I. Background This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ claim under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) must fail because expressly exempted from the Act’s cover...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER Petitioner pro se seeks his release from custody by way of a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is Clarence Duke McGann. Respondent is Walter B. Kelly, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility. On April 29, 1993, McGann filed a habeas corpus petition with this Court, alleging that: 1) he was denied the effective assistanc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Steve Torba filed this negligence action against J.M. Smucker Company (“Smucker”), seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Torba while consuming Santa Cruz Natural Organic Apple Apricot Sauce, one of Smucker’s products.1 Plaintiff claims a clear piece of plastic in the sauce punctured his lower lip causing paralysis of his lip...
Views: 1
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Before the Court is plaintiff Johanna Trevino’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which came for hearing regularly on March 20, 1995. This case, juxtaposed with two previous cases in which the Court awarded attorney’s fees to the same counsel, Gomez v. Gates, 804 F.Supp. 69 (C.D.Cal.1992), ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The defendants, Metro-North Commuter Railroad (“Metro-North”) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the claims are barred under the applicable Statute of Limitations. For the reasons explained below, the defendants’ motion is granted. The plain...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have filed their answer, contending that the petition should be denied and dismissed on various grounds. This matter is ripe for judicial action. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 1986, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted petitioner on one count of delivery of cocaine. (D.I. 2 at 1; ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Anne Dailey (“Dailey”), brought this action against her former employer, Societe Generale (“the Bank”), on March 10, 1994. Dailey alleged that the Bank had intentionally discriminated against her by paying her less compensation than it paid male employees for work of substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions. She...
Views: 0
*749 OPINION AND ORDER Patricia Mikes brings this action on behalf of the United States and herself against her former employers under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730, for alleged improper billing of medical procedures to the United States and for retaliatory discharge, and under New York Labor Law § 191, for unpaid wages fo...
Views: 4
OPINION This is a civil rights case. During the period in which the activities in question occurred, plaintiffs were housed in the Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”) in Georgetown, Delaware. The defendants are various prison officials within Delaware’s Department of Corrections. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their right to due process in disciplinary hear...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on motions for summary judgment filed by the following defendants: (1) Fielderest Cannon, Inc. (Fi-eldcrest); (2) Otto Stolz (Stolz); (3) George A. Batte, Jr., Estate of J. Harris Cannon, Harold P. Hornaday, Andrew W. Adams, Joseph C. Ridenhour, Hubert J. Tourney and James R. Jolly (the Directors); and (4) David H. Murdock (Murdock). All motions h...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Third Party Defendant, Alejandro Soto’s unopposed motion for summary judgement, filed on January 13, 1995, docket 99. Summary judgement is appropriate when the record documents that possess evidentiary force “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See E...
Views: 0
*1097 ORDER FOB of Merrillville, Inc. (“FOB”), owned (or may still own) a restaurant called Pod-dy’s. FOB’S president, Robert Forster, wanted to sell Poddy’s, and listed it for sale with Century 21 Kepehar Realtors, Inc. (“Kepehar”), after consulting with Thomas Crumpton, a licensed real estate broker associated with Kepehar. (Except where individual identities are relevant, ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is currently before the Court on plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I and on defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Requests. For the reasons set forth below the Court grants the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court notes that in the June 15, 1995 hearing both parties advised the Court that Count II would not be pursued regardless of the out...
Views: 0
ENTRY This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to reopen the case, deemed a request for relief from judgment. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion is denied. I. Background The allegations in this case center around Plaintiffs alleged mistreatment in her job as an Air Traffic Assistant and in her attempts to be promoted to the position of Air Traffic Controller. Most of the al...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court1 on the Plaintiff Lynn E. Tschantz, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff’) “Motion to File Belated Amended Complaint and to Dismiss Wrongfully Named Parties” filed March 9, 1995. The Defendants2 filed an objection to the motion and a memorandum in support on March 15, 1995, and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief on March 21,1995. For the reasons herein...
Views: 2
ORDER Plaintiff, Julie Boyer, filed this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) action against Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), alleging that MetLife’s calculation of the reasonable and customary charge for her surgery was arbitrary and capricious. Boyer seeks to recover unpaid benefits, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. Before the Court is MetLife...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER This matter is before the court pursuant to various motions filed by all parties, as outlined below. Oral arguments were heard on April 20, and May 25, 1995. The court granted defendant Dillon’s motion to vacate the entry of default, and reserved decision on the remaining motions. FACTS These civil rights actions arose from the arrest and indi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This action for employment discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. (“ADA”), and the New York Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290 et. seq., is before this Court on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdicti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Dianna Brandborg submitted the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner is challenging a conviction for contempt, a sentence of three days in jail, and a $200 fine imposed upon her by the 211th District Court of Denton County, Texas on February 7, 1994. On January 27,1995, the parties consented to t...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff William Christopher Womack (‘Womack”) alleges that he was injured in a railroad accident that occurred during the scope of his employment with Defendant Rail Link, Inc. (“Rail Link”). Before the Court now is Rail Link’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be gr...
Views: 1
ORDER Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Application For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction filed on May 24, 1995, Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment filed on May 26, 1995, Plaintiffs Reply To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss And Opposition To Injunctive Relief filed on May 31, 1995, Defendants’ Notice Of Filing Of Declarations fil...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff Eugene Carway’s (“Carway”) Motion to Remand (#3). Having reviewed the motion, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, this court is of the opinion that Carway’s Motion to Remand should be granted. I. Background. On October 28,1994, Carway filed his original petition in the 133rd...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [11-1]. Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendants unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of his truck in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Defendants are the United States of America, the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”), John Davis, John Thorpe, Andre Clark, and Ralph Bieknese. All Defendants jo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER This matter is before the court pursuant to the motion for summary judgment of defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Receiver of Jefferson National Bank (“FDIC”). Plaintiffs responded in opposition and no oral arguments were heard. *359 FACTS Defendant Harry Michael Jock, doing business as Jock’s Construction (“Jock”), entered into a contract with the U.S...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND This is a potential class action suit brought by a number of Plaintiff investors against various Defendants for fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Texas Securities Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code for the sale of units in limited partnerships sold by Defendant PaineWebber Incorporated (“PaineWe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action was heard before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, on April 10, 1995. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s servants, agents and employees negligently maintained the floor of the Fort Rucker, Alabama, NCO Club. Allegedly, this condition caused Plaintiff to “slip and fall.” As a result, Plaintiff avers that she sus...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on (1) Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration [9-1], (2) Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [4r-l], (3) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [5-1], or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [5-2]. I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S NOVEMBER 17, 1991 REMAND ORDER On September 6, 1994, Plaintiff filed this action in...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiffs, Northeast Community Development Group (“Northeast”), CCI Associates (“CCI”), Concord Comfort Inn, Inc. (“Inn, Inc.”), Stephen M. Duprey, Timothy M. Duprey, and Christopher W. Duprey, bring this action against the defendants, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as liquidating agent and/or receiver of New Hampshire Savings Bank (“Bank”), and New Dartmouth...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiffs initiated this action to recover damages related to the termination of their employment with defendant Conduc-tron Corp. By order of March 8, 1995, the magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to include state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Young v...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff, Kevin J. Wise (“Wise”), on August 18,1994. See Document #20. Wise originally filed this case in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven, on April 20,1994 against Defendants, Lincoln Logs Ltd. (“Lincoln”), Richard...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court is the motion of defendant, Coopers & Lybrand (“Coopers”), for summary judgement with respect to the claims asserted by plaintiffs, Giant Eagle of Delaware, Inc. (“GE Delaware”), Giant Eagle, Inc. (“Giant Eagle”), and six members of the Board of Directors of Phar-Mor, Inc. (“Phar-Mor”), namely, Gerald E. Chait, Stanley Moravitz, Irwin Porter, David S. Shapira, F...
Views: 0
*567 RULING OF THE COURT I. INTRODUCTION The Court has conducted a bench trial of this matter and has considered the testimony, the other evidence presented into the record, the briefs and closing arguments of counsel. The Court enters its opinion by way of these findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is a declaratory judgment action, wherein Plaintiffs, unde...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the motions to dismiss Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint, 1 filed by Defendants, Russell G. Paquette (“Paquette”) and Ronald Raymond (“Raymond”) on July 5, 1994. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Documents # 15 & #20. Plaintiff, Kim Schaffer (“Schaffer”), filed this action against Paque...
Views: 0
ORDER On April 17,1990, petitioner Hayes Barker pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 846. On July 31, 1990, he was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 360 months. Although he initially appealed his sentence to the Seventh Circuit, he later stipulated to dismissal of the appeal. Since then, Barker ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE This case arises out of the death of Gary Whiting from acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). Whiting was employed as a manual laborer at the defendant Boston Edison Company’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim) in Plymouth, Massachusetts, between 1977 and 1980. He died on December 2, 1983. Gary Whiting was 31 years old w...
Views: 1
OPINION In this diversity action for wrongful death, third-party defendant moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the third party complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied. The Parties Plaintiffs Delores Comer (“Delores”), wife of Michael Comer (“Comer”), the deceased, and Patricia Edelson (“E...
Views: 0
*1000 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the large majority of federal district judges, regardless of their respective ideological bents, view the Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) regime as having done substantial damage to the “justice” component of our criminal justice system. This Court is unaware of any like reports...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, filed on April 14,1995. A response, filed by defendants American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (“Defendants”), was timely filed on April 28, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, response, and attached memoranda, the court is of the opinion that the mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Albert F. Kaleta appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Court of the Middle District of Alabama declaring that the debt owed by Albert F. Kaleta to Boris Sokolow was non-disehargeable in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding filed by Kaleta. Kaleta argues that the bankruptcy court erred in (1) failing to find that Sokolow’s claim was barred by the statute of limitatio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant, Mary Smith (“Smith”) on March 27, 1995. On March 15, 1994, the Plaintiff, a minor hereinafter referred to as “AM,”1 filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. AM amended this complaint on December 19, 1994. AM alleges that he has been harmed ...
Views: 0
ORDER This patent infringement action is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [26-1]. I. PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT On March 28, 1994, Plaintiff filed this patent infringement action. In its original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had infringed upon certain patented photographic technology belongin...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS This is an admiralty action in which Plaintiff Romeo J. Abogado (“Abogado”) has brought suit against Defendant International Marine Carriers, Inc. (“IMC”) for injuries he allegedly sustained while working on a public vessel, the USNS SEALIFT INDIAN OCEAN, on navigable waters of the United States. This action was originally filed in the 122nd Judicial Distric...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court upon the motion of defendant, Jay Instrument and Specialty Company (Jay Instrument) for summary judgment. (Doe. No. 20). Plaintiff Ms. Shirley J. Evans (Evans), proceeding pro se, has responded in opposition to such motion. (Doe. No. 28). For the reasons set forth, infra, Jay Instrument’s motion for summary judgment is well t...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re Defendant Allan’s Affirmative Defenses, Ct.Rec. 185; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re Defendant Whitener-Moberg’s Affirmative Defenses, Ct.Rec. 190; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re Defendants Grant County, Fancher, Allison and Snead’s Affirmative Def...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are the following motions and related pleadings: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion to Dismiss and Brief and Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, filed December 27, 1994, and Plaintiffs Opposition, filed January 30, 1995; (2) State Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion for Partial Dismissal with Supporting Brief, an...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs filed a four-count Complaint against Defendant Lefta, Inc. d/b/a Premier Jeep Eagle (“Premier”). This court previously certified Counts I and II of the Complaint as a class action in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 5, 1995 (888 F.Supp. 891). Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint for failure...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Mary A. Egan (“Egan”) sues defendant Palos Community Hospital (“PCH”) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq. Egan alleges that her age was a motivating factor in several adverse employment actions taken by PCH toward her. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), PCH moves to dismiss th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Beginning on June 19, 1995, the Court began the first phase of a potential four phase bench trial in this matter which involves an intellectual property dispute involving futuristic robot-like battle toys. Due to the scope and complexity of the issues to be tried in this case, See FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1334-1365 (N.D.Ill.1994), this Court e...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The facts, as stated in Plaintiff’s complaint, are as follows: on April 14,1991, Karl Clark, a resident of North Carolina, drowned in a swimming pool at a hotel in Spartan-burg, South Carolina. The hotel is operated by Defendant Holiday Inn of America (“Holiday Inn”). Plaintiff is the decedent’...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Government’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs, Charles and Carolyn Hurt, have responded, the Government has replied and plaintiffs have surreplied. 1 The matter is ripe for adjudication. I. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek injunc-tive and monetary damages. They allege the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a civil action on a conservator’s bond with jurisdiction based on diversity. As discussed in further detail below, Plaintiffs’ entered into a business transaction with the Souther Conservatorship. Plaintiffs have sued other participants in the transaction in a companion case that has been dismissed. 1 The other action alleged fraud, legal malpractice, breach o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause comes before this court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court has duly considered the parties’ memoranda and exhibits and is ready to rule. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant hospital for eighteen years, was discharged as a result of a hospital-wide reduction in force in January of 1994. The plaintiff br...
Views: 1
ORDER On October 19, 1993, plaintiff filed a complaint challenging her removal as a member of the panel of Chapter 7 trustees in the District of Arizona. The five-count complaint alleges violations of: (I) the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; (II-IV) the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (V) tortious interference with plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiffs, John and Pamela Staffier, bring this action against the defendant, San-doz Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Sandoz”), claiming age and handicap discrimination, in violation of both M.G.L. c. 151B and c. 93, § 103, and loss of consortium. Pending before this Court is the motion of Sandoz for summary judgment on all three counts of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. ...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Alternative Motion for a New Trial pursuant *1485 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) (“Rule 50(b)”) 1 and 59(a) (“Rule 59(a)”) in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, both motions are denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Cheryl...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause was referred to the Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation and comes on this date to be heard upon the Report and Recommendation which was entered on April 12,1995, and upon Petitioner’s Objection to said Report and Recommendation. The Court having fully reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the Objection thereto and having reviewed the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs, PAM Media, Inc. (“PAM”) and EFM Media Management, Inc. (“EFM”) are, respectively, the producer and syndicator of “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” a commercially successful radio talk show. Rush Limbaugh is the host and principal commentator on that program which has been on the air since 1988. It is broadcast daily on over 600 radio stations to a nati...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION These consolidated actions come before the court on the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Heartland Express, Inc. [Heartland] and Continental Baking Company [Continental], The court has duly considered the parties’ memoranda and exhibits and is ready to rule. I. Facts These actions were brought on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Ruby Armstrong, Ali...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Said motion together with Plaintiffs suggestions in support, Defendants’ suggestions in opposition, Plaintiffs reply suggestions, and all proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were reviewed by the Court. After due consideration of the above and all of the evidence submitted at the evidentiary hearin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 26, 1995, Plaintiff Aspen Limousine Service, Inc. d/b/a Vans to Vail, Inc. (“ALS”)1 filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction under the so-called self-help provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 11708, alleging violations of various provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 10922 by Colorado Mountain Express, Inc. (“CME”). A certificate of complia...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Oft expectation fails, and most oft there Where most it promises. 1 This action raises the question whether, in the circumstances presented, there can be redress for the failure of an expectation of lifetime employment. Following the termination of his employment by the defendant, the plaintiff brought this action in the Middlesex (Massachusetts...
Views: 0
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an action for damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA or the Act). Plaintiff Clayton Unger (Unger) alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by paying the US West Pension Plan (the Plan) administrato...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER June Valanzuela filed this civil rights case arising out of an alleged kidnapping, false imprisonment and repeated sexual assaults by then police officer James H. Snider, a/k/a Buster Snider. Plaintiff filed her complaint in the District Court for the City and County of Denver in July 1985. Defendants removed the action to this court. The Second Amended C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the appellee's motion to dismiss1 the appeal in this matter for failure to abide by this Court's appeal brief scheduling Order of May 10, 1995.2 Having considered the premises, the Court will grant the appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal for the following reasons. Appellant was put on notice by the May 10 Order, see n. 1, supra, that a failure to ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the October 14, 1994, motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff, the University of Cincinnati Hospital (UC Hospital) and the December 12, 1994, cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Donna Sha-lala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). (Doe. Nos. 7 and 10). In accordance with a sti...
Views: 0
OPINION This civil antitrust action arises out of the sale of school buses. Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss, to strike, and for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motions. I. Plaintiff, the State of Michigan ex rel. Frank J. Kelley, its Attorney General, filed *512 this action on behalf of over five hu...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the objections by the defendant, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), to the report and recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge (Steinberg, mag.). (Doc. No. 12). On May 4,1995, a hearing was held on these objections. For the reasons set forth, herein, the Secretary’s objections to the magistrate...
Views: 0
Plaintiff brings this action under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the “Act”), for alleged unlawful employment termination by defendants The New York Hospital (the “Hospital”), its President, Dr. David Skinner, and its Assistant Director of Nursing, Mr. Jody Sklar. Plaintiff has made an objection to Magistrate Judge Bernikow’s granting of a protective order that pr...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This civil action instituted by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1985 was tried before me without a jury over some forty days in 1994. The amended complaint alleges that defendant First Jersey Securities, Inc., owned, operated and controlled by defendant Robert E. Brennan, realized illegal profits from excessive markups on sales from its inventory to its custome...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Wilmington Savings Fund Society, F.S.B. appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that the trustee’s preference avoidance action was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations, 11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1). 177 B.R. 827 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1995). Jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). 1 I. On February 5, 1992 Austin Truck Rental, Inc. filed a Chapter 11 petition. On October 19,1992 upo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT AND CROSS-DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW This opinion states the court’s réasons for its order denying the referenced post-verdict motions. 1. Nature of Case; Proceedings This action arises out of a highway collision between a pick-up truck and an eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer rig...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before this court on defendant’s motion for a security bond and a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated below, this court grants the motion to dismiss without *751 prejudice and grants the plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this opinion. We also deny without prejudice at this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Ayman S. Rabadi seeks an order to expunge his criminal record in the above-captioned matter and to return any fingerprints and photographs related thereto. For the reasons that follow, the application is denied. BACKGROUND The facts underlying the instant criminal action, which will be summarized briefly, are the subject of an extensive opinion by the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Defendant Narragansett Tribe of Indians (the “Tribe”) moves to dismiss the action filed against it on the grounds that the Tribe has sovereign immunity from suit. I. The plaintiff alleges that defendants agreed to pay plaintiff fifty thousand ($50,-000.00) dollars for legislative lobbying services to be performed during the year 1994. The parties all...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), brings this interpleader action to determine the proper beneficiary of two policies it issued covering the life of Edward Kelley, Sr. (“Edward”) pursuant to the Federal Employees Group Life Insur- *747 anee Act (“FEGLIA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701-8716. MetLife has received conflicting claims regarding the bene...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS The court heard Defendant’s motions on June 13, 1995. Wayne H. Tashima, Esq., *1525appeared on behalf of Defendant. Assistant United States Attorney Edward Kubo and Department of Justice Attorney Daniel C. Stark, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. After reviewin...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are First Commonwealth Corporation’s “Renewed Motion for New Trial and Amended Judgment” and “Hibernia’s Third Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.” 1 Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS First Commonwealth Corporation’s Motion in part and DENIES it in part. Furthe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff John P. Abato (“Abato”) brings this class action against Marcam Corporation and three of its officers and directors (collectively “Marcam” or the “company”) on behalf of all persons who purchased Marcam common stock between October 22, 1991 and October 7, 1993. Abato alleges that in an attempt to expand the company’s product line, Marcam issued.materially false...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CONTINUING MOTIONS IN PART UNDER RULE 56(f) The court heard Defendants’ Motions on May 1, 1995. David Dezzani, Esq., Peter T. Kashiwa, Esq., Lisa W. Munger, Esq., and Mark B. Desmarais, Esq., appeared on the briefs or at the hearing on behalf of Defendant Kajima Engineering and Construction (“Kajima” ); David L. Monroy...
Views: 0
The principal question in this appeal is whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a default judgment after Su Shing Huang, the defaulting defendant, made a substantial showing that she had a meritorious defense to at least part of plaintiff Takehara Tokuda’s claim. We have concluded that the Superior Court did abuse its discretion, so we vacate the default judgment...
Views: 0
OPINION Garrido appeals the judgment of conviction issued by the Superior Court of Guam on January 21, 1994 following a jury trial on a six-count indictment.3 He now challenges *153the admission at trial of evidence of an SKS rifle, and contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction to review the judgment. 48 U.S.C. § 1424-3. For the reasons which follow, we AFFI...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS The evening of February 26, 1991 was disrupted by the crash of the moving vessel MTV VULCAN into the HISPAMAR, a vessel moored at the Perry Street Wharf in New Orleans. The VULCAN, owned by Rondel Shipping Ltd., (“Rondel”), also damaged Barge MPR-104. The VULCAN’s owners admitted fault, yet the crash gave rise to numerous claims by several parties. Most of the claim...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS' Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by defendant Cushman, Inc. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the motion. Background Plaintiff was working as a an electrician for SECO Industries, Inc., on an offshore platform complex in December 1991 when he sustained injuries. A piece of...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant, James H. “Jim” Brown, who has been sued in his official capacity as Louisiana’s Insurance Commissioner. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the motion. Background Plaintiff, Globe Glass & Mirror Company (hereinafter “Globe”), is an I...
Views: 0
*255 MEMORANDUM OPINION This cause comes before the court upon the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court has duly considered the parties’ memoranda and exhibits and is ready to rule. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, an employee of Bryan Foods in West Point, Mississippi, brought this action against the defendant alleging claims of wrongful discharge in violation of his rights und...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed June 5,1995, and the defendant's *321 motion for summary judgment, filed May 19, 1995. Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court will deny plaintiffs' motion and grant the defendant's motion for the following reasons. On May 17,1989, plaintiff Lenno...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER David Feely (“Feely”), the defendant here, moves to dismiss the declaratory judgment action of the plaintiff Polaroid Corporation (“Polaroid”) on the ground that either this Court lacks personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, that venue is improper. I. BACKGROUND The jurisdictional facts are undisputed. Polaroid is the owner of a federal regist...
Views: 2
On January 19, 1994, Michael and Andrea Shadduck were indicted on charges of bankruptcy fraud. After a jury trial, Michael Shadduck was convicted of four counts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, and Andrea Shadduck was convicted of one count of bankruptcy fraud in violation of the same provision. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines assign a “base offense level” of 6 to offenses in...
Views: 1
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand and Recall Summary Judgment” and a “Motion to Reconsider” by defendant K.E. Resources, Ltd. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court DENIES the motions. . The Court also states its reasons for previously granting summary judgment in favor of Grasso Production Mana...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER David Lewis brings this action against the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD or the District), seeking damages for injuries he suffered while employed by the District. NICTD has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the *598 ease to the Northern District of Indiana. For the r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a declaratory judgment action brought pursuant to the Employees’ Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiff, Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Principal”), seeks to determine whether or not health insurance coverage exists for Robert Dale Eady (“Eady”), under an employee welfare benefit plan issued to Eady’s Scale C...
Views: 0
*306 MEMORANDUM OPINION This motion for summary judgment presents the question whether plaintiff, who claims to have been injured on a cruise ship, is barred from recovery by his failure to sue within the time period required by a provision of his ticket, or passage contract. Facts The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff establishes that on June 10,1993, plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, United States of America, through the Internal Revenue Service (the “Government”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion dated January 31, 1994, and from the Final Judgment entered in favor of Debtor/Appellees, James M. Williams, Jr. and Carroll Williams. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U....
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff in this action is Nationwide Merchant Bank Limited (“Nationwide”). Nationwide is a banking corporation organized under the laws of Nigeria, with its principal place of business in Lagos, Nigeria. Defendant is Star Fire International (“Star Fire”). Star Fire is a New York corporation engaged in the import-export business which transacts business with Nigerian compan...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendant Leichner’s motion for summary judgment, predicated upon qualified immunity and allegations of nonliability in a personal capacity. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. *493/. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs complaint, as amended, consists of five counts. At issu...
Views: 0
OPINION Motions are before this Court relating to forum non conveniens, transfer of venue and choice of law in two related limitation proceedings arising out of the collision of two vessels in Korean waters. For the reasons set forth below, in the limitation proceeding (the “APL Action”) brought by American President Lines, Ltd. (“APL”), APL’s motion to strike the Fift...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiffs Peter A. Ginocchio (“Peter”), and his wife Jeannette A. Ginocchio (“Jeannette”), bring this diversity action against defendant American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida alleging that plaintiffs are entitled to certain disability insurance benefits. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint asserts claims against defendant for breach of contract (...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS This cause is before the Court on Defendant Walker’s motion to strike certain allegations from Plaintiffs initial complaint (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16) and on Defendant Walker’s motion to dismiss Counts I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII and X of the complaint, and response thereto (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 22). BACKGROUND This case involves Plaintiffs...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiff, General Linen Service Company (“General”), has brought this declaratory judgment and breach of contract action to determine the scope of and receive coverage under various insurance policies issued by the defendant insurance companies. Before the court is the motion of defendant American Employers Insurance Company (“American”) to dismiss (document no. 25). Defendant Royal ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are a series of summary judgment motions and a motion for reconsideration, all of which were filed by defendant H.P. Hood, Inc. Plaintiff Lago & Sons Dairy, Inc., has interposed objections to each motion. Background Defendant Hood is a manufacturer of dairy products. Hood sells its dairy products directly to certain retailers and indirectly, throug...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff George Heath, acting pro se, brings the instant action against defendants *169 Warner Communications, Inc., (“Warner Comm.”), 1 Steven Ross, 2 Bernard R. Sorkin (collectively “the Warner defendants”), the New York State Crime Victims Board (the “NYCV Board”), Barbara A. Leak, Diane McGrath-MeKeehnie, Lorr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION Stephen Rossetti (“Rossetti”) brings this petition for habeas corpus relief, a petition which raises important questions about the reach of the collateral estoppel protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. *38 In June of 1991, Rossetti was acquitted of armed robbery with a dangerous we...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court’s judgment dated April 3, 1995 in which the Bankruptcy *412 Court denied Debtor-Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, granted Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and ordered that Debtor-Appellant’s tax liabilities for tax years 1987,1988,1989, and 1990 be excepted from discharge. Both partie...
Views: 0
ORDER This an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s order of December 14,1994, granting the United States’ motion to dismiss the Debtors’ Chapter 11 proceeding. Both parties have submitted briefs, and the court heard oral arguments on May 25, 1995. For the following reasons, the decision of the bankruptcy court is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 30, 1993, Raymond D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff Armando Garza (“Garza”) brings this action against defendant Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”),1 seeking judicial review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) order dismissing Garza’s claim for supplemental security income.2 Garza alleges that the ALJ violated Social Se...
Views: 0
*1075 OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. FACTS 1 Defendants NJS, Inc., Jamil Saddiqui, Na-sim Khan, and Shamin Khan (collectively “Defendants”) are franchisees of Plaintiff Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. (“Dunkin”). ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER VACATING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE DEBTOR’S CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDING AND REMANDING CAUSE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS RULING The appeUant debtor Phyllis Cohen appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing with Prejudice Debtor’s Chapter 11 Proceeding, entere...
Views: 0
This case concerns a relatively new wrinkle in the interpretation of the Airline Deregulation Act: preemption of a breach of contract claim. Section 1305 of the Act forbids states from enacting or enforcing any law related to air carrier rates, routes, or services. 49 U.S.C.App. § 1305(a)(1). In its recent deci *13 sion in American Airlines v. Wolens, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 ...
Views: 1
ORDER The plaintiff in this action has moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dismissing plaintiffs complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is denied. Plaintiffs complaint alleged a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 185. That statute, however, specifically exempts from the definition of employer “the United ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING QUANEX’S MOTION TO DISMISS I. This is a hostile work environment racial discrimination case under the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.S.A § 3.548(101) et seq. Plaintiffs, Linda Jackson (Jackson) and Thomas Miller (Miller), are African-American employees of defendant Quanex Corpora...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was brought by Resorts and Motel Advancement Development Agency, Ltd. (“plaintiff’) to recover damages arising out of the sinking of its Hovercraft, the M/V American Skimmer, on May 9,1991, at a storage facility controlled and operated by Stephen Sloan and Sloan Marine Associates (“defendants”). Plaintiff commenced the action by filing the summons and co...
Views: 0
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause is before the Court on Report and Recommendation (hereafter R & R) issued December 21, 1994 (Docket No. 108); objections and reply thereto; Report and Recommendation issued May 17, 1995 (Docket No. 131); and the plaintiffs objections thereto, filed June 5, 1995 (Docket No. 136). The R & R of December 21, 1994, was issued after e...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Bangert Bros. Construction Co. v. Americas Insurance Co., No. 94-1412, (10th Cir. May 1, 1995) (order of remand for written opinion), in order for this Court to explain more fully the decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants. ...
Views: 0
*261 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The United States Trustee and William Brandt 1 ask this court to review two interlocutory orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for this district. In the first, the bankruptcy court ruled that Lawrence Fisher had been duly elected trustee of the estates of Thomas Collins and Lake States Commodities, Inc. by a vote of the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It has been said that disputes in academia are especially bitter because the stakes are so small.1 So too with parties to completed litigation skirmishing over the only remaining scraps left on the battlefield: costs. In this ease, the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), prevailed on the merits and sought to recover its costs. After an award of substantially...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jeffrey Gammon (“Gammon”) sues defendant GC Services Limited Partnership (“GC Services”) seeking redress for alleged false representations in connection with GC Services’ standard debt collection letter. Gammon alleges that the false representations amount to a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (“FDCPA”). Pursuant to Fe...
Views: 2
OPINION Hospital staff privileges are essential to the practice of most, perhaps all, medical specialties. Those responsible for extending or revoking staff privileges thus stand at a critical point in the provision of medical care. They bear a weighty responsibility for protecting the public against incompetent and negligent practitioners. At the same time, the power they wield may be ab...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 23, 1995, the Federal Grand Jury for the Northern District of Illinois returned a two count indictment against defendant Rufus A. Cunningham. The indictment alleges that Cunningham, a former United States Postal Service employee, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1703(a) by unlawfully secreting, detaining and delaying the United States mail. Specifically, Count I alle...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Angelo Sanchez, sues defendants, Gilberto Romero, Herbert Givens, Roosevelt Fleming, Glenn Johnson, William Price, Darryl Carter, Adrienne Johnson, Frank Mussa-to and Kathy Hahn, for due process violations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process of law during a prison disciplinary hearing wh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION The question presented in this case is whether a promotional examination administered in 1991 for the positions of Captain, Lieutenant, and Sergeant in the District of Columbia Fire Department (“DCFD” or “the Department”) complied with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ...
Views: 0
ORDER Pursuant to the pretrial order, the parties have briefed the issue of the effectiveness of the disclaimer executed by plaintiff Richard Barker, Jr. I. BACKGROUND Stacey Lynn Sheppard Barker (“Stacey Barker”) died on May 28, 1991, under suspicious circumstances. At the time of her death, Stacey Barker was insured under a $350,000.00 term life insurance policy issued by defendant Jackson Natio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Brendan M. McGuinness (“McGuinness”), a frequent litigant in this Court, 1 is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction (“MCI-Cedar Junction”) serving a twenty-year sentence for armed robbery. This consolidated action comprises two separate cases in which McGuinness asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is now before the court on the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff, One Sylvan Road North Associates (“Sylvan”), on March 24,1995. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Document #5. Sylvan originally filed this action against Defendant, Lark International Limited (“Lark”), in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of S...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Pending are motions to dismiss filed by co-defendant Margarita Benitez (Dkt. 15) and all other co-defendants (Dkt. 10, 12, 26, 27), and plaintiffs motions in opposition (Dkt. 22, 25). For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. II. Facts Plaintiff was employed...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Herman Strauch sues Defendant Joseph Demskie, the Deputy Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for partial summary judgment on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Defendant has cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s mo...
Views: 0
On February 22, 1993, a Maryland Circuit Court entered a default judgment against Frank McCourt, a Massachusetts resident, and his eponymous Massachusetts corporation. The Maryland judgment was entered in favor of Nacoma Consolidated, a Texas corporation which, in 1991, had assigned the “account receivable” that formed the basis of the Maryland action to another Texan, Lloyd Gillespie. Gillespi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Background This case arises from the design, sale and installation in 1984-85 of a wastewater treatment system by defendant NAPCO, Inc. (“NAPCO”) for plaintiff Cambridge Plating Co., Inc. (“Cambridge Plating”), an electroplating and metal finishing facility located in Belmont, Massachusetts. In 1989, after experiencing continuing difficulties reaching efflu...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Three Blind Mice Designs Co., Inc. (“TBM”) and defendant Cyrk, Inc. (“Cyrk”), both produce t-shirts and other apparel imprinted with caricatures of sports referees in the form of three blind mice. Plaintiff files claims under the federal unfair competition statute, section 43(a) of the Lan-ham Act, 15...
Views: 2
RULING For the following reasons, this court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, this court GRANTS summary judgment on the issue of trademark infringement for the defendants but DENIES summary judgment on the claims of misappropriation and copyright infringement. I. Plaintiff B & S Underwriters, Inc. brings this action aga...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff A.R. Salman sued the I.R.S. in State court for use of a corporate name plaintiff acquired from the Nevada Secretary of State: “Department of the Treasury— Internal Revenue Service” (# la). The government removed to this court (# 1), and moved to dismiss and for an injunction barring Salman from fifing any future actions against it without leave of the court (#3). The court dis...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This criminal ease is before the court on defendant’s motions 1) to vacate his sentence *765 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 2) for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). I conclude that defendant has failed to show that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or any statute but that he has shown that he qualifies for resentencin...
Views: 1
Entry Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Remand and the Government’s Motion To Set Aside the State Court’s Denial of Their Motion to Quash Subpoenas This matter comes before the court upon the motion of Defendant, Raymond K. Adams, to remand this case to the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and the motion of the United States to set aside the state c...
Views: 0
This case is the aftermath of a week-long protest by members of a local ironworkers’ union at a Boston constmction site during the summer of 1994. Cranshaw Construction, the project’s general contractor, sues for damages and injunctive relief, alleging that union activity during the protest constituted a secondary boycott prohibited by section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S...
Views: 0
This is a civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. Plaintiffs are Wisconsin state prisoners who challenge several internal management procedures, emergency rules and permanent administrative rules regulating the types and amounts of personal property they may possess while in prison. Th...
Views: 4
OPINION “It is not the policy of the law to punish those unsuccessful threats which it is not presumed would terrify ordinary persons excessively; and there is so much opportunity for magnifying or misunderstanding undefined menaces that probably as much mischief would be caused by letting them be prosecuted as by refraining from it.” The People v. B.F. Jones, 62 Mich. 304...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court 1 on the Defendants’, Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Conrail”), Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed March 15, 1995. Plaintiffs, Charles E. Herriman and Johnny Sue Herriman (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Herrimans”), filed a response brief on April 3...
Views: 0
*249 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction On July 23, 1993, the defendant, Paul Craig Schaechter, pled guilty to a superseding information charging him with distribution of LSD in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He also pled guilty, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to a criminal information that had been filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky charging him wi...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a case of first impression in which the Court is requested to interpret the meaning and intent of Congress’ 1990 amendment of 10 U.S.C. § 1095 as it applies to a first-party automobile insurer’s obligation to reimburse the United States for medical care the government renders military-related insureds injured in automobile accidents. An historical and well-reasoned overview ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Oscar Productions, Inc. (“Oscar”) and Jennifer O’Neill (“O’Neill”) against Walter Zacharius (“Zacharius”) and Kensington Publishing Corp. (“Kensington”). Plaintiffs seek damages for breach of contract and for six other claims all deriving from the non-fulfillment of an alleged agreement concerning the writing of a romance novel. Defendant...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs, Richard W. Strang and the class of similarly situated plaintiffs, and Defendants, JHM Mortgage Securities Limited Partnership, et al. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel have moved this Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs from the comm...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled case is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”), and the Plaintiffs Opposition thereto. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court shall GRANT the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND Plain...
Views: 1
*929 OPINION & ORDER The instant action requires this Court to determine the appropriate damage award for defense counsel’s violation of this Court’s May 16, 1988, Order. In a hearing held on July 11, 1989, this Court ruled that defense counsel, Barry Schwartz, was in contempt of court for violating this Order. BACKGROUND On May 16, 1988, this Court issued an Or...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, the United States of America, moved for summary judgment in an action seeking foreclosure of a Farmers’ Home Administration mortgage on land owned by Defendants, Gerald I. and Linda H. Geraldson, Docket No. 9. Defendants resist the motion, arguing that the redemption is invalid because the notice of redemption was never filed and that the lawsuit is barred ...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on motion of Petitioner, filed November 1, 1994, for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 After careful review of all the files, records, transcripts and correspondences relating to the judgment under attack, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds the motion should be dismissed. I. FACTUAL AND PROC...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Second Motion in Limine of the Defendant which seeks to exclude the testimony of two witnesses whom the Plaintiff intends to call. Before this suit was filed, Plaintiffs attorney sent an investigator to interview two of the employees of the Defendant without the permission of the attorneys for the Defendant. The investigator recorded the interviews and...
Views: 0
ORDER The case is here on motions by each defendant for partial summary judgment. Beverly Jones, a black woman, began working as a porter at the Reno Hilton, which was then known as the MGM Grand, in March 1983. In 1990, the MGM Grand was sold to Bally’s, and in July 1992 it was sold again, this time to the Hilton. Briefly, and omitting many details, Jones’s story is this: she was discrimin...
Views: 2
*631 MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On June 29, 1995, the Defendant, Francisco Martin Duran, was sentenced by this Court to 480 months in prison, followed by a five-year term of supervised release, for his April 4, 1995 conviction by jury on Counts One through Ten of the Superseding Indictment filed in this ease on March 16, 1995. This Memorandum Opinion shall const...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE SENTENCE OF WILLIAM CABELL This Memorandum shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the sentence of William Cabell to sixty months imprisonment, to be followed by a supervised release term of 5 years thereafter together with a special assessment of $50.00 due ...
Views: 1
*1111 ENTRY REGARDING PATENT VALIDITY ISSUES In the first part of the bifurcated trial, this Court found that Defendants Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Limited, Inc., and Hawk America, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Hawk”) literally infringed Plaintiffs Endress + Hau-ser, Inc.’s and Endress + Hauser GmbH’s (collectively “E + H” or “Plaintiffs”) patent. See Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. ...
Views: 0
ORDER (Disposing of Docket ## 31 & 36) Plaintiffs brought this state-law action against Defendant Honeywell, Inc., (“Honey-wen”) to recover for property damage suffered by Plaintiffs due in part to the alleged failure of Honeywell’s alarm service. Both parties have moved for summary judgment, and those motions are the subject of this order. Docket ##31 & 36. STATEMENT OF THE F...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff Martin Banks brought this suit against the above captioned defendants under title 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants 1) violated his constitutional rights by denying him a safe environment in which to enjoy conjugal visit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, the United States of America, moved for summary judgment in an action seeking foreclosure of a Farmers’ Home Administration mortgage on land owned by Defendants, Dennis and Connie Birchem, Docket No. 15. Defendants responded with a Brief in Opposition, Docket No. 27, and a Supplemental Brief in Opposition, Docket No. 43. Defendants have also moved t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND At oral argument on April 28, 1995, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the action based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. These motions were brought by defendants Sullivan, Maye, Tennant and Fertig. Accordingly, the court also denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment. T...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Rodolfo Roxas, a Roman Catholic priest formerly employed at Presentation College in Aberdeen, South Dakota, filed suit against Presentation College, its former President, and members of its Board of Trustees, claiming discrimination on the basis of race (Asian), national origin (Filipino), gender (male), and age (54), in violation of 42 U....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This legal malpractice action brought by plaintiff pursuant to the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction is before the Court for ruling *450 on cross-motions for summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, affidavits, depositions, and documents submitted by the parties, the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denies plaintiffs motion...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Defendants previously brought a motion to dismiss this action on several grounds. On December 23, 1994, the court heard arguments on the motion and rendered an oral decision in which it dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because the case alleged was not currently a justiciable and ripe controversy upo...
Views: 2
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant and plaintiff in the case below, is the bankruptcy trustee for Joseph and Deborah Reinbold, debtors who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on December 14, 1992. Defendants are the Reinbolds, Terry Thomas, and Norwest Bank. 1 Joseph Reinbold is a me *245 chanic whose hobby was mud racing. Appellant refers to the Reinbolds as “a young...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER On April 20, 1995, defendant Dennis L. Grice was arrested on the basis of a grand jury indictment alleging that he conspired to distribute crack cocaine and that, on a single occasion, he distributed crack cocaine. After a detention hearing on April 25, 1995, Magistrate Judge Ralph W. Smith, Jr. ordered defendant Grice detained pending trial after finding that Grice ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on a consolidated appeal from two orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Certain facts are not disputed. This appeal involves the Chapter 11 case of Be-Mac Transport Company, Incorporated (Be-Mac or debtor), which was filed during January of 1993. On June 18, 1993, the Federal Deposit Insurance Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff Jerry Young brought this suit against the above captioned defendant under title 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that on September 9, 1986, defendant entered plaintiffs cell in order to conduct a search. Plaintiff further alleges that during the course of this search, the defendant assaulted him and destroyed plaintiffs legal papers, books, religious...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The central issue in this case is whether the Yankton Sioux Reservation, created by the 1858 Treaty between the United States and the Yankton Sioux Tribe, was disestablished and returned to the public domain on August 15, 1894, when the Fifty-Third Congress ratified a December 31, 1892 Agreement with the Yankton Sioux for the sale of surplus lands. The Court h...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Pending are defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, plaintiffs’ Motion in Opposition, and defendants’ Reply thereto. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. /. Background Ponte, Inc. is a Puerto Rico corporation that sells electrical equipment. The company is owned by members of the Ponte and Sabines fa...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mannesmann Demag Fordertech-nik’s (hereinafter “Demag”) Motion to Dismiss and 'on both defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, and the plaintiffs oppositions thereto. The Court, having considered the materials on file and having heard the arguments of the parties, FINDS and ORDERS as ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are the motions by defendants James J. Gaudet, Emile J. LeCler Jr., Robert S. Maloney Sr., Robert S. Maloney Jr., Albro P. Michell Jr., Edward W. Riedl Sr. and Joseph G. Scheib Jr. for judgment on the pleadings. 1 Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motions in part and D...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant United States of America has filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Facts On October 18, 1993, plaintiff Norberto Vélez, a Puerto Rico National Guard serviceman, was at a military installation under state orders to collect supplies for a Puerto Rico National Gu...
Views: 1
*1289 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER This matter came on for oral arguments and to clarify the administrative record on Monday, May 15,1995, with Plaintiff appearing personally and by Bret Chancelor MerWe, and with Defendants appearing by Craig Peyton Gaumer. After consideration of the testimony, the arguments of counsel and the administrative record, the ASCS determination that wo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Stephen M. Kimball (Kimball) originally brought this action in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Kimball alleges that defendant Maryam Saffari-Parizi (Saffari-Parizi) defamed him and tortiously interfered with his business relationships. Pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, the United States Attorney for Colorado, Henry Solano, ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. FINDINGS OF FACT In the above-captioned dispute between computer software manufacturers, plaintiff Computer Associates International, Inc. (“CAI”) seeks a declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that its use of the name “CA-Simply Tax” or “Simply Tax” does not infringe United States Trademark Registration No. 1,500,316 (the “TAX$IM-PLE tra...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment concerning a chemical *2listing under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EP-CRA), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq. This action arises because the defendants, Carol M. Browner and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), denied the petition of the plaintiff, Hüls America, Inc. (Hüls), ...
Views: 0
OPINION ON PROVENANCE This case requires the court to resolve the ownership of a work of art. The word “provenance” has developed in the art world as a term for the subject of title to works of art. The case was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, and was briefed, argued, and submitted for decision. The court heard the testimony of the witnesses and has reviewed the relevant portions of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND On January 17, 1995, plaintiff, Tonya R. Powell, filed this action against Marine Midland Bank. She then attempted to serve the defendant by mailing a summons and other documents to the law firm of Harter, Secrest & Emery in Rochester, New York. The law firm forwarded the material to Marine Midland in Buffalo, New York. On February 27, 1995, defendant fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND On the morning of September 9, 1991, a two-car traffic accident occurred at an intersection within the confines of the Fort Drum Army Base. Three people were involved, each of whom was employed at the time by a branch of the United States Armed Services. In Car # 1 were two civilian employees of the U.S. Air Force, Cheryl Bulriss and Ro...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ABSTENTION AND MOTION TO REMAND AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT BAXTER’S MOTION TO STAY Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Statement Under Bankruptcy Rule 9027(e)(3), Motion for Abstention and Motion to Remand to state court, and the Motion To Stay of Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. (“Baxter”). Plaintiffs rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and (c)(...
Views: 1
ORDER This case is before the court on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49) and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to liability (Doc. 47). This action arises out of an escrow agreement in which Defendant Broad & Cassel, P.A. (Broad & Cassel) served as an escrow agent. Calusa Trace Development Corporation (CTDC) sold St. Joseph’s Health Care Center, Inc. (St. Joseph’s) a piece ...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND On March 28, 1995, the court heard oral argument with respect to several different motions in this case. At that time, the court expressed its concern that although the minor children, Tammi and Kyle Swearingen, are named as plaintiffs, along with their parents, Donald L. and Deborah Swearingen, the complaint in its present form does not contain any allegations s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her deceased husband’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Her complaint also stated a supplemental state cause of action for negligence. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order (“MDO”) dated November 25, 1994, the court granted defe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action Sassafras Enterprises Incorporated (“Sassafras”) contends that Roshco Incorporated (“Roshco”) has sought to compete with Sassafras in the market for pizza *344 stones in violation of both (1) federal false advertising and copyright laws and (2) the Illinois law (both statutory and common law) of unfair competition, deceptive tra...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that on April 10,...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has brought an action for attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) (1994). Plaintiff obtained a favorable ruling from Florida’s Division of Administrative Hearings in 1990, and filed this action for attorneys’ fees on August 4, 1994. D...
Views: 0
ORDER Presently before the Court are United States of America’s Motion To Dismiss or For Summary Judgment filed on March 18, 1993, Plaintiff’s Response and Counter Motion filed on April 6,1993, and United States of America’s Reply filed on April 20, 1993; and United States of America’s First Supplement To Motion To Dismiss Or For Summary Judgment (“Supplement”) filed on May 10, 1995 and Plainti...
Views: 0
ORDER This Cause is before the Court on the following motions: (a) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Abstain (Doc. No. 19, filed October 31, 1994); (b) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment or Abstention (Doe. No. 31, filed December 5, 1994); (c) Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 45, filed January 30, 1995)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendant Charles Henry Bean’s Motion to Suppress. Defendant contends that Officer Danny Buchholz obtained certain physical evidence during a search of defendant’s luggage in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter, this court found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and DENIED de...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Defendants New York State Thruway Authority (“Thruway Authority”) and Robert Stock 1 move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Charlene E. Ryan’s complaint. The complaint contains claims of gender discrimination and sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court denying Appellant’s, Ford Motor Credit Company’s (“Ford Credit”), motion for summary judgment on Count III of Ford’s original complaint against Appellee, Glen L. Rose (“Rose”). Count III of Ford Credit’s complaint requested an order declaring an amount of Rose’s indebted...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Stone Savannah River Pulp and Paper Corporation’s (“Stone”) motion for summary judgment. As there are no genuine issues of material fact and Stone is due judgment as a matter of law, the Court GRANTS Stone’s motion. I. BACKGROUND The Court takes sexual discrimination cases seriously. This, however, is not a sexual discrimination...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of an irrevocable letter of credit issued by defendant Bank of New York (“BONY”) in favor of Dikarpa N.V. S.A. (“Dikarpa”), a company in liquidation pursuant to Belgian law. Defendant moves to dismiss or for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for anticipatory repudiation. For the reasons stated be...
Views: 0
ORDER On November 14, 1994, the Court heard oral argument on motions to dismiss filed in this action by several individual school district employees (collectively “Defendants”), the Santa Rosa City School District, and Drew Ibach (“Ibach”). In an order issued on November 23, 1994, the Court ruled on several of those motions. The Court also ordered the parties to submit supplemental br...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 18, 1994. Defendants filed a response on May 2, 1994. The Court heard oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on November 1, 1994. I. Factual Background The instant case arises out of t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before this court is E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company’s (Du Pont) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(a)(1) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. against plaintiff, Sonja D. Poore (Poore). Poore brought this claim alleging that she was unlawfully denied a lateral transfer in retaliation for previous complaints of discrimination and for intentional infliction of emotiona...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) contains five counts. In Counts One and Two, Richard G. Bird, and the class he purports to represent, assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (“ERISA”). These two counts have been voluntarily dismissed. Consequently, Bird is no longer a plaintiff and there ar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A. Introduction In August of 1989, Hoechst Celanese Corporation sold its Delaware City PVC division to the American Mirrex Corporation. 1 Plaintiffs, Leonard Gillis and Valdo Sargeni, worked for Hoechst at the Delaware City plant. The sale to American Mirrex terminated their employment with Hoechst. Even though they became American Mirrex emplo...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTIONS Defendant, Tony Jerome Barr, moves to vacate his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 following a jury trial before this court. He is presently incarcerated. Defendant moves to vacate on the grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that he was denied a fair tria...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING Before the Court is a limited objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation filed by the Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana in the above-captioned matter. The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate, but will briefly respond to the arguments raised by the objection. The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana law ass...
Views: 0
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, a former public school teacher in Ridgefield, Connecticut, brought this action alleging wrongful suspension of employment in four counts pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employmen...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Plaintiffs, Ernest M. and Suzanne 3VL, commenced this action on behalf of their son, Gregory, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., against defendants State Board of Education of the State of Connecticut (“State Board”), Shelton Board of Education (“School Board”), Gerald Tir...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it a Motion to Remand in the case of Morrison v. National Benefit Life Ins. Co., Number 3:95-CV-245BN, and a Motion to Consolidate Morrison with Blackwell v. National Benefit Life Ins. Co., Number 3:95-CV-246WS, pending before Judge Wingate. There is also a Motion to Remand pending in the Blackwell case...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation (M & R) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Alexander B. Denson. Defendant did not respond to the objections, and the time in which to do so has passed. This matter is now ripe for ruling. I. FACTS Plaintiff is nine years old and has been diagnosed with Attention...
Views: 0
TRANSFER ORDER This litigation presently consists of the ten actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in seven federal districts as follows: three actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, two actions in the Northern District of Illinois, and one action each in the Central District of California, District of Colorado, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of New Y...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are A.M. Capens Co., Inc. (Capens) request for provisional remedy (Docket # 4) 1 and defendant, American Trading and Production Corporation’s (ATAPCO) request for change of venue (Docket # 11). The “Motion for Provisional Remedy” was filed by Capens on April 25,1994. A hearing on the Motion was celebrated before Hon. Magistrate Judge Jesu...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. FINDINGS OF FACT On March 30, 1994, this court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the State to reimburse plaintiff hospitals based on Medi *694 care reasonable cost principles. Plaintiffs posted bonds totaling approximately $47 million, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), reflecting the increased payments the State was req...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, a state prisoner who appears pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docket Item (“D.I.”) 2], On December 23, 1994, Defendants moved for summary judgment in lieu of filing an answer. [D.I. 24]. I. BACKGROUND In November, 1993, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility (“Gander Hill”)....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM — DECISION AND ORDER BACKGROUND Given the at times complex legal issues raised by these motions, it is easy to forget exactly what is at stake in this litigation, and that is whether defendant Melvin Smith is eligible for a pension; and if so, is he entitled to continue receiving monthly pension benefits in the amount of approximately $188.03 1 or, as Smith ...
Views: 2
ORDER AFFIRMING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER SUSTAINING DEBTOR’S AMENDED OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF IRS The Internal Revenue Service appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Sustaining Debtor’s Amended Objection to Claim of IRS. See In re Bell, 166 B.R. 478 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1994). Factual and procedural background Appellees, Robert and Susan Bell, filed their 1985 tax return on October 20, 19...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs application for fees and other expenses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7430. In his application, plaintiff seeks fees and expenses related to his representation in this matter by Arthur L. Phillips and Boone Smith. Judge Duross Fitzpatrick has recused himself from the consideration of plaintiffs application. Section 7430 of Title 26 of the United States Code provide...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a product liability action in which plaintiff, a nurse at Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, seeks to recover both compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly resulting from being accidentally *1038 stuck with a needle which had previously been in contact with AIDS infected blood. The action was originally filed in state court ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant The Rexroth Corp. (“Rexroth”) has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons stated below, we deny the motion, without prejudice to renew after the completion of discovery. BACKGROUND At the time of the accident that forms the basis of this lawsuit, plaintiff Paul Sanders was employed by Package Pavement Co. to...
Views: 0
ORDER Debtors, Edgewater Sun Spot, Inc., Edgar L. Mathieu, and Jane E. Mathieu, have appealed from a decision of the Bankruptcy Unit of this Court in their jointly administered bankruptcy cases [In re Edgar L. and Jane E. Mathieu, Case Number 91-02303 and In re Edgewater Sun Spot, Inc., Case Number 91-02304]. Appellants contend that the Bankruptcy Judge erred in awar...
Views: 0
*262 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Presently before this court is plaintiffs application for attorney’s fees and expenses. The defendants have moved for travel costs in the appearance of defendant Terry Gowett (“Gowett”), and for sanctions. This action involves claims for violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was tried before this c...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Appellee, District 65, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, (“Debtor” or “District 65”) moves to dismiss New York Property Holding Corporation’s (“Purchaser” or “NYPHC”) appeal from two orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York rendered by the Honorable Francis G. Conrad, USBJ. The first order...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 23, 1995. The Defendant requested that the Motion be converted by the court to a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 17, 1995. On May 31, 1995, the court notified all parties of its intention to treat the Motion to Dismiss as one for Summary Judgment. Both parties have...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This action arises from injuries allegedly incurred by the Windleys (“Windleys”) when William Windley was working at the McKee Run Power Plant (“McKee Run”) in Dover, Delaware, on November 18, 1992. Presently before the Court is ABB Air Preheater, Inc.’s (“ABB Air Preheater”) motion for summary judgment, (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 88). For the r...
Views: 0
Sitting by Designation. OPINION OF THE COURT This is an appeal from a judgment following a bench trial denying the plaintiff compensatory damages. Appellant challenges the trial judge's refusal to award damages, denial of a request for *379continuance, and exclusion of the deposition testimony. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision. FACTS On December 8, 1989, appellan...
Views: 1
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENTS (RELATING ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO IMMUNITY) THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon numerous motions of defendants for Summary Judgment, addressed upon reference to U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber, and the issuance of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff, Stephen Rind-ley, D.D.S....
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM We are considering an appeal from an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, filed December 29, 1994, and exercise appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. I. BACKGROUND On March 8,1993, Carmen Librandi filed a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, to which th...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Gordon and Mary Buchanan brought this federal tax refund action alleging an overpayment of their joint tax return for 1986 and/or 1987 in the amount of $542,-451. Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to a deduction for those tax years under 26 U.S.C. § 166(d) for a nonbusiness bad debt. Plaintiffs and the defendant, the United States of America, have filed cro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment [Docket 28 ■& 27]. These summary judgment motions both focus on the interpretation of the venue provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692L Specifically, the parties ask this court to address where a collection action properly lies in light of language...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court, Judge H. Clyde Pearson, declining to deny appellee-debtor’s discharge. The parties have fully briefed the issues raised on this appeal. The Court has heard argument' from the parties. This matter is, therefore, ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, the Bankruptcy Court’s order will be vacated and re...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE MOTION In this diversity action, plaintiff Carol Ann Swartz seeks recovery of first party no-fault benefits and injunctive relief under Michigan’s no-fault act, M.C.L. § 500.3101 et seq. The matter is currently before the court on a motion by the defendants, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and American States Insurance Company, for judgment on the...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 805 (1995) INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. CUMMINS ENGINE CO., INC. an Indiana Corporation; Fleetguard, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Doug Hudgens and Jerry Joyner, Defendants. No. 94 C 5378. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 29, 1995. *806 *807 Lisa L. Harris, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court referred this matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 13, 1994. Magistrate Judge Moreno submitted proposed Findings of Act, Report and Recommendation for Disposition to the Court on December 30, 1994. A copy of the report and recommendation was served on the plaintiff as re...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In the opinion and order of December 6, 1994, the Court requested counsel to deal with whether the notice given Lessor of the need and necessity for repairs to the heating and air conditioning in the leased premises meets the requirements of the lease between the parties. The lease in this case called for notice to Lessor of any need for repairs and a 30 day period to commence...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND American Deposit Corporation (“ADC”) developed an innovative financial instrument, which it named the Retirement CD, to exploit a tax code provision permitting companies other than insurance companies to issue tax-deferred annuities. See 26 U.S.C. § 1275(a)(1)(B). The Retirement CD has many of the characteristics of an ordinary certificate ...
Views: 0
*1404 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER There are times when the revenue laws of the United States yield harsh results. This is one of those times. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The present plaintiff, Carmen V. Cook (“Mrs. Cook”), and her husband, Irving R. Cook (“Mr. Cook”), instituted this action on November 1, 1993. The Cooks sought a partial or full refund of their 1991 federal income tax. Be...
Views: 0
ORDER THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: A two-count indictment was filed against the defendant. Count I charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 1 Count II charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) with using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. The defendant entered into a conditional plea *...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION The government seeks review of a decision and order of the Bankruptcy Court ruling that a debt owed by the Appellees to the IRS, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672, was discharged upon completion of the Appellees’ bankruptcy plan in May, 1993. The court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. For the reasons stated *259 herein, the decision of the Bankru...
Views: 0
ORDER ALLOWING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT Plaintiff, William Kessler, M.D., originally filed this action on May 22, 1992, alleging, inter alia, a claim for employment discrimination based on his age. In an order dated March 18, 1994, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs complaint pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 25(a). Presently before the court is a motion by the plaintiff under F.R.Civ.P. 6...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Plaintiffs are challenging the validity of an ordinance passed by the City Council of South Burlington that prohibits public nudity. Plaintiffs primarily seek to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance, and they filed a complaint seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, declaratory judgment, and damages. Of the fourteen substantive counts in the complaint, the ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER In August 1994, plaintiff brought this action in New York Supreme Court seeking coverage under the disability policy provided by his former employers, Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter “Citibank”). The complaint alleged that Citicorp and Citibank had breached that policy by denying plaintiff past, present and future long term disability benefits and stated four contra...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Markus Allee Rice (“Markus”), a minor, brings this lawsuit through his mother and next friend, Angela Danita Rice (“Ms. Rice”), pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. In the Complaint, Ms. Rice claims that health care providers at Claremore Indian Hospital (“CIH”), a government facility, rendered negligent medical care by ...
Views: 0
ORDER This bankruptcy matter is before the Court on the motion of Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc. (“Southwest”) to withdraw the reference of this matter to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The matter was originally referred to the bankruptcy court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157 and Local Rule 29(B)(1). However, Southwest argues that ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Gary Davis’ Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus. The Court has reviewed fully the trial and appellate proceedings in the Colorado state court system, and has considered the additional evidence submitted by petitioner. The Court is satisfied that petitioner’s rights were fully protected at trial and that counsel more than adequately represented petit...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 5) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 18). Having carefully reviewed the evidence of record, studied the briefs, having heard oral argument of counsel, and otherwise being fully advised, the Court issues the following Memorand...
Views: 0
OPINION: OPINION OF THE COURT These separate appeals involve provisions of the Virgin Islands labor relations statute, V.I. Code Ann. tit. 24, §§ 61-79 (1993), and in particular, sections 76-79 governing wrongful discharge (Wrongful Discharge Act" or "WDA"). Both appellees, discharged employees, filed complaints with the Virgin Islands Department of Labor ("Department" or "DOL") charging wrongful ...
Views: 2
OPINION Presently before the court is an appeal which resulted from a creditor’s allegation of inadequate notice concerning a bankruptcy action. The bankruptcy court ruled that Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) had received adequate notice and dismissed its claim as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, the bankruptcy court’s determination will be affirmed. Background Benny’s Leasing, Inc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER On August 26,1994, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rules 71.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, filed on May 19, 1995, recommended that defendant’s mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Hector R. Gonzalez, an Hispanic male, commenced this employment discrimination action, pro se, under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that defendants discriminated against him based on his race and gender. Presently, before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 5...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By letter dated September 27, 1993, and addressed to the Director, Office of Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, FOIA Request, P.O. Box 388, c/o Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, plaintiff T.C. Kessler requested the disclosure of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. Specifically, he sought for the years from 1958 throug...
Views: 0
Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff brought this ease alleging intentional race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. .FACTS Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant Carrier Corporation on October 26, 1987. He held various positions at Carrier before his termination on December 13,1991. Plainti...
Views: 2
OPINION Defendant Hasbro, Inc. (“Hasbro”) moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., to dismiss plaintiffs complaint in its entirety, and in the alternative pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment against plaintiff on all claims. I. For the purposes of this motion to dismiss, the court will assume the truth of the following facts asserted in plaintiffs compla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the instant prosecution, defendant Adolfo L. Gutierrez is charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, and conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The defendant initially was arrested on February 24,1992, after a warrant-less search by law enforceme...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Sandra J. Taylor and Pam M. Johnson are former employees of defendant Central Pennsylvania Drug and Alcohol Services Corporation (CPDASC). Defendant William L. Clark was the president of CPDASC and its chief executive officer. Clark was plaintiffs’ immediate supervisor. Plaintiffs allege that they were sexually harassed in the workplace by Clark and assert fede...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Plaintiff Malinda Walker filed this section 1983 action on behalf of herself and her minor children Alexis Larabee, aged 4 years, and Lydia Walker, aged 23 months. Plaintiff alleges that her constitutional rights and those of her children were violated by Centre County, Pennsylvania officials and employees. Named as defendants are: James P. Johnson, Esq...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Plaintiff Helen Stewart filed this employment discrimination action against her former employer, Weis Markets, 1 Inc. (Weis Markets) for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 955 et seq. (PHRA). ...
Views: 3
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS This proceeding involves a motion for return of property seized by search warrant. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines, who recommends that the motion be denied. Also pending are movant’s objections. This court has engaged i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 17, 1993, The Wellness Community-National (‘Wellness C”) sued The Wellness Community Chicago-Western Suburbs (Wellness H”), alleging breach of contract. Between July 18 and 20, 1994, we held a bench trial. On August 5, 1994, Wellness C and Wellness H each submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (“FF & CL”). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs have filed several motions to compel the production of documents and answers to interrogatories during the last few months. The Court pauses here to note that this case has already had an early history of significant discovery disputes.1 The Court is hopeful that its separate opinion, which was released today on the issue of class certification, will help...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cory Chan is a Chicago policeman. At one time he was assigned to the Intelligence Section of the Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Terrorist Task Force, a joint undertaking between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Chicago Police Department. In order to be part of the Task Force, a police officer was required to have a top secret security ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Gerald Redding brings this action against respondent Salvador Godinez (“the State”), seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges that his present incarceration is in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently before the court is the motion of the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finding the motion well taken, the same shall be granted. FACTUAL SUMMARY 1 At the times relevant to this action, the plaintiff was employed by Pest Management Specialist...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRW Title Insurance Company (“TRW’) seeks to bar the proposed expert of Security *758 Union Title Insurance Company (“Security”), John Bonacci, Jr., from testifying in this case. TRW argues that Mr. Bonacci’s testimony is neither expert on the issues about which he has rendered an opinion nor reliable. TRW’s motion to exclude Mr. Bonac-ci’s expert testimony is g...
Views: 0
OPINION Preliminary Statement Plaintiff Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. (“Pentagen”) brought an action against defendant CACI International Inc. (“CACI”) and other defendants as a “qui tam” relator pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (Supp.1995) (“FCA” or the “Act”). Plaintiff United States of America notified the court of its intention no...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Selma S. Buycks-Roberson, Calvin R. Roberson and Rene Brooks (“Plaintiffs”) are African-American and sue defendant Citibank Federal Savings Bank (“Citibank”) seeking redress for alleged racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining1 practices in connection with Citibank’s home loan application approval process. Count I of the complaint alleges that C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Sunnary Prak (“Mr. Prak”), applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on May 14, 1992. His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration by state agency personnel. On November 5, 1993, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Maren Dougherty held a hearing on the mat *1083 ter and found that Mr. Prak was not disabled. The Appeals Council subseque...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This ease, involving a claim for long-term disability benefits provided under an employee benefit plan, arises under section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) (1985), which grants a participant or beneficiary of an employee benefit plan the right to bring a civil action to recover benefits under the terms of the plan. The court...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the current indictment on the grounds that the Government has not complied with the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. In addition, the Defendants allege that their continued detention without trial violates the speedy trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment. For ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The bankruptcy Trustee seeks review of a decision and order of the Bankruptcy Court upholding the debtor’s claim of exemption in two promissory notes. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the notes created tenancies by the entirety, and were, therefore, shielded from the debtor’s creditors. The court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Because the cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Bank One’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan. In re Flowers, 175 B.R. 698 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.1994). For the reasons outlined below, the Bankruptcy Court’s order is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND The debtors in this case, Paul and Wanda Flowers (“Debtors”), ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes to this court on appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, Judge Ross H. Krumm, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, this court vacates the grant of summary judgment and remands for trial. Appellee, Tschudy Communications Corp. (Seller),...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution were violated when officials at the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at Frackville denied him his bi-weekly allotment of free cigarettes and denied him his right to purchase cigarettes fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an appeal from a decision of the bankruptcy court which found that certain payments made by the debtor to its landlord within ninety days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition for rents due and owing were not voidable as preferential transfers. For the reasons that follow, the Court will affirm the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the lease extension granted to the...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER JURISDICTION The parties executed a consent to proceed before the undersigned on January 24, 1994. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Jennie Petix, filed this diversity action on July 30, 1992, alleging two causes of action for negligence, and under the doctrine of strict products liability. Plaintiff is a New York resident, Defendant Kabi Pharmacia Ophthalmic...
Views: 0
ENTRY AFFIRMING SECRETARY’S DENIAL OF BENEFITS This matter comes before the court for review of a denial of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) to the Plaintiff, Helen Rucker (“Rucker”), by Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of the Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”). The court, having considered the submissions and briefs of the pa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Waahid Muslim brought this section 1983 suit challenging the headgear restrictions imposed by the Chester County Prison. Under the regulations in force while Mr. Muslim was in custody as a pre-trial detainee from July 7, 1992 to October 18, 1993, inmates were not permitted to wear headgear in the common areas of the prison, although the wearing of religious headgear was p...
Views: 2
OPINION On November 22, 1994, after nearly five years of litigation and following a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in this action in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $619,434.51. The jury found that defendant general contractor Merritti-Meridian Construction Corporation (“MMCC”) materially breached its agreement (the “Subcontract”) with plaintiff subcontractor Evergre...
Views: 1
After reviewing the record, this Court hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on March 31, 1995 in the above-referenced matter, and it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements concerning the Marcus credit cards be GRANTED. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MANN, United States M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Desiree Slabik (“Slabik”) alleges that defendant Frankford Hospital failed to conduct a screening examination of her in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd(a), after she presented herself at its emergency room. She also alleges state law claims of defamation against the hospital and of malpractice against ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND AND AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This cause came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Remand and Award of Attorney’s Fees (Docket Nos. 9-11) and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 13). Upon review of the motions and supporting memoranda, and the responsive memoranda filed by the parties, this Court finds that bo...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY KELLEY DRYE & WARREN This cause of action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Kelley Drye & Warren (KDW). Plaintiffs claim that KDW has, at times, represented Mr. McPart-land, Economic & Investment Technologies, Inc. (EIT), and ISI Investment Services, Inc. (ISI). This representation is asserted to be sometimes concurr...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO QUASH MOTIONS CONSIDERED This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Adams, Brooking, Stepner, Wolterman & Dusing (doc. 56), the H. Meyer Dairy Company, Inc.’s Motion to Quash or Modify Defendant Trauth Dairy Company’s Subpoena (doe. 57), the Memorandum of the United States in Support of Motions to Quash (doc. 59), the Defendants’ Response...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This civil rights case, involving an allegation of police brutality, has been brought before the Court by motion of the defendants, which seek the partial dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted in part. I. HISTORY OF THE CASE The issue for the Court is wh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on defendant Ruby Brown’s amended motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Ruby was charged, along with her common-law husband, James Brown, and their daughter, Mary Louise Brown, with five drug related crimes. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Ruby guilty on all counts. This...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Presently before this court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff originally included five counts in his complaint, but in response to Defendant’s motion objects to the dismissal of only three of those counts. These remaining claims are based on alleged violations of Plaintiffs rights under...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dk. 3) for improper venue and lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) 1 , (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff appearing pro se brings this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. She alleges the defendants hav...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it the Motion of the Defendants Robert and Wanda McCain (“the McCains”) to Award and Set Costs and Attorney’s Fees. Plaintiffs Creations Unlimited, Inc. (“Creations”) have responded to the motion. The Court, having considered the motion, response and supporting memoranda, finds that the motion is not well taken, and that the McCains’ request for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 80, 1994, the grand jury returned a one count indictment against the defendant Raymond B. Walker with possession with intent to distribute 9.8 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 1 On February 15, 1995, this court entered a memorandum and order which, inter alia, denied Walker’s motion to suppress. See U...
Views: 0
After review and over objection, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Ruling is approved, adopted and ratified. SO ORDERED. RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFIED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FITZSIMMONS, United States Magistrate Judge. This is an action for compensatory education under the Individuals with Disabilities Educatio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, a black male, filed in a state court this civil action against the City of Boston and several police officers, all of whom are white males. Defendants removed to this court (Docket No. 1, filed April 4, 1994). Plaintiff moved to remand (Docket No. 2, filed April 8, 1994). This court stated a willingness to remand if plaintiff would waive all federal law cla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 21, 1994, defendant Ricky Hampshire was charged with willful failure to pay a past due child support obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228. The support obligation arose from a divorce proceeding commenced by Hampshire’s ex-wife in Kansas on October 4, 1985. The District Court of Riley County granted an order for temporary custody and support on Oc...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 3, 1994, Albert L. Olds filed a five page complaint alleging claims against Alamo Group (KS), Inc. (Alamo) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq., and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Attached to Olds’ complaint is a Notice of Right to Sue f...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (doc. 4), and the Defendants’ Response (doc. 6). The Plaintiff has not replied. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff/Respondent, the Fayetteville Perry Local School District Board of Education (“Fayetteville Perry” or “the school district”) is the political entity responsible fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action, before me on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, derives from plaintiffs being twice laid off from defendant company, General Electric. After the second layoff, plaintiff located another job in the company and received an offer of employment. That offer was later rescinded. Plaintiff’s four-count complaint alleges two counts of age discrimination, based ...
Views: 0
OPINION Before the Court is movant’s motion for return of property pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(e); movant’s supplemental memorandum of points and authorities; mov-ant’s motion to compel deposition testimony; the government’s January 23, 1995, response to movant’s motion for return of property; the government’s opposition to movant’s motion for return of property and notice of deposition; an...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio on July 11, 1994, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1). On October 21, 1994, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending denying defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss Count II of the Indictment. On November 7, 1994, defendant filed objections to Magistrate Judge ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, involving a hijacking of a commercial airliner in 1984 with torture and two murders ensuing, defendant Middle East Airlines (MEA) moves for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A jury trial of this remaining defendant was had in December of 1993. At the close of plaintiffs’ case, MEA moved for judgment as a m...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Linda Weissman brings the instant action against Dow Corning Corp., Corning Inc. and Dr. Benito Rish for injuries she sustained subsequent to receiving silicone injection breast augmentation from Dr. Rish in or about 1971. 1 Although the complaint origi *512 nally charged Dr. Rish with failure to warn, strict products liability, negligence, fr...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment; the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; 1 and the motion of defendant American President Lines, Inc. (“APL”) for summary judgment. Although “[fjindings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56,...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Appeal of the Debtor, Dino’s, Inc. (hereinafter “Dino’s”) (doc. 2) from a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, to which the Creditor, CIT Group/Commercial Services (hereinafter “CIT”) made a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4) and Dino’s responded in opposition (doc. 5). BACKGROUND ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Softel, Inc. (“Softel”), a company that develops and sells computer graphics products, sues Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc. (“Dragon”) and some of Dragon’s employees for copyright and trademark infringement, misuse of trade secrets and unfair competition.1 From April 28, 1991 to May 13, 1991, Judge Camella held a bench trial limited to liability i...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants National Housing Exchange Inc. (“Exchange”), Resource Asset Management, Inc. (“RAM”), and Jan Starr (collectively, the “moving defendants”) move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. For the reasons indicated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in pa...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (doc. 35) Also pending are numerous post-complaint motions by the plaintiff, (doc. 64, 69, 72, 74), and the defendant’s motion to impose costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. (doc. 66) *1551 I. BACKGROUND This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Sections 1983...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff originally brought this action in New York state court. On May 3, 1994 Defendant removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, based on diversity of citizenship of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On January 26, 1995, I denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), but granted its motion to dismis...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Richard Antos (“Antos”) sues defendant Bell & Howell Company (“Bell & Howell”) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [hereinafter ADEA], 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq. In a one count complaint, Antos alleges that Bell & Howell violated the ADEA when it terminated his employment. Antos also claims that Bell & Ho...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION This action for violations under § 505 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365, is before this court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. (“Hudson Riverkeeper”) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to preserving the water quality of both the Hudson Rive...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Comes now petitioner Shumate seeking an order from this Court clarifying his sentence and ordering the United States Bureau of Prisons to comply with the terms of the plea agreements under which he was sentenced. In particular, petitioner Shumate seeks an order from this Court directing that the United States Bureau of Prisons remove him from the New York State...
Views: 0
*148 MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Scanlon for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to a standing order dated November 12, 1986. This case is based on a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff William Hogan alleges that he was denied adequate medical care in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Fujis-awa”) has sued John N. Kapoor (“Kapoor”), alleging that Mr. Kapoor defrauded it of millions of dollars in the sale of Lyphomed, Inc., which Mr. Kapoor sold to Fujisawa in 1989. Lyphomed manufactured generic versions of currently marketed drugs. Following the sale, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) determined that cert...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 386 (1995) Darrell SINGLETON, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Helen Smith, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION USD 500, Thomas Barry, Jim Antos, and Bernice Cottrell, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-2453-GTV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. June 29, 1995. *387 *388 George E. Mallon, George E. Mallon, P.A., Kansas City, KS, for plaintiffs Helen Smith, mother and n...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on defendant Raul Garcia-Salazar’s motion to dismiss Count III of the indictment. Count III charges Garcia-Salazar with possession with intent to distribute 20 pounds of marijuana within 1000 feet of an elementary school, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860, 1 sometimes referred to as the Drug- *569 Free School Zones Act. The defendant conte...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The above-captioned case has been remanded to this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The court of appeals in its opinion remanding the case instructed this court to: “(1) determine by expert testimony the chemical nature of DL-methamphetamine (sic) — i.e., whether DL-methamphetamine (sic) is simply a mixture of D-methamphetamine (sic) and...
Views: 1
*951MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The ease comes before the court on the defendant State of Kansas’ motion to dismiss (Dk. 15) on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and on the defendant Judge John W. White’s motion to dismiss (Dk. 28) on the basis of judicial immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Garry De Young, appearing pro se, has filed several responses to these motio...
Views: 0
*955 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s motions to suppress statements (Dk. 20) and to suppress evidence (Dk. 21). The government filed a written response in opposition. 1 (Dk. 27). The court heard argument and evidence on these motions on May 16, 1995. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the controlling law, the court is ready to rule. FACTS Aro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER John Rhodes brings this action under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., claiming that the defendant, Bob Florence Contractor, Inc., (BFC), failed to reasonably accommodate his disabilities, laid him off due to his disabilities, and failed to rehire him due to his disabilities. This case comes before the court upon BFC’s motion for sum...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is the Petition of Ken Mizuno to Amend the Forfeiture Order of October 27, 1993 and for Other Relief (#414), and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Petition (#415), filed December 6, 1994. The Bankruptcy Estates of Ken International Co., Ltd. and Ken Mizuno filed its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petition ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a consolidated antitrust case in which the United States and private plaintiffs are challenging the purchase of a local daily newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Times (“the Times ”), by NAT, L.C. Both the government and private plaintiffs contend that this purchase may substantially lessen competition, since NAT, L.C. (“NAT”), has signif...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The sole issue in this bankruptcy appeal is whether a security agreement that requires the debtors to pay “reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of this Note and realizing on a security interest” is for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) an agreement that provides for payment of attorney’s fees associated with negotiating a protection order and a plan of r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for stay pending appeal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c) (Doc. 71). For the rea*565sons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the motion is granted. I. Background This is an action to enjoin the defendants from condemning certain real estate in Leavenworth County, Kansas, to be used in connection with a highway constructi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The United States of America commenced this action to reduce to judgment certain outstanding federal tax assessments against Gladwin C. Lamb and Anna E. Lamb, to set aside fraudulent conveyances of certain properties and to foreclose federal tax liens on certain properties. An amended complaint was subsequently filed, but the Lambs failed to timely file an answer to either the...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Background On January 25, 1990, a federal grand jury returned a two-count Indictment in United States v. Bobby Ross, CR-S-90-018-PMP (RJJ), charging the Defendant Bobby Ross (“Ross”) and co-defendant Enoch Matthews with conspiracy (Count I), possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance (Count II). On March 14,1990, a Com...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#20), filed April 3, 1995. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (# 22) on May 15, 1995. Defendants filed their Reply (#23) on June 14, 1995. I. Background Plaintiffs are the trustees (“Trustees”) of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union Welfare Fund (the “Fund...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and Defendants Benfield Insurance Agency and James D. Weeks’ Motion to Dismiss. Time Insurance Company filed no motion that is addressed in this opinion. The Court, having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the authorities cited and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows, to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action for breach of contract brought by plaintiff, General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (“GTP”). GTP is a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City. Defendants are Expromtorg International Corp. (“Expromtorg”), and company president, Guennadi Razouvaev (“Razou-vaev”) (collectively, “defendants”), residents of Michigan. The amo...
Views: 6
*674 MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND During August 1993, appellants Joseph and Kathleen Clancy entered into a contract with Solar Additions, Inc. (“Solar Additions”) for the purchase and installation of a solar room addition to their residence in Clifton Park, New York. In furtherance of the contract, appellants paid Solar Additions $17,-784.46 over a period from ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Defendants Ceasare Thomas, Myron Thomas, Lamont Joseph and Santos Bolden have moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. 29, for judgments of acquittal following their convictions after a jury trial on various Title 21 violations. Alternatively, they move for new trials pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. 33. More specifically, Myron Thomas moves for a judgmen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and New York Human Rights Law claiming that defendant subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual discrimination creating a hostile work environment, and claiming that she was discharged in retaliation for her complaint about a sexually offensive...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND This action was brought against New York State and George E. Pataki as Governor of New York State for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights were violated by the withholding of their salary payments pending passage of the state budget. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and on May 3, 1995, this court issued a ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se petitioner Alfredo Spavento brings the instant action for the return of $8,850.00 forfeited to the United States. 1 For the following reasons, Spavento’s petition is denied. BACKGROUND On April 25, 1989, Spavento was convicted of conspiring to distribute illegal narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and distribution of he...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a breach of contract case involving prescription plan services. Plaintiff Thrift Drug is seeking summary judgment for defendants’ alleged failure to pay for services rendered as part of an implied contract between the parties. For the reasons stated on the record July 6, 1995, and for the reasons *320 that follow, the motion is denied in part and granted in part...
Views: 1
*604 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Hannelore Passonno filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VTI”), as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. The plaintiff alleges that she was discharged from her position as an Associate Director of International Student Services at the State University of New York at Albany ...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendant Foremost Cold Storage, Inc. (“Foremost”) has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Gerald Itzkoff, an individual partnership doing business as Gerald Itzkoff (“Itzkoff’), pursuant to New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Foremost’s motion and ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Joint Industry Board (“JIB”), the only remaining defendant, moves for summary judgment dismissing these actions, which seek backpay and reinstatement of plaintiff, who was terminated as an apprentice electrician. Plaintiff claims that the termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1210...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The complaint in this action charges that defendant, a judge in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama, has caused a plaque depicting the Ten Commandments to be hung behind the bench in his courtroom in the Etowah County Courthouse. The complaint also alleges that, in presiding over jury organizing sessions, defendant has caused prayer to b...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court (Conrad, J.) presents the question whether the New York State Department of Social Services (“DSS”) may recoup alleged pre-petition Medicaid overpayments to a nursing home against post-confirmation reimbursements where the DSS, although on notice of the bankruptcy, failed to file a notice of claim. The Court holds, as di...
Views: 1
ORDER The Clerk of the Court is directed to make available to the public the attached redacted version of the Court’s Memorandum and Order dated October 4, 1994 in the captioned case. This redacted version along with this Order shall constitute part of the public record of this criminal matter in accordance with Magistrate Judge Steven Gold’s decision granting defendant’s motion to expunge the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER I. BACKGROUND B. Braun Medical, Inc. (“Braun” or “Plaintiff’) commenced this action against Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Nypro, Inc. (“Nypro”) (Abbott and Nypro together, “Defendants”) alleging Defendants’ Luer Activated Valve (“NP LAV”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,683,916, assigned to Braun and entitled NORMALLY CLOSED AUTOMATIC REFLUX VALVE (“91...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case raises an important issue about the relationship between an employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and its duty to comply with seniority systems established by collective bargaining. Plaintiff Terry Eckles claims in this case that he is disabled by epilepsy. He also claims t...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION The issue in this case is whether the defendant properly invoked the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, exemption (b)(7)(D) to justify withholding certain documents requested by plaintiff. Background Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, made his original FOIA request on July 31, 1993 for records pertaining to him. Defendant informed p...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion shall be granted. The Plaintiff filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), on November 3, 1994, seeking to compel the release of certain records mainta...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This action was commenced by the plaintiffs, Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc., (“ARH”) and M. Pete MeNabb, Inc., (“McNABB”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants, Dr. Scott Maloney (“MALONEY”), Michael Frketic Construction Management, Inc., (“FRKETIC”) and Marie Bradshaw d/b/a EB’s Drafting Service (“BRADSHAW”), inf...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Dk. 27). Anneliese Dotson had been an employee at Electro-Wire Products, Inc. for six years, when she refused to perform a short-term job assignment given by her supervisor. The plant manager, Chester Sliski, then spoke with Dotson and asked her to do the assigned work. After Dotson conti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has filed this employment discrimination action alleging that he was terminated from his position as a copier sales representative on the basis of age. He contends that his discharge was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), § 213.010 R.S.Mo. This matter is before the Court on the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Linda K. Willis (“Willis”) has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff John Watson Chevrolet’s (“John Watson”) complaint and has attached to her motion a memorandum in support thereof. Plaintiff John Watson has filed a memorandum in opposition to Willis’s motion, and Willis has filed...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on two identical motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The first motion was filed by Defendant Nancy Mayer (“Mayer”), in her official capacity as Chairperson and Treasurer of the Retirement Board of the Rhode Island Employees’ Retirement System (“Retirement Board”). The second motion was filed by Defendants Retirement Board and Joann Flamin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON APPEAL Defendant Peter Kloepfer, Esq. appeals from a June 1993 bankruptcy court order sanctioning his counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4) for filing a motion to compel without “substantial justification.” The motion, filed less than two weeks before the case was set for trial, challenged the adequacy of the responses provided by the trustee for the estate of M & L Business ...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff, Ronald Martin, seeks review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) that found him eligible for Social Security benefits as of February 1, 1992, but denied him an earlier onset date. Now for the court’s consideration is Plaintiffs Motion to Reverse and Remand for Further Hearing (Doc. 7), and Defe...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiff Glenda Simo brings this action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, to recover losses related to her employment with, and ultimate termination by, her former employer, defendant Home Health & Hospice Care (“HHHC”). The case is scheduled for a bench trial on July 11, 1995. Before the court is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is the motion of defendant J.W. York (‘Work”) for clarification of the court’s order filed 1 February 1995. Also before court are motions to amend the same order to certify it for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), as follows. *851 (1) Defendant North Carolina Railroad Company (“NCRR”) has moved the court to certify the order fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM In this case, we are called upon to decide several issues of first impression in this district. After careful consideration of the respective arguments, we conclude that a) the appointment of the personal representative in this case related back to the commencement of the suit under Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; b) the adult children of the decedent in this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The parties have filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Love-green pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for proposed findings and recommendations for disposition. Magistrate Judge Lovegreen issued his Report and Recommendation on April 26, 1995, recommending that the...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a breach of contract action based upon diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a former employee at Allen County Hospital (ACH). The defendant is the operator of ACH. Plaintiff contends that the defendant breached a written contract of employment when the defendant terminated her on October 12, 1993. The parties have submitted an agreed statement of facts and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This ease involves claims by plaintiff DP-Tek, Inc. against defendant AT & T Global Information Solutions Company (“AT & T”) for tortious interference with a contract and tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy. This matter is currently before the court on defendant AT & T’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 115)...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1202 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1202 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1204 A Undisputed Facts.1204 B.Disputed Facts.1205 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1205 A. Purpose And Provisions Of The IDEA.1205 B. Judicial Review Under T...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is presently before the court on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of the Plaintiffs causes of action. The court heard oral argument on the motion on May 18, 1995 and announced its ruling at the conclusion of the hearing. This order serves to memorialize the court’s ruling. For the reasons stated in open court, and as further explaine...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1076 (1995) Anna Marie HEYWOOD and Douglas A. Heywood, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SYSTEM, an Arizona non-profit organization, Defendant. No. CIV-93-1809-PHX-ROS. United States District Court, D. Arizona. July 7, 1995. *1077 *1078 David C. Larkin, Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiffs. Lonnie J. Williams, Jr., Snell & Wilmer, Christopher David Payne, Moore McCoy &...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an employment discrimination action in which the plaintiff, Shirley A.E. Jones, claims she was the victim of unlawful race and age discrimination and unlawful retaliation for the filing of a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the CM Rights Act of 1991 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §...
Views: 2
ORDER This action was filed by two inmates in federal custody. They appear pro se and proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs complain their legal mail was opened in 1991 and 1992 outside their presence in violation of *969 prison regulations. Plaintiffs also complain they were wrongfully disciplined when prison officials discovered a check sent from Bagguley’s mother to inmate Powers. Fina...
Views: 0
ORDER On April 20, 1995, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, directing plaintiff Rees to demonstrate why he should not be sanctioned to deter future abuse of the litigation process. The Court indicated that it was considering imposition against Rees of a fine in the amount of $1,500.00. Rees responded to the Order to Show Cause in a document titled Response, and in a First Supplement and ...
Views: 0
*247 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff Chet A. Hurd alleged that the defendant Pittsburg State University (PSU) discharged him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Plaintiffs claim was tried to a jury from May 2 to May 5, 1995. The jury ultimately found in favor of PSU and a final judgment was e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 9). Defendants have filed a response to plaintiffs’ motion and also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12). This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiffs, the trustees of benefit plans on behalf of the trustees, participants and beneficiaries, and defendants, the e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, John and Lorraine Brooks, allege they were defrauded by a Ponzi scheme and cheek-kiting scheme orchestrated by M & L Business Machines Co. (“M & L”). Plaintiffs further allege the Bank of Boulder (“the Bank”) aggravated their losses because it discovered the schemes and, rather than halting them and alerting investors, perpetuated the schemes in or...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Maria Stoenescu, acting pro se, brings the instant action against defendants Elisabeth Jablonsky, Peter Knesky, James Pascale and Princeton Township (collectively “defendants”). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants move to dismiss based upon Stoenescu’s failure to prosecute the above-captioned action. For the reasons that...
Views: 0
ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the defendant moves to transfer this action to New York. The motion is based on a forum selection clause that requires a contractually aggrieved party to assert a claim for relief exclusively in New York. The parties agree that the contract, including the forum selection clause, is valid. Although seeking to enforce its contractual rights, the pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction. Plaintiff, Clinton Lawrence (“Lawrence”), commenced this action against defendant, Finch Pruyn & Company, Inc. (“Finch *77 Pruyn”), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241, as well as state law causes of action for negligence and nuisance. 1 Finch Pruyn then brought action against third-pa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is a motion filed by Defendant, United States of America, to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendant argues Plaintiff did not comply with the statutory prerequisites for bringing a refund suit. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in favor of the United States. I. On November 2, 1994, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Gerald M. Sullivan, not individually, but as a Trustee of: Plumbers’ Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A.; Plumbers’ Welfare Fund, Local 130, U.A.; The Trust Fund for Apprentice and Journeymen Education and Training, Local 130, U.A.; and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union 130, U.A., Group Legal Services Plan Fund (collectively referred to as “Fun...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter is before the Court is to determine how “orphan shares” of liability will be *508 apportioned in this litigation. On January 6, 1995, Magistrate Judge Doyle A. Rowland established a briefing schedule for the parties to address the issue, which was framed by the parties themselves. The resolution of this issue is believed to be pivotal toward resolving ...
Views: 0
OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Background This opinion addresses defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On September 30, 1991, plaintiffs nephew, Michael McVay, was attempting to leap on to a moving train on the east side of Detroit. He failed in his attempt and his leg was completely severed by the train. 1 Soon after the accident pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., plaintiff Linda LaMar (“plaintiff’), a woman, alleges that she was sexually harassed by her female supervisor, Elaine Mangiero (“Mangiero”), while she was employed by defendant NYNEX Service Company (“defendant”), now known as Telesector Resources Group, Inc. Defendant n...
Views: 2
OPINION & ORDER Petitioner Persio Torres Nunez, pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 BACKGROUND On March 17, 1986, petitioner was indicted on five counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se plaintiff, Charles Uzzell, brings this action for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs motion is denied, and defendant...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Fairport International Exploration, Inc., filed this admiralty in rem action in order to establish its right to salvage a shipwrecked vessel, the Captain Lawrence, which sank in the waters of Lake Michigan in 1933. The State of Michigan has intervened in order to present its claim of title to the vessel under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (“ASA”...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Haworth Inc.’s appeal from Magistrate Judge Rowland’s May 3,1995 Order granting defendant’s motion to compel. Plaintiff argues that the magistrate erroneously ordered the disclosure of privileged attorney work product. Defendant Herman Miller, Inc. argues that the information is discoverable as information provided plaintiffs expert witness t...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(e)(3), for review of a final decision rendered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) finding him not disabled and consequently not entitled to supplemental security income. Plaintiff requests a reversal of the Secretary’s decision or, in the alternative, a reman...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant Valerie A. Burhans to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and on the motion of the plaintiffs Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fen-ner & Smith, Inc. and James MacLachlan for preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. For the reasons given below, the motion of the def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER FACTS This action for personal injury arising from a single-car accident in Dutchess County, New York, in November of 1991, which resulted in the death of Randall Conrad (“the decedent”), is before this Court on the Defendants’ and Third-Party Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Dorothy Conrad (“Conrad”), sues for violations of the N...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Ted Kozera, Richard Mekeel and Arthur Filardi (collectively “plaintiffs”) bring this action against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”), Local 501 of the IBEW (“Local 501”), Westchester Fairfield Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (“Chapter”) and *540Dynatram, Division of Dyna Electric (“Dyna-tram”). As mem...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Pilates Institute, Inc. (“the Institute”) and defendant Joan Breibart (“Brei-bart”), the Institute’s president, move to dismiss plaintiff Pilates, Inc.’s (“Pilates”) complaint on two grounds: (1) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants; and (2) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of t...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On April 20, 1995, April 25, 1995, and July 5, 1995, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant’s objections to the Presentence Investigation Report dated March 20, 1995. Prior to sentencing on July 7, 1995, which lasted more than Vk hours, the Court first listened to defense counsel and then heard the Defendant read an eight-page statement which th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Marlene Rojicek (“Rojicek”), filed a five-count amended complaint against the defendants relating to her discharge from employment as a payroll specialist at Community Consolidated School District 15 (“School District 15”). Pursuant to Fed. *881 R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs Amended Complaint in its ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case involves an alleged clash between the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and the Oregon Parental Leave Act, ORS §§ 659.360-370, with regard to the use of accrued sick leave benefits for parental leave. This action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. 1...
Views: 0
891 F. Supp. 4 (1995) COORDINATION COUNCIL FOR NORTH AMERICAN AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-1766. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 10, 1995. *5 Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr., Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Steven B. Belgrade, Belgrade and O'Donnell, Chicago, IL, Richard Streeter, Barnes & Thornburg, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pending before this Court is defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgement (Docket #24) and Petitioners’ opposition thereto (Docket #26). I. STAY STANDARDS The standard that guides trial courts on stay motions under FRCP Rule 62(c) was set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776-77, 107 S.Ct. 2113, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff is a severely obese man who seeks to recover a sizeable sum of damages ($100,-000 in compensatory and $1.2 million in punitives) for Defendant’s alleged disability discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#5-1). UNDISPUTED FACTS Plaintiff suffers from “morbid obe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is currently before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment (Does. # 72 & # 78) and on plaintiffs motion to amend to clarify the pretrial order (Doc. # 102). The parties’ dispute arises out of the Atchison Casting Corporation’s (“Atchison”) purchase of certain assets of Dofasco, Inc.’s (“Dofasco”) steel foundry in Ontar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FACTS This action for conspiracy and tax evasion is before this Court on Defendant Gold-schmidt’s motions (1) to dismiss Counts Two and Three of the indictment on the grounds of improper venue, pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, (2) for an Order directing the Government to provide a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rules 7(f)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is currently before the court on the following motions: the motion of defendants Ernest M. Fleischer, et al., for summary judgment on Counts I, II and III of plaintiffs first amended complaint (Doc. # 254); the motion of defendant Ted Greene, Jr. for summary judgment on Counts I, II and III of plaintiffs first amended complaint...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an insurance coverage dispute. Ross Bros. Construction Inc. (“Ross Bros”), a construction contractor, brought this diversity action against its insurance agent, Rose-Tillmann, Inc. (“Rose-Tillmann”), and its insurer, Albany Insurance Company (“Albany”), after Albany denied Ross Bros’ claim for loss sustained to a mobile crane in February 1994. Rose-Tillm...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the court are (1) the motion of defendant International Omni-Pac Corporation (Omni-Pac) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper venue (# 11-1) or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to a more convenient forum (# 11-2); and (2) the motion of defendant Stateo Engineering & Fabricators Inc. (Stateo) to dismiss the complaint for ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case involves the collapse of an employment relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, 1 from which Plaintiff asserts twelve separate state law claims against Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (# 41-1). FACTUAL BACKGROUND Prior to the fall of 1991, Plaintiff was employed at Compucom Sy...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin (“Blue Cross”) and Compcare Health Service Insurance Corporation (“Compcare”) commenced an antitrust action against defendants Marshfield Clinic (“Marshfield”) and Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc. (“Security”) for money damages, injunctive and declaratory relief. The case was tried to a jury which found for plaintif...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, America’s Favorite Chicken Company moves to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims and third-party claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For the reasons more fully articulated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Background America’s Favorite Chicken Compan...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendant Benny Lee Nussbaumer moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. In June 1993 federal officers executed search warrants at Nussbau...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff George L. Washington brings this action against defendant Thrall Car Manufacturing Company, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Presently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted. I. Background Plaintiff George Washington, an African-American male,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Dean Vlahos (“Vlahos”) was charged with criminal contempt for violating a court order requiring him to discontinue engaging in certain advertising practices without first posting a performance bond. After a contempt hearing on December 8, 1994, this Court found Vlahos in contempt for violating the order. Vlahos now raises numerous post-trial moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained, plaintiff First National Bank in Harvey’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Colonial Bank’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND Check kiting is a form ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (1) Reference is made to defendants’ motion to dismiss; this Court’s November 16, 1994 Memorandum and Order; this Court’s February 17, 1995 Memorandum to Counsel; and to all other filings in this case. (2) Plaintiff, David Alan Wineland (“Wine-land”), is a citizen of Tennessee. Defendants, County Commissioners of Dorchester County (“Commissioners”), are officers of a politic...
Views: 0
OPINION Before the Court are defendant’s motion to compel joinder of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) as a party defendant, plaintiffs opposition thereto, and defendant’s reply. Upon consideration of the entire, record, defendant’s motion to compel joinder is granted. Plaintiffs, present or former federal employees participating in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this lawsuit, plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program claims that state mental health officials have refused to release to it the records of two deceased former residents of one of the state’s mental health facilities in violation of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 6000-6083 (West Supp.1995). For the reasons stated b...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction and Background. This order relates only to Defendant William S. Kreisher, Esquire, District Attorney of Columbia County. Kreisher is being sued individually and in his official capacity as the District Attorney of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. On March 2, 1994, Plaintiffs Michael R. Boykin, Margaret L. Boykin, and Aaron M. Boykin filed a complaint in this Court against ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. (“GE Capital”) brought this action against the Pinnacle Mortgage Investment Corporation (“Pinnacle”), Sandra Stevens-Miller, and Albert A. Miller, III (collectively, the “defendants”). This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Currently before the court are GE Capital’s motions to reconsider this ...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendant Dayne Arthur Smoot moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. In September 1989, a series of search warrants were executed at Smo...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendant Jerry Paul Lillard has made several motions which raise issues regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Having considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I rule as follows. Lillard’s motion for return of property (# 147) is denied because Lillard has not shown an unlawful seizure of his property. The motion to vacate or correct sentence un...
Views: 0
Defendant Kelly Lawrence Jain moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. In January 1993 federal officers executed a search warrant at Jain’s resid...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The court has received defendant’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on a claim of double jeopardy. The matter has been fully briefed and is ready for decision without further hearing. After considering the materials submitted by defendant I conclude that the motion must be denied. This court has recently ruled that jeopardy attaches in a civil forfeiture action ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court are cross-motions for reconsideration of summary judgment by the parties in this declaratory judgment action. Having reviewed the memoran-da of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance and DENIES the motion of Exxon Corporation. Background Exxon Corporation (hereinafter “Exxon”) filed...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is á motion for summary judgment by defendant Smith Petroleum Company as to plaintiffs’ claims. The motion was submitted on memoranda only without oral argument on a previous date. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion. Background Plaintiffs filed this tort matter on May 23, 1994, seek...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds of double jeopardy. The motion is now fully briefed and ready for decision without further hearing. After considering the materials submitted by defendant I conclude that the motion must be denied. The facts set out by defendant establish that defendant was indicted and convicted in f...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The court has received defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence and dismiss his criminal conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy. After considering the materials submitted by defendant I conclude that the motion must be denied. This court has recently ruled that jeopardy attaches in a civil forfeiture action when final judgment of forfeiture is entered. See attached opini...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs claims arise out of the unauthorized publishing of her photograph by Defendant, Paisano Publications, and the subse *384 quent use of a similar photo design on shirts sold and manufactured by Defendant, Shurte Graphics, Inc., d/b/a T-Shurte’s. Each Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them. To consider these motions requires t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff Frontier Energy Corporation (“Frontier”) brought this action for injunctive relief to require the defendants to return certain well-tending equipment for its oil and gas wells. The defendants had taken possession of the equipment in anticipation of closing the sale of the leases and production rights for the wells. The .closing, set for March...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is opened before the Court upon the plaintiffs appeal of Magistrate Judge Pisano’s ruling of November 3, 1994 granting defendant’s in limine motion to admit certain letters from plaintiff to defendant into evidence over plaintiffs objections under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. This matter has been decided upon the written submissions of the partie...
Views: 1
Memorandum & Order In this action brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (“CERCLA”), defendants Tesa Tape Inc., Revere Smelting & Refining Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation make a motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. and Local Rule 3, filed on December 12, 1994. Sepa...
Views: 1
ORDER & OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed this action with the Court on November 18, 1994 seeking, essentially, an order directing Defendant to defend Plaintiffs in a lawsuit currently pending with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California....
Views: 1
OPINION This matter is opened before the Court upon the motion of defendants for summary judgment. The motion has been decided upon the written submissions of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons given below the motion will be granted with respect to counts four, seven, eight, and nine only, and with respect to punitive damages. The motion will be de...
Views: 3
ORDER Presently before the Court are TRW Inc.’s (“TRW’s”) Motion For Summary Judgment filed on September 16, 1993, Plaintiffs Response filed on October 6, 1993 and TRW’s Reply filed on October 21, 1993. Plaintiff alleges claims of defamation and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681t (“FCRA”) against Defendant. BACKGROUND On May 13, 1988, a $200 judgment was ent...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court are plaintiffs and defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment arising out of an Article 78 petition filed in the New York State Supreme Court, Broome County. The Article 78 petition al *66 leged various state procedural violations and also purported to allege federal and state Constitutional violations. Defendants’ removed the...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Veri Sigler appeals from the Secretary’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Currently before this Court are the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas A. Carlson (“the MJ”) for a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). In the R & R t...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This is an action to determine the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund’s (the “Plaintiff Fund”) right to audit the payroll records of Boening Brothers, Inc. (“Boening”) and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. (“Snyder”), employers that contribute to the Plaintiff Fund. 1 Boen-ing and Snyder refused to submit to the...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pending before the Court is Defendant Exxon Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiff brings this action for damages allegedly suffered as a result of the negligence of the Defendant, its agents, servants, and/or employees. ...
Views: 0
891 F.Supp. 388 (1995) COBB PUBLISHING, INC., and Joseph T. Cobb, Plaintiffs, v. HEARST CORPORATION, and Dow Jones & Co., Defendants. No. 93-CV-71771-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. June 16, 1995. *389 Mark Cantor, Ernie L. Brooks, Brooks & Kushman, Southfield, MI, for plaintiffs. Marjory G. Basile, Gregory L. Curtner, Michael Fayz, Miller Canfield, Det...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Defendants, Lawrence McCullough and Mitchell McCullough, are charged in a 29-count indictment with violations of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3371, et seq. Lawrence McCullough is charged in nine counts and Mitchell McCullough is charged in twenty-five counts. The charges generally involve defendants’ alleged purchase and export of g...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 16,1994, a Roanoke federal grand jury returned an eleven count indictment charging the Defendants, Victor and Janet Cucci, with various criminal conduct. These charges included: four counts of income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201; four counts of aiding and assisting in the filing of false income tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2); two counts of structuring financial t...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Introduction This is an action for trade dress infringement, false advertising, and “palming off’ pursuant to section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiff also pleads common law actions alleging unfair competition and dilution. 1 L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. (“Stickley”), a furniture manufacturer, claims that several pieces of the Stillw...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This litigation consists of two class-action lawsuits: Sims v. Montgomery County Comm’n, civE action no. 3708-N (M.DAla.), and Williams v. Montgomery County Sheriff’s Dept., civil action no. 82-T-717-N (M.D.Ala.). 1 In 1972 in Sims, a class of African-American employees sought reHef from the Montgomery County Sheriffs Depa...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff, Veronica Zueker’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court possesses jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Defendants’ motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND In deciding...
Views: 2
ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), upon the parties’ informal referral of a discovery dispute, which arose during the deposition of Richard Hedberg, who is a former employee of the Defendant IMC Fertilizer Company, which was taken on...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING ON AN IN LIMINE BASIS GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE OR FOR DISCOVERY Defendant Michelle T. Marenghi faces charges for conspiring to possess and distribute a controlled substance containing cocaine base and for the underlying substantive offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Now before the Court is the Government’s Mot...
Views: 0
I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), upon the Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Rule 35 orthopedic examination of the Plaintiff. A Hearing on the Motion was conducted on July 6, 1995, at which time the Plaintiff appeared by Paul A Strandness, Es...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On May 8,1995, Magistrate Judge Neiman issued his Report and Recommendation to the effect that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be allowed and that judgment enter in favor of the Massachusetts Nurses Association. No objection has been filed by the plaintiff to this recommendation. The defendant however, has object...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Raymond Anthony Brown was originally charged with a controlled substance offense and a firearm violation by the state of North Carolina. In return for his plea of guilty, the State of North Carolina dismissed the firearm offense. Presently, Defendant is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) which makes it a crime for any person: who has been convicted in an...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(A), upon the Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement. A Hearing on the Motion was conducted on July 6, 1995, at which time the Plaintiff appeared by James Courtney, III, Esq., and th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of the Copier Services Unlimited (“CSU”) plaintiffs for a supplemental protective order (Doc. # 42) and the related motion of defendant Xerox to compel discovery (Doc. *356#49). For the reasons set forth below, CSU’s motion will be granted and Xerox’ motion will be denied. Central to CSU’s antitrust claims in the instant action ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, David Lane, has requested that the Court dismiss the criminal charges pending against him. He argues that allowing the Government to prosecute him on these charges would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant contends that jeopardy previously attached as a result of three separate governmental actions: a st...
Views: 0
*474 ORDER INTRODUCTION On July 28, 1994, Plaintiff Paul D. Luck-ette, presently confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint and an Application for a Preliminary Injunction. A response and reply followed. On December 20, 1994, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. A response followed. These motions are ready for disposi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Defendant Braulio Sanchez has been charged in a Criminal Complaint with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in 21 U.S.C. § 812, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The Court now has before it Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the evidence gained as a result of the searc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the parties’ briefs and oral arguments regarding defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties consented to try their case before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This case involves a dispute over defendant’s failure to pay on a life insurance contract. Christopher Derickson applied for life insurance with defendant on...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for a preliminary injunction. At oral arguments, defendants moved to consolidate the hearing with a trial of the action on the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). Plaintiff agreed and requested that the court treat its motion for injunctive relief as one for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ....
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to Intervene as Party Plaintiff. Plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants Monsanto Company and Chevron Chemical Corporation in June of 1994. The Amended Complaint alleges various claims of employment discrimination pursuant to Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.,...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER We address today two outstanding motions in this employment discrimination case. The *457 first is filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), in which Plaintiff Danielle Jeffries asks the Court to continue consideration of Defendant Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International’s (“DTTI”) motion for summary judgment, so that she might conduct additional discovery...
Views: 0
Order This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Designation of Venue For Jury Trial (Docket No. 1), Counsel’s Certification in Support thereof (Docket No. 6), and Defendant’s Opposition thereto (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff seeks leave from this Court to retain venue for his negligence action against Defendant within the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida. Facts Th...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 946 (1995) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN ACTION NETWORK, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-0082-L. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division. June 28, 1995. *947 Lawrence M. Noble, Richard B. Bader, Stephen E. Hershkowitz, Robert W. Bonham, III, Federal Election Commission, Washington, DC, for Federal Election Commission, plaintiff. Frank...
Views: 7
OPINION I. Introduction and Background. This order relates only to Defendants Bloomsburg University, Dr. Robert Parrish, Dr. Curtis English, Dr. Harry Ausprich, Margaret Manning, Irvin Wright, John Walker, Timothy Downs, Sallie Samsel, and Lt. Deborah Barnes (hereinafter the “Commonwealth Defendants”). On March 2, 1994, Plaintiffs Michael R. Boykin, Margaret L. Boykin, and Aaron M. Boykin filed ...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION This cause is before the Court on Defendant Trust Annuity Plan for Pilots of Trans World Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. (Docket No. 64) Plaintiff has filed a Response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 80) Upon...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 37) and Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Docket No. 39). The R & R recommends denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed for habeas relief in this Court pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. This Court, under authority of 28 U.S.C. Section...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER Plaintiff David B. Bowman (“Bowman”) moves this Court to reconsider that part of its previous entry granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Bowman’s FLSA and fraud claims. See Bowman v. City of Indianapolis, 885 F.Supp. 1152 (S.D.Ind.1994). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Bowman’s motion in part and vacates its summary jud...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this toxic tort case, the Court must exercise its “gatekeeping responsibility” to assess whether Plaintiffs proffered expert opinions on causation are admissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Plaintiff here alleges chronic injury from exposure to aviation jet fuel (“AvJet”) vapors,...
Views: 3
ORDER Presently before the Court are Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction filed on March 4, 1993, Plaintiffs Response filed on March 24, 1993, Defendant’s Amended Reply filed on April 26, 1993, and Plaintiffs Response To Defendant’s Amended Affidavit filed on May 12, 1993; and Defendant’s Motion To Stay Discovery Proceedings filed on April 22, 1994, and Plaintif...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA AND EQUITABLE RELIEF This cause of action is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis or in the Alternative for Writ of Audita Querela and Equitable Relief (Docket No. 284); Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or in the Alternative for a Temporary Restraining Order...
Views: 0
*411 OPINION I. Introduction and Background. This order relates only to Defendant Virginia McAfee, a clerk-typist employed by Bloomsburg University. On March 2, 1994, Plaintiffs Michael R. Boykin, Margaret L. Boykin, and Aaron M. Boykin filed a complaint in this Court against several Defendants. On May 9, 1994, the Boykins filed a virtually identical complaint based upon the same facts in the C...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 13, *1403 1995. Plaintiffs brought this action on February 24,1995, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604, the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (“the Act” or “the CAA”). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. P...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled cause is a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction filed by the Respondent United States. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will GRANT the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGR...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This case is now before the court on the Geneva County Board of Education’s (“Board’s”) petition seeking approval of its proposal to relocate students currently enrolled in grades 6-12 at Coffee Springs School to other schools in its system and to discontinue those grades at Coffee Springs. The Board’s petition was filed on March 15, 1995. A hearing dat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on motion for summary judgment by plaintiff Herman Edelman and cross-motion for summary judgment by defendant Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Also before the Court is a motion for class certification by plaintiff. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs motions for summary...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doe. # 7]. Defendant, The Chronicle Publishing Company, owned, operated, published, and distributed a daily newspaper circulated generally throughout central Illinois entitled The Pantagraph. Plaintiff Ronald Pope (“Pope”) organized and incorporated Co-Plaintiff Serendipity: Russian Consulting & Development, Ltd. (“Ser...
Views: 0
ORDER CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION the above-styled and numbered civil action, the court having heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge at Beaumont, Texas, for proper consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court; and the court having received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge f...
Views: 0
ENTRY This matter is before the Court on the motion of Mayflower Transit, Inc., Transportation Service of Indiana, Inc., and Gentry Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively “Mayflower”), for preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. *1137 /. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. The plaintiffs in this action, Mayflower Transit, Inc., Trans...
Views: 0
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) and Plaintiffs response thereto. (Docket No. 14) I. Standard of Review A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts that support a claim for relief. Conle...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a class action citizen suit for damages pursuant to § 520(f), 30 U.S.C. § 1270(f), of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), by class representative Jo. D. Molinary (Molinary) against Powell Mountain Coal Company, Inc., d/b/a Wax Coal (Wax Coal). 1 The class — known as the “Pruitt heirs” — owns more than a 99 percent undivided int...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, Caldwell Trucking PRP Group (“PRP Group”), is an unincorporated association of the parties attempting to remediate hazardous substance contamination at the Caldwell Trucking site pursuant to a consent decree entered by this Court in State of New *1250 Jersey and United States of America v. the Carborundum Company et al., consolidated Civil...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the court pursuant to defendants’ February 15, 1995 motion to dismiss (docket number 11). Plaintiff filed a resistance to the motion on March 8, 1995. On March 21, 1995, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for any and all proceedings in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The motion is granted. I. BACKG...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS On March 21, 1995, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant Farrell Sutherland, charging him with rob*660bery of Key Bank and People’s Heritage Bank, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and Defendant Melissa Foster, charging her with aiding and abetting in the robbery of Key Bank, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2. Both Defe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause comes before me on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff claims that the defendants denied him his constitutional right to due process and the resultant entitle *877 ment to lost wages. The defendants, employees of the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON JURISDICTION AND VENUE Pending before the Court for ruling is the Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue And Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction Or, In The Alternative, For Change Of Venue filed by defendant Griffin Petroleum, Inc. In the Order filed June 12, 1995, the Court dismissed individual defendant Steven Griffin for lack of personal jurisdiction. The p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. It is now before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief requesting that the defen *203 dants Barbour County Board of Education (“Board”) pay over to The Pathway School (“Pathway”), where Blaise Stock...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1183 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1184 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1186 A. Undisputed Facts.1186 B. Disputed Facts.1188 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1189 A. The Nature Of Utica’s Cause Of Action.1189 1. Actions fou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court following a bench trial held from June 12, 1995 through June 15, 1995. Plaintiff Whirlpool Financial Corporation (Whirlpool) filed suit against Mercantile Business Credit, Incorporated (MBCI), Richard Sullivan, Robert Bumberry, Richard *1258Weber and Donald Hindman. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In an Order dated June 9,1995...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION TO STRIKE This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike (Docket Nos. 4-5) and response thereto (Docket Nos. 12-13). Upon consideration of the motions and memoranda of the parties, this Court finds that the Defendants’ motions must be granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND This action concerns alleged violation...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court held a three day bench trial in this matter commencing on September 29, 1994, and continuing through the early part of October 1994. At the close of the trial, the parties were given the opportunity to submit post-trial briefing which was completed in December 1994. The Court has considered and weighed the evidence adduced at trial and reviewed the post-tr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the court on appeal from an order entered by Bankruptcy Court Judge Jack B. Schmetterer denying the Application of Debtor in Possession for Approval of its Selection and Retention of Attorneys under section 327(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. section 101 et seq. In the application, debtor Capen Wholesale, I...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERTS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULING IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . 1424 II.THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 1426 A. Standards For Summary Judgment. 1426 B. Findings Of Fact. 1427 1. Undisputed facts . 1427 2. Disputed facts. 1429 ...
Views: 0
ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff in the above titled case is in the business of television broadcasting. This lawsuit arises from plaintiffs August 5,1994, broadcast of a videotape which showed the abduction of a woman, Julia A. Flege, by a man later identified as Chaneey E. Wright. After her abduction, Ms. Flege was murdered and Wright was apprehended in connection with this crime. Plaintif...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jesus Daulo filed a five-count First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) alleging, in short, race discrimination on the part of defendants Commonwealth Edison [sic] (plaintiffs employer) and Philip Stachel-ski, Donald Cook, Thomas Cook, and Anthony Broccolo (plaintiffs supervisors in one capacity or another). 1 Count I alleges race discrim...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is requesting a declaration that the insurance policy at issue null and void by the application of KRS 304.14-110. After careful consideration of the plain meaning and intent of that statute, the Court will sustain Plaintiffs motion for a declaratory judgment. However, the Court requests that ...
Views: 2
ORDER Now before the Court is the Motion of Defendant, Developmental Services of Tulsa, Inc. (“Defendant”), for summary judgment against the allegation by Plaintiff John Linn (“Plaintiff’) that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (hereinafter “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. I. Facts Plaintiff ...
Views: 1
DECISION John Collette moves at Docket No. 1106 for an order staying proceedings in this matter while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considers his appeal from an Order of this Court denying his motion at Docket No. 1015 to dismiss the indictment and the resulting criminal prosecution against him on the ground that a prior civil forfeiture constituted a prior “jeopardy” barr...
Views: 0
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS (Reconsideration) I. INTRODUCTION In this action for declaratory judgment, Colonial Insurance Company of California (“Colonial”) seeks a declaration that it is not obligated to pay the claims of Derek Tumble-son and his family (“Tumblesons”) under the uninsured/underinsured (“UM/UIM”) coverage of the auto insurance issued to them by Colonial. Both parties moved for summary jud...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Respondents’ subsequent Motion to Dismiss, and the Court, having carefully considered the materials submitted in support of both the petition and motion to dismiss, having heard oral argument of the parties and being otherwise ful...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This case involves a vitriolic dispute over the right to the possession and use of a parcel of land in the Congressional Village of Carrollton, New York. Currently before the court are (1) plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration, and to permanently stay proceedings in the Seneca Nation of Indians Peacemakers’ Court in an action entitled John v. Mid-America Waste Systems, Inc...
Views: 0
ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 1995, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins, and the objections of plaintiff thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, consistent with the Report and Recommendation, that: 1. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED; 2. Defendants’ moti...
Views: 0
OPINION Claimant Jacqueline Fabel brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1991) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) for review of a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Because the Court finds that the Social Security Ruling on which the Secretary relied to reach its conclusion...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Denise Childree files this action under the “whistle-blower” provision of the False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (1994), and under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (1994). Plaintiffs Complaint also includes an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under state law. The essence of Plaintiffs claims are that Defendants t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Kenneth Ashley (“Defendant”) has filed an ex parte application seeking an Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) (“Rule 17(c)”), permitting the service of a subpoena duces tecum directed to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice. DISCUSSION I....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER In the above-referenced action, Plaintiff Helene Curtis, Inc. alleges that Defendant National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc. has violated certain provisions of the Lanham and Tariff Acts by offering for sale certain “gray market goods.” Gray market goods are “goods made by a foreign manufacturer, ‘legitimately sold abroad under a particular trademark^] ... imported int...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiff, Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, *209 commenced this action in August 1994 against defendants, James R. Johnson, Laura J. Johnson and Carolyn J. Hordichuk. At all times relevant to the complaint, defendants were named trustees of an employee benefit plan and an employee profit-sharing plan for the Bil-Jim Construction Company, Inc. and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 174 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................ 175 A. Sentencing memorandum ........................................... 175 B. Appeal............................................................ 176 C. Appellate court opinions.........
Views: 0
OPINION This is an age, race, and national origin discrimination action brought by Farid S. Khair against his employer Campbell Soup Company (“Campbell”) alleging discriminatory transfer, failure to promote, and retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (...
Views: 1
OPINION These are personal injury actions arising from plaintiff’s decedent’s airplane crash into the Atlantic Ocean. Defendant United States moves to dismiss Palischak v. U.S., No. 94-cv-4768 (JEI), and defendants, Allied Signal and United States, move for partial summary judgment in Palischak v. Allied Signal Inc., No. 94-cv-178 (JEI). For the reasons below, defend...
Views: 0
ORDER This action is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [143-1], (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [144-1], (3) Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief [172-1], (4) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Affidavit [186-1], (5) Defendant’s Motion for Expenses [186-2], (6) Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees [186-3], and (7) Plaintif...
Views: 1
ORDER On September 23, 1994, Frank S. Dorman (“Plaintiff’), currently an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, filed this Complaint [1-1], alleging that Defendants violated his due process rights by conducting Plaintiffs federal parole revocation hearing in Georgia as opposed to New York. All Defendants are federal actors and thus the Court treats Plaintiffs Comp...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This action is before the court for decision following a five-day bench trial held April 18-22, 1994. Plaintiff BOC Health Care, Inc. (“BOC”) seeks declaratory judgment that the BOC OxyTip oximeter sensors, 1 if used and/or sold for use with oximeters other than BOC oximeters, will not infringe defendant Nellcor Incorporated’s (“Nellcor”) three “Rea...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [4-1]. The Court accepts Plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of reviewing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. I. FACTS Plaintiff New England Company is in the business of providing lease financing to its customers. To facilitate this business, Plaintiff obtained a $500,000 line of credit from B...
Views: 0
*1334 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1335 II. Parties, Posture, and Pending Pleadings 1336 A. All Roads Lead to Houston 1336 1. Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., No. H-94-1337 1336 2. Jorge Cárcamo v. Shell Oil Co., No. H-94-1359 1337 3. Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co., H-94-3248 1338 4. Erazo v. Shell Oil Co., H-94-...
Views: 1
OPINION OF THE COURT This is an action to enforce rights under seven promissory notes and related security agreements. The Court’s jurisdiction is premised on the parties’ diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Now before the Court is plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). I During the 1980’s, plaintiff Whitney National Bank loaned substantial sums of money ...
Views: 0
*509 MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. After careful consideration of the record, the applicable law, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the arguments presented by counsel at the hearing, the court finds that it must grant defendants’ motion. I. BACKGROUN...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Callye Bistrian appeals a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to convert her Chapter 13 petition to a Chapter 7 liquidation. She presents three questions for our review. First, may a debtor orally request a voluntary dismissal of her Chapter 13 petition at a hearing on another party’s motion, o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now before the court is the Third Motion of Defendants Wilson M. Williams and David D. Padgett, Sr. for Sanctions (doc. 280). Plaintiff has filed a response. Defendants have filed a reply. This is an action against certain officers and directors of Colonial Savings and Loan Association of America, a federally chartered savings and loan. The complaint alleges breach of fiduc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are the motions by Defendants United States Postal Service and United States Office of Personnel Management Retirement Programs to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment and the motion of Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) for summary judgment. Plaintiff has declined to respond 1 to either motion although the response peri...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doe. 249), filed on behalf of plaintiff Julian (herein called Julian). Defendant has filed a response. Julian has filed a reply. This matter was tried before a jury commencing August 1, 1994. The...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendants. The Court having reviewed the Motion, the Response, the Briefs of counsel, the authorities cited and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds as follows, to wit: *1090 FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a complex case involving a figh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff, Marcam Corporation, has brought this action to enforce the non-competition provisions of an employment agreement between it and its former employee, defendant Frank Orchard. Marcam also has made claims against Orchard’s current employer, Datalogix International, for intentional interference with the contractual relations between Marcam and Orchard and f...
Views: 1
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS GENERAL ELECTRIC AND WESTINGHOUSE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On April 26, 1994, Defendants Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), General Electric *1411 Company (“GE”), and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (“Westinghouse”) filed a joint motion for sum...
Views: 2
892 F.Supp. 1246 (1995) SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John MAUPIN, et al., Defendants. No. 4:95CV815 CDP. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. July 7, 1995. *1247 Frank Susman, Susman and Schermer, Douglas Bruce La Pierre, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs. James R. Layton, Atty. Gen. of Mo., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, M...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS The court heard the motions on May 22, 1995. Rebecca L. Covert, Esq., appeared on behalf of Petitioner Hawaii Nurses Association (the “Union”). William J. Emanuel, Esq., appeared on behalf of Respondent.1 After reviewing the motions and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the court ...
Views: 0
*1188 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are eight motions for summary judgment. 1 Defendants USX Corporation and U.S. Steel Mining Co. (collectively “USX”) filed four motions for summary judgment. 2 Plaintiff Carbon Fuel Co. (“Carbon Fuel”), and Third-Party Defendants Consolidation Coal Co. (“Consol”), Old Ben Coal Co. (“Old Ben”), and Arch Mineral Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed June 12,1995. The Plaintiffs have not responded. The time for response has passed and the motion is ripe for adjudication. For reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. I A principal purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of meritless litigation. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 47...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Presently before this court is Plaintiffs motion to overrule Defendants’ objections based on the marital communication privilege at a non-party’s deposition. Plaintiff alleges that Deponent’s assertion of the marital privilege was not warranted because the communications at issue were not confidential. Plaintiff also asserts that Deponent’s failure to specifically answer questions pert...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before me is Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief, which presents as its principal question whether Petitioner’s state court sentence for the offenses of burglary and receiving stolen property was unlawfully cumulative in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Double Jeopardy bar. On February 7, 1995, United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angelí filed a Report a...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is a medical malpractice action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. During July 1989, plaintiffs husband, Mr. Vance Le Roy Robinson, was suffering from acute abdominal pain. Plaintiff took her husband to the Veterans Administration Medical Center (‘VAMC”) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He was denied admission to VAMC, however, because the...
Views: 0
OPINION In this case, plaintiff charges that defendant discriminated against him in violation of Title VII (reverse racial discrimination) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it terminated his employment. This cause is presently before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. FACTS The plaintiff, Jerry Lee Farley, a white male, was employed by the defendant, Gi...
Views: 1
RULING ON APPEAL The court concludes the California Government Code section 53856 lien securing Appellants’ 1994-95 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes is a statutory lien which survived the filing of Orange County’s Chapter 9 petition. I. BACKGROUND Appellants hold approximately $60 million of Orange County, California, tax and revenue anticipation notes. Appellees are Orange County and...
Views: 0
OPINION I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. *652 As the motions judge for the month of June, the undersigned considered the matter and heard oral argument because Judge Harris, to whom the case is assigned, was unavailable. Most of the facts relevant to this case have previously been set forth in the opinion of the United ...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 505 (1995) CVI/BETA VENTURES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CUSTOM OPTICAL FRAMES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. PJM 94-760. United States District Court, D. Maryland. July 14, 1995. Francis B. Burch, Jr., Robert J. Mathias, John Caleb Dougherty, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, MD, James J. Maune, New York City, for plaintiffs. Jody Maier, Arthur P. Fergenson, Weinberg & Green...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff Celeste Walker (‘Walker”) has filed this employment discrimination action seeking compensation for the alleged discriminatory conduct of Defendants Correctional Medical Systems (“CMS”) and Allegheny County (the “County”) arising out of her employment as a nurse at the Allegheny County Jail. Pending before the Court is the County’s Motion...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) moves to amend its answer to add the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction against plaintiff AIU Insurance Company (“AIU”). Northwest also seeks summary judgment against plaintiff. I. In January 1993, plaintiff’s assured, Proctor & Gamble Far East, Inc. (“PGFE”), bought 116 pallets of polyethylene film from Tredeg...
Views: 0
OPINION In this patent infringement case the Court, on August 4, 1994, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs CVI/BETA Ventures, Inc., et al. against Defendants Custom Optical Frames, Inc. and Charles Dahan, prohibiting them from shipping or distributing nickel-titanium based shape-memory alloy eyeglass frames to certain named retailers or from filling orders of more t...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Jerry Choe, has sued Fordham University School of Law and Fordham International Law Journal (“ILJ”) for their alleged mutilation of his Comment, Fortino v. Quasar: ParenURight Invocation for U.S. Subsidiaries of Japanese Companies Under U.S. — Japan Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, 15 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1130 (1992). He clai...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action pursuant to the federal securities laws and on various State law theories in which plaintiffs claim that they were induced by fraud to enter into a joint venture agreement with defendant Atlantic International Finance, Inc. (“Atlantic”) of which defendant James W. Massaro allegedly is president. The joint venture agreement contains a broad arbitration clause.1...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This case is before the Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. (‘VW & R”) and defendant Truck Drivers Union, Local 407 (“Local 407”). For the reasons that follow, Local 407’s motion is granted and VW & R’s motion is denied. I. Procedural History This is an actio...
Views: 0
*130 MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Alex Romansky, appeals the Secretary of Health & Human Services’s decision to reduce his social security disability benefits by the full amount plaintiff received from a commuted lump sum settlement of a workers’ compensation award. The Secretary reduced plaintiffs social security disability benefits pursuant to the “offset” provision of the Social Security Act. 42 U....
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by Axa Marine and Aviation Insurance (UK) Limited and the Marine Insurance Co., Limited (“Underwriters”) against Sea-Jet Industries, Inc., Sea-Jet Trucking Corp.,1 and A.P.A. Warehouse, Inc. (“Insureds”). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment stating that they are not required to defend and indemnify Insureds with respect to claims in .an action in N...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant has been indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Court previously ruled in open court on most of defendant’s pretrial motions but reserved decision on his motion to suppress the fruits of a Title III electronic surveillance order. This memorandum disposes of that motio...
Views: 1
891 F.Supp. 492 (1995) ANSCHUTZ MINING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. No. 1:88 CV 72 SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. June 23, 1995. *493 Maurice B. Graham, Padberg McSweeney, St. Louis, MO, Norella Huggins and George D. Martin, Armstrong Teasdale Schlafly & Davis, St. Louis, MO, and Richard A. Oertli, Holme Roberts & Owe...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this age discrimination suit against a school district and the union representing the district’s teachers. The defendants negotiated a salary structure that gives higher pay to teachers with greater experience. The district prefers to hire inexperienced teachers to minimize its payr...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Hugh Henry petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on November 12, 1991, and on November 29, 1991, the petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Gershon for a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On April 25, 1995, the Magistrate Judge issued the attached Report, recommending that I grant the petition. Counsel for respondent timely f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER There is much empirical evidence to support the conclusion that in this district much *832 of the judicial heavy lifting is done exceptionally well by the four United States magistrate judges. Certainly, such is the case reflected in the 70-page Report and Recommendation presented to this court by Magistrate Judge Cosbey on June 6, 1995. It comes as n...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs bring this action under federal antitrust laws 1 and state law 2 asserting, inter alia, that defendants improperly denied plaintiff David Leak, M.D., medical staff privileges at Grant Medical Center. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 19 and 20). Defendants argue that they are...
Views: 0
*126 OPINION AND ORDER RE COLLECTION OF MONEY This is an action for collection of money under the terms of certain payment bond issued by codefendant Seaboard Surety Company and surety for a Navy contractor Delta Contractors Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Delta). The cause of action arises under the provisions of 40 U.S.C. §§ 270(a)-210(d), The Miller Act, which gran...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has filed this multi-count action alleging that the defendants have infringed its patent on a disposable prophy angle (DPA), misappropriated certain confidential proprietary information and trade secrets, engaged in constructive fraud; and that defendant Kraenzle has breached a Proprietary Agreement with the plaintiff. The defendants have counterclaimed challenging the vali...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court to consider the bankruptcy court’s denial of Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey’s application for attorneys’ fees. The bankruptcy court denied the application because it found that Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey had represented an interest adverse to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors and had failed to timely disclose its representation of a ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Kompan A.S., Kompan, Inc. and Kom-pan/Big Toys Northeast (collectively Kom-pan) 1 , manufacture and distribute playground equipment. Defendants Park Structures, Inc., Kay and Alan Bayman and Baughman Bros., Inc. (collectively “PSI”) compete with Kompan as manufacturers and/or distributors of playground equipment. PSI ha...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. (“Laidlaw”), owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Roebuck, South Carolina. As part of that facility, Laidlaw maintains a wastewater treatment plant for water used in the incineration process. Laidlaw discharges the treated wastewater into the North Tyger River purs...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) motion for partial dismissal, or alternatively for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs have responded and UPS has replied. UPS has also moved to strike certain affidavits filed as exhibits to the plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition. For the reasons that follow, Defendant will be granted partial s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court upon cross motions for summary judgment of the plaintiff, Elmer Dials [Dials], and the defendants, SMC Coal & Terminal Company and the Benefit Committee of Wolf Creek Collieries [SMC]. [Records No. 25 and 28]. Being fully briefed, the motions are ripe for decision. BACKGROUND The case sub judice concer...
Views: 0
891 F.Supp. 1340 (1995) YOUNG DENTAL MANUFACTURING CO., Plaintiff, v. Q3 SPECIAL PRODUCTS, INC., David G. Kraenzle and Chris J. Carron, Defendants. No. 4:93CV2319SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. July 14, 1995. *1341 Joseph F. Devereux, Jr., Devereux and Murphy, Clayton, MO, for Young Dental Mfg. Co., Inc. Rudolph A. Telscher, J. Bennett Clark, Senniger, Powers, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Edward Adler et al. bring this action for damages against Berg Harmon Associates, et al. for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 *100et seq.; and common law fraud. The action is ...
Views: 0
ORDER The trial of this matter is set to commence on Tuesday, April 4, 1995. Presently pending before the Court are two motions in limine filed by the defendant. Having received and reviewed those motions, together with Plaintiffs oppositions thereto, the Court has reached the conclusions delineated in the following opinion and order. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. J...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion for summary judgment of Defendants Judge & Dolph, Limited (“Judge & Dolph”) and Wirtz Corporation (‘Wirtz”). In the alternative, Wirtz moves to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Wirtz’s motion to dismiss i...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Verson Corporation brought this lawsuit alleging that defendants Verson International Group, Verson Wilkins Limited, and Verson International Limited violated a license agreement for intellectual property. Before us now is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. *360 ...
Views: 0
ORDER On April 19, 1995, the Court heard arguments on plaintiffs and defendant’s motions for summary adjudication of two issues: (1) whether defendant Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. (“Atlantic Mutual”) had a duty to defend plaintiff First Pacific Networks, Inc. (“FPN”) in Phase I of the underlying lawsuit, Arthur Bass v. First Pacific Networks (the “Bass lawsuit”); and (2) whether At...
Views: 1
The plaintiff William Riley (“Riley”) has brought this action to recover bonus compensation from his former employer NFS Services, Inc. (“NFS”). Specifically, he seeks to recover a portion of net profits earned by NFS as a result of a contract between NFS and The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (“Equitable”). The profits were earned subsequent to Riley’s leaving NFS. The p...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The bankruptcy court below found that appellant River Bank America (“River Bank”) had received a fraudulent conveyance of $1.4 million from the debtor FBN Food Services, Inc. (“FBN”). The court avoided the $1.4 million transfer and granted Trustee James Carmel’s (“Trustee”) request to recover the funds, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest. River Ba...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 3, 1994 (the “1994 Opinion”), the Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs now move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims. Defendants move, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, for an order granting them costs and attorneys’ ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.1120 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1121 FACTS .1122 A. The Parties.1122 B. The Quail Run Transaction.1122 1) York Associates’ Agency Relationship with Ginnie Mae.1122 2) The York-USGI Agreement.1123 3) The Quail Run Security Purchase and Redemption.1123 C. The Forest Isle Transaction.1124 DISCU...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT KUHN’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULE 11 SANCTIONS I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Billie M. Ireland, Mayor of the City of Rochester Hills since 1985, brought this action against Defendants Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, and Richard D. Kuhn on December 8, 1994. Defendants Tunis, Thompson and Meiers are, respectively, a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this patent infringement action, plaintiff The Upjohn Company (“Upjohn”) moves for an order holding defendants in contempt of the preliminary and permanent injunctions issued by this Court on October 12,1990 and November 17, 1992, respectively. For the reasons set forth below, Upjohn’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND As this matter has been befo...
Views: 1
OPINION In this diversity action the certified public accounting firm of Dolinka VanNoord & Co. and its partners, as plaintiffs, have brought a claim for contribution against defendant Oppenheimer & Co. (“Oppenheimer”), a securities brokerage firm. The claim arises from a judgment entered by this court against plain *1246 tiffs’ predecessor, Dolinka Smith & Van-Noord (“DS...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Before the court is the Federal National Mortgage Association’s (FNMA) appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision denying FNMA’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Because the issues involve mixed questions of fact and law, a mixed standard of review is called for, under which this court: must accept th...
Views: 1
*185 MEMORANDUM This ease, apparently the first of its kind in Pennsylvania, is a “false memory” lawsuit 1 by parents against their daughter’s former mental health counselors. 2 Plaintiffs, Kenneth J. Turnan and Joan E. Turnan, allege that while treating the Tuman’s only child, Diane, for bulimia, Defendants implanted false memories that Plaintiffs murde...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In the only remaining Count of their Complaint, 1 plaintiffs Robert and Carole Gombosi allege that defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., as amended (“TILA”) and its accompanying regulations, 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.1 et seq., by failing to make required disclosures and failing to provide plaintiffs a right of rescission in connection with a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellant Robert L. Taft (the Debtor) appeals from an August 20, 1994 order (the Order) of Judge Marvin A. Holland of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, sustaining the objections filed by the Trustee in Bankruptcy, here the Appellee (the Trustee), to the Debt- or’s claims that his interest in (1) annuities *190 established p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The City of Cleveland brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 against the City of Brook Park. Cleveland seeks a declaratory judgment that certain of Brook Park’s ordinances offend both the supremacy clause and the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, and an injunction against the enforcement of these ordinances. This Court’s jurisdiction is p...
Views: 1
*614 ORDER Before the court is defendant’s second summary judgment motion, filed in the wake of this case’s remand from the Eleventh Circuit. This court granted defendant’s first summary judgment motion. As a matter of law, the court held that defendant had canceled the property insurance policy at issue prior to the fire that damaged the building that had at one time contained plaintiffs then-...
Views: 0
ORDER BACKGROUND: On February 11, 1994, plaintiff Richard R. Canady, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he is the subject of harassment and abuse as a result of testifying before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this action challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Services (the Commissioner) denying his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (the Act). Both parties move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). I Plaintiff, born on April 23, 1959, has had, despite his rela...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On February 14, 1995, adult plaintiffs Charles Picarella and Elizabeth Picarella, and minor plaintiff Elizabeth Picarella initiated this action with the filing of a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the investigation of an allegation of child abuse by officials and employees of the Southern Columbia A...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This action was brought by plaintiffs against their former employer, Tom and Sandra Overmyer (“Overmyers”), and the Over-myers’ farm labor contractor, Kerry Gomez. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged numerous violations of the Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872, and the Federal Insurance C...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Air Tool Lodge Co. 969, AFL-CIO’s (“Union”) Motion for Summary *919Judgment (# 12). The Union seeks to compel arbitration between the Union and Defendant Indreseo, Inc. — Industrial Tool Division (“Indresco”) over the discharge of a former employee of Indresco. Having reviewed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: This declaratory judgment action 1 was filed by plaintiff Western World Insurance Company (Western World) against defendant Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance) 2 to determine which of them is the primary insurer for claims asserted in a civil rights action 3 filed against the City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (the city), ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action is a collection of federal and state claims in which a few residents of a cooperative apartment building complain they were treated unfairly by the cooperative corporation when the cooperative was converted to condominiums. Plaintiffs’ basic complaint is that, while the condominium conversion increased the apartment units’ value, this increase was enjoye...
Views: 1
Memorandum, Opinion This action is before the court upon defendant James Murphy’s challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was charged. Substantially relying on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), defendant first argues that Congress exceeded its authority to legislate under the commerce clause of Article I, § ...
Views: 2
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff Patricia McGuirk Geraci (“Gera-ci”) has filed this employment discrimination action alleging that her former employer, Defendant Moody-Tottrup International, Inc. (“MTI”) discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy when she was laid off from her employment as an inspection coordinator at MTI. Pending before the Court is MTI’s...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Defendants, Amado Fernández Ventura and Milagros Cedeño, request that we suppress inculpatory statements made in the absence of Miranda warnings while defendants were subject to secondary Customs inspection and interrogation. We conclude that the defendants’ statements were made after their rights to silence and counsel had attached and while subject ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Before me is another in a continuing procession of cases that arose when the combination of sciolistic laissez faire banking policy and individual greed produced the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. During that time hundreds of banks, including Key Savings & Loa...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The issue presented in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) is constitutional in its application to transfers made to Defendants within ninety days before bankruptcy by M & L Business Machine Co., Inc. (“M & L”), a debtor engaged in a Ponzi scheme,1 and the separate classification of transferees subject to § 547(b) bears ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The removing Defendants GOM Management, Incorporated (“GOM”), AVil-liam B. Sturgill (“Sturgill”), and Golden Oak Mining, L.P. (“Golden Oak”) have not responded to this motion. The matter is now mature for the Court’s consideration. Rayburn Browning was employed by Defendant Geupel Construction Company (“Geupel”) on Surfac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Jack E. Robinson (“Robinson”), has brought this action seeking a declaration that his book, entitled American Icarus: The Majestic Rise and Tragic Fall of Pan Am (the “Robinson Book”), does not infringe on the copyright and license rights held by defendants (collectively “Daley”) in another book, entitled American Saga: Juan Trippe and ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiffs, Imam Hamzah S. Alameen a/k/a Gilbert Henry and Robert Golden, against defendants, Thomas A. Coughlin III, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and Bert Ross, the Superintendent of the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility. The matter is currently before the Co...
Views: 28
ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In its previous entry, 1 the Court found that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter on the part of Defendants and dismissed Counts I and II with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Constantine Stamatio (“Stamatio” or “Plaintiff’) now moves this Court to reconsider its judgment of April 1...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Nachson Draiman (“Draiman”) brings this three-count action, both on his own behalf and for a purported class of similarly situated individuals, against American Express Travel Related Services Company (“American Express”). Draiman contends that by reinstating his cancelled credit card (“Platinum Card”) without his express permission and by then seeking to collect ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER An evidentiary hearing was held on June 5, 1995 and June 26,1995 on defendant’s motion to suppress post-arrest statements on the ground that he does not speak or understand English and therefore did not understand his Miranda warnings. The evidence adduced at the hearing persuades this Court that Defendant Abdul Kahn Ghafoor speaks and understands English and knowingly and v...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Carmelo Garcia, currently incarcerated at the Sullivan Correctional Facility, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, of two counts of Murder in the Second Degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25, and sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 25 years to ...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order In these admiralty cases, garnishee The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) seeks to vacate attachments issued to plaintiffs under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (“Rule B”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to vacate the attachments is denied. Background The facts in this case...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Defendant Hilliard, a police officer. Plaintiff also sued Defendant City of Glenwood, in its capacity as employer of Hilliard, in tort and for failure to train or supervise its officers. The City now moves for summary judgment. For reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion. I. Summary Judgment St...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Laurence Brown is seeking damages and other relief from defendant Sprini/CJnited Management Company under the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, MCLA § 37.1101, based upon the termination of his employment, allegedly due to the fact that plaintiff is HIV positive. Before the court is defendant’s moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Drew Badanish (“Badanish”) initially filed a Complaint for Administrative Review and Other Relief in the Circuit Court of Cook County, naming as defendants the City of Chicago and certain of its departments and officials (for convenience all defendants are treated in the singular here and are collectively referred to as “City”). City then filed a timely Notice of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff brought this action alleging three violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.: (1) charge of an excessive premium for continued health insurance in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1162; (2) failure to provide requested plan documents in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 17, 1995 this matter came on for trial before a jury. Defendant was indicted in a one-count indictment charging him with violating the “felon-in-possession” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Prior to trial the Defendant submitted his proposed instructions for the jury. He requested, inter alia, the Court instruct the jury that the Defendant’s possession of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Kirkpatrick W. Dilling and M. Richard Walker appeared for the plaintiffs; Steven J. Sorenson and Susan Strahm represented the defendants. The parties filed extensive memoranda and supporting materials, after which the Court *1514 heard oral ar...
Views: 0
OPINION Clifton Savings Bank (“bank”) appeals an order (i) denying the bank’s motion to reconsider an order entered on December 16, 1994, by the Honorable Judith H. Wizmur, U.S.B.J., in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action (Case No. 93-15200) filed by Sydney and Ethel Jackson (“debtors”) and (ii) denying the bank’s motion to declare the debtors’ newly filed Chapter 13 petition (Case No. 94-15916) voi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a products liability action brought by plaintiff Deborah Landberg against defendant Ricoh International because of injuries she suffered while operating a photocopier manufactured by defendant. Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of damages and other relief based upon injuries suffered by plaintiff Rita Garland during a police raid on her home. During the raid, Garland attempted to swallow a baggie filled with cocaine. As a result, Rita Garland is now in a persisten...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendant Lee Davis Strickland is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the court is defendant’s motion to suppress the pistol taken from a car that he was driving at the time of his arrest on other charges. Defendant contends that the pistol should be suppressed because it was seized in the course of an ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This retaliatory discharge case was tried to the court on October 3, 1994. Plaintiff presented her evidence and rested. At the close of plaintiffs case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law (doe. 60). The court took the motion under advisement. The defendant presented its evidence and rested. At the close of the defendant’s case, defendant renewed its motio...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter came before the Court originally on plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against defendants the Association of Employees of the Commonwealth of Puer-to Rico (“the Association”), Isaac Neftalí Rojas Nater, Roberto Aquino García and Miguel Martinez Williams. During the hearing on plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, held July 6-7,...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on motion for summary judgment by West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (“West of England”). West of England seeks a judgment declaring the protection and indemnity (P & I) insurance policy issued by West of England to Best Workover, Inc., Gantry Services, Inc., Best Oilfield Services, Inc. and Wor...
Views: 0
*360 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The court has before it a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 220). Plaintiffs thereby seek leave to amend their first amended complaint to allege that defendant has discriminated against them because of their race as Mexiean-American or native-born Mexican. The first amended complaint alleges discrimination only because of their national origin as M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This matter came before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Oritt of Cohne, Rappaport & Segal, A. Howard Lundgren of Keller & Lundgren, and Eve C. Gartner of the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy. Defendants are represented by Jan Graham, Attorney...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on appeal from an Opinion and Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Lamoutte, J., granting appel-lee’s motion for summary judgment and accordingly denying appellants’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Haysman brought suit against Defendant Food Lion for discrimination on the basis of disability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery. Food Lion moves for summary judgment on the disability claims, arguing that Haysman does not meet the requirements of the ADA or the Georgia Equal Employment for the Handi *1097 capped Code (GEEHC). Food...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff John Harding (“Harding”) filed this action against his former employer, Du-quesne Light Co. (“Duquesne Light” or “Company”), seeking to recover severance pay and certain other employee benefits that were denied to him when he was discharged from his employment after testing positive for marijuana in a random drug test. Pending before the Court are ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial on March 3, 1995. Plaintiff was represented by James Winchester, Assistant United States Attorney, and Defendant was represented by Stuart Keown. At the conclusion of the case, the Court granted each side *401 the opportunity to file written closing arguments. Those have been received and reviewed by the Court. Further a...
Views: 0
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS This securities law ease is presently before the court on the plaintiffs’ application for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and contempt citations (docket # 77) and on motion of the defendants John and Constance Andresen (“the Andresens”) to modify the existing preliminary injunction (docket #79). An evidentiary hearing was held on June 14,1...
Views: 0
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Said motion together with Plaintiffs suggestions in support, Defendants’ suggestions in opposition, Plaintiffs reply suggestions, and all primary and supplemental proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were reviewed by the Court. After due consideration of the above and all of ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Now before the Court are the motions for entry of final judgment filed by defendants Cambridge Chemical, Inc. (“Cambridge Chemical”), Cardinal Fabricating Corp. (“Cardinal”), Hartwig, Inc. (“Hartwig”), Hel-mut’s Building Supply Service, Inc. (“Hel-mut’s”), Robert Howell, Lincoln Savings Bank (“Lincoln Savings”), Service Painting Corp. (“Service Painting”), and Texac...
Views: 3
OPINION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW [[Image here]] *761 [[Image here]] INTRODUCTION In years past, a person with an arthritic hip was generally relegated to a wheelchair. The advent of modern medical prosthesis technology now permits such a person to walk and resume a normal life through the use of an artificial socket, ball and neck of the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff, H.K. Porter Co., Inc. [hereinafter Porter], for Reconsideration (Docket #: 52). Porter asks this Court to reconsider a portion of its Opinion and Order dated January 3,1995, wherein this Court found that Porter had only three covered claims against Defendant, the Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association [hereinafter PIGA]...
Views: 1
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM OF GARZA On this day came on to be considered Plaintiff Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Claims for Relief against Defendant C. Carlos Garza and Texas...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION FACTS This action for malpractice and fraud is before the court on the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Industrial Recycling Systems, Inc. (“Indrec”), filed suit seeking damages for alleged fraud and malpractice in relation to the engineering services rendered by the Def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a diversity action brought by an insurer for rescission of an insurance contract based on alleged misrepresentation by the insured. Defendant has moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff has opposed this motion and filed a cross-motion to amend its complaint to add a new claim for relief. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are granted. BACKGRO...
Views: 0
*1532 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION The court has before it the May 17, 1995 motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Roanoke Industries (“defendant”). Pursuant to the court’s order of May 17, 1995, the motion was deemed submitted for decision, without oral argument, as of June 14, 1995. Plaintiff Daryl Cheatwood (“plaintiff’) commenced this action on September 15, 1994 by fil...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this lawsuit, plaintiff Calvin Dunning claims that defendant General Electric Company discriminated against him because he is an African-American. Count I of the complaint alleges denials of promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981a, 2000e through 2000e-17 (West 1994). Count II alleges racial h...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Pending before the Court are two Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, The F.B. Leopold Co. [hereinafter Leopold], pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Leopold initiated this patent infringement action on December 18, 1992. Defendant, Roberts Filter Manufacturing Company [hereinafter Roberts Filter], has filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment of in...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the court is a motion filed on March 10, 1995 by B.T. James III, an apparent member of the plaintiff-intervenor class of black officers in the City of Montgomery Police Department, to “fire” Mr. Kenneth Thomas as class counsel for the Williams class and to appoint Mr. Ben Hand as the black officers’ class counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that the...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the petition of the defendant, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $19,150.56 (#25). BACKGROUND On May 30, 1989, the plaintiff, Louis Scherzer Partners LP, and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (the FSLIC) entered into a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by third-party defendants the 1990-1991 First Layer Umbrella Insurers and the 1991-1992 First Layer Umbrella Insurers (collectively “Umbrella Insurers”). The motion is granted for the reasons that follow. *1294I. BACKGROUND West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (‘W...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary by third-party defendants 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 Excess MEL In *1298 surers. The motion is denied for the reasons that follow. I. BACKGROUND Insurance Company of North America (“INA”) filed this suit against West of England Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum and Order entered September 23, 1994 (doc. 81). Garnishee Evanston Insurance Company (“Evanston”) has filed a response. Plaintiffs have filed a reply. On August 26, 1993, Evanston served its request for production of documents upon plaintiffs. Plaintiffs served their responses to...
Views: 0
JUDGMENT Plaintiff Chrysler Corporation instituted the instant action sounding in trademark (trade dress) under Section 43(a) of the Lan-ham Act, unfair competition and violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A against the Defendant John Silva for his creation of an unique custom car which is known as the Mongoose. At trial, the plaintiff abandoned its unfair competition claim and so...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance, Co., Ltd. (“Tokyo Marine”) brought this action against Pérez & Cía de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Pérez & Cía”) and its unknown insurers, seeking compensation for the damages suffered by several vehicles discharged at Pier 15 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. At all relevant times, plaintiff served as the marine underwriter for Mitsubishi Motor...
Views: 0
*449 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Disclosures Pertaining to Expert Witnesses. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff has filed a response. The matter is ready for the court’s decision. The defendant United States moves for an order compelling the plaintiff to provide the disclosures required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) as to expert witnesses. Specifically, d...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now pending before the court are the following post-trial motions (doe. 237) filed by plaintiffs: 1. Motion for New Trial on Century House Infringement by Plaintiff Riley; 2. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or for Entry of Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Count I; 3. Motion to Amend Judgment or for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Count II as to Defendants’ Profits; 4. Mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, John W. Sullivan and Susan R. Sullivan, have filed a motion to compel from the defendant, William Lesley Cheshier, answers to deposition questions and his appearance to complete his deposition. For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Discussion The plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Dr. Cheshier arises out of his treatment of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge J. Toliver Davis. Upon consideration of the objections and the record below, this Court determined that matters outside the pleadings had been submitted in connection with Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). T...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Exxon’s opposed Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Applicability of the Processing Agreement. In 1992, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the same issue. The request was represented to be unopposed, and since then the parties have apparently assumed that the cross-motion is pending. There being n...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Owen Marshall Brown, et al, move to dismiss 1 count one of the Government’s indictment, which alleges that the defendants participated in a common scheme of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1344. The defendants allege that count one is duplicitous in that it impermissibly alleges multiple schemes in a single count. Defendants also move fo...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, various environmental organizations, initiated this action pursuant to the “citizen suit” provision, § 505 of the Clean Water Act 1 (“CWA” or “the Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365, to compel the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), through its Administrator, to perform an allegedly non-diseretionary duty under section...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendant Transamerica’s opposed motion for partial summary judgment, addressing that portion of Plaintiffs’ complaint charging usury arising out of a “floor plan” financing agreement existing between the parties. The agreement, dated September 2,1988, is labeled an “Inventory Security Agreement and Power of Attorney” (“the Agreement”). It provides, amo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an appeal from an order by the Bankruptcy Court affirming the arbitrator’s orders in several cases. Background The appeal involves entitlement to certain property in Webb County, Texas. The property was originally owned by Palmito Estates, Inc., of which Cecil McDonald was president. The McDonald Group sold the property to a group controlled ...
Views: 0
*160 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendant’s motion to suppress, which was heard on April 3, 1995. The essential background facts are stated in Defendant’s letter-brief of April 4, 1995, except as modified hereafter. The question is whether this Defendant’s oral confession was given voluntarily. The ultimate test is whether the confession was the product of an essentially free and unc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiff Don Julian’s, Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment on Count III. (Doc. 258.) Defendants have filed a response and the plaintiff has filed a reply. *618This case was tried to a jury commencing August 1, 1994. At the conclusion of the case, the court made it...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 406 (1995) Shirley LANDMAN v. BOROUGH OF BRISTOL, et al. Civ. A. No. 95-3473. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, Civil Division. July 21, 1995. *407 Joseph L. Messa, Ominsky, Welsh and Steinberg, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Shirley Landman. Gary S. Turetsky, Philadelphia, PA, for Borough of Bristol. Timothy J. Holman, Duane, Morris, & Heckscher, Philadelphia, PA, for...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A.M. Castle & Co. (Castle), a manufacturer of metal products, brings this action against the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), a union representing workers at several of Castle’s plants. In 1993, Castle and USWA signed a collective bargaining agreement that included a provision for a 401(k) plan to be made available to USWA members working for Castle. In a fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are: Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed March 14, 1995; Defendant’s Response and Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, filed March 27, 1995; and Plaintiffs Response and Reply, filed April 17, 1995. After carefully considering the motions, briefs, supporting evidentiary submissions, and applicable...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendant Flashtax, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 1,1995 order. That order granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. Defendant had moved to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint on the ground that Plaintiff Reyna Fastax Service, Inc., was not actually incorporated. Thus...
Views: 1
*357 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Ponciano Angara, filed a three-count amended complaint alleging a number of federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law false imprisonment claim. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants, Chicago Board of Education (the “Board”), Scott Feaman and Geraldine Johnson, have filed a motion to dismiss Count II and Ms. Johnson from the amended complaint filed by plaintiff Gevinn Pearl Banks. 1 For the reasons stated below, the defendants’ motion is granted. Background Ms. Banks asserts three counts in the amended complaint: violation o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This Court’s March 8,1995 memorandum opinion and order (“Opinion II,” Johnson v. Smith, 878 F.Supp. 1150 1 ) granted summary judgment in favor of several members of the Johnson family (collectively “Johnsons”) on their claims against remaining nondefaulted defendants William Smith (“Smith”), Brian Emberton (“Brian”) and David and Julia Emberton (collectively “...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This quiet title action involves a dispute over the ownership interests of Carolyn H. Mafrige, the United States of America, and Louis Dreyfus Natural Gas Corp. in the mineral rights to land deeded by Mafrige to the United States. Pending are the United States’ motions to dismiss Mafrige’s complaint and to dismiss Louis Dreyfus’ cross-complaint. Also pending are M...
Views: 1
OPINION ... Plaintiff John Thomas Pattison brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Plaintiff claims that defendant Meijer, Inc. (“Meijer”) discriminated against him based upon his physical disability and his sex. Pending before the C...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending is plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order. The above was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition on the case. The magistrate judge has sub...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magis...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the court at this time is a plethora of motions; this order addresses the following of same: (1) plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint; (2) defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment; (8) defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for entry of an order compelling substitution or joinder of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as plaintiff; and (...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This personal injury action arises from an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Santiago Guerrero sustained serious injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against Defendants General Motors, Hendrix GMC Trucks, and Allied Signal on December 22, 1994. General Motors...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion to Review Magistrate Judge’s Order,” which was submitted without oral argument on a previous date. Having reviewed the record, the memoranda of the parties and the applicable law, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion. Background Plaintiff originally filed this matter in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Paris...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is the motion of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “FDIC”) to dismiss this appeal as moot and debtor John A. Mmahat’s motion to remand this matter to bankruptcy court, both of which were taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a “Motion to Reconsider Order and Reasons Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” filed by plaintiff TOC Retail, Inc. The matter was submitted on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the applicable law and the record, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. Background The Court...
Views: 0
OPINION The matters before the court are (1) the motion of the defendant City of Cannon Beach to dismiss (# 13); and (2) the motion of the defendant State of Oregon to dismiss (# 14). ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT In 1917, the Ecola Inn was built on property to the south of Tax Lots 8500 and 8501. It was built on a promontory created over the dry sand by the construction of a wooden retainin...
Views: 0
OPINION Universal Electrical appeals a judgment in favor of Phoenix Engineering and Supply, Inc., following a court trial. We affirm. Universal purchased electrical supplies from Phoenix on an open account over a period of approximately four years while performing construction contracts for the Navy. As of November 5, 1992, the unpaid balance in favor of Phoenix was in excess of $200,000, no part ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 89) I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Peter Embriano brought an action against defendant Allen Grosnick for deceit, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of state and federal securities law. Deputy Sheriff Paul Bianconi (“Bianconi”) allegedly failed to serve Grosnick with ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Leslie Fay, a women’s clothing manufacturer, is a debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy proceedings in this District. Five former managerial employees sue four current employees of Leslie Fay and Leslie Fay’s outside counsel for age discrimination in their “individual capacities” under federal, New York State, Pennsylvania, and New York City law. Jurisdiction...
Views: 2
OPINION In this action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are not obligated to pay on two policies which they issued to defendant SCI Steelcon. Before the Court at this time is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. I SCI Steelcon (Steelcon) is a steel erection contractor. During the relevant time period involved in this case, Steelcon had two policies with Plaintiff...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and *844 Human Services denying plaintiffs claim for social security benefits. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hin...
Views: 0
*815 ORDER On June 26,1995, the Court held a hearing on a motion for entry of default and award of attorney’s fees filed by the class plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. Having carefully considered the oral and written arguments submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons set forth below. Further...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court finds that, although plaintiff has shown a significant likelihood of success on the merits, plaintiff has not shown that it will suffer any irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion To Increase Sentence of Imprisonment Nunc Pro Tunc.” The government has advised the Court that it does not oppose defendant’s motion. However, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to act on defendant’s request, defendant’s motion to increase her sentence is denied. Defendant was sentenced by the Court on February 13, 1995, to twelve months’ inca...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves an appeal from the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) determination that plaintiff SRS Technologies (“SRS”) is not a “small disadvantaged business concern” (“SDB”) for purposes of participating in government set-aside programs. Plaintiff contends that in reviewing plaintiffs SDB status, the SBA failed to follow its own regulations, willfully ...
Views: 0
OPINION & ORDER Petitioner, pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 BACKGROUND On February 29, 1988, two individuals were arrested in Fayetteville, North Carolina after their car was stopped by a North Carolina State Highway Patrolman. Upon searching the car, the patrolman found approximatel...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Wlodek Jan Lech (“Lech”) moves for a ruling in limine permitting him to introduce at trial certain results from two polygraph exams. In the alternative, Lech seeks a hearing on this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a). For the reasons discussed below, both motions are denied. Background Lech is charged with conspiracy...
Views: 0
Defendants Memry Corp. (“Memry”) and American Stock Transfer & Trust Co. (“AST & T”) move for summary judgment on each count of plaintiffs complaint, with respect to their affirmative defense, and with respect to their counterclaim for interpleader. Defendant Neil E. Rogen moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs cause of action alleging that Rogen blocked the transfer of stock to plaintiff. ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The issue in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that the plaintiff, Ronald Colbert, is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits because he is not disabled within the meaning of that program. After listening to the sworn testimony of the plaintiff and reviewing all the medical...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Brad Armstead brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging a final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security [alternately, the “Commissioner” or the “Secretary”] which denied his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act [the “Act”]. Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin and retaliated against him because he filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 et seq., as amended. The Court held a two-day bench tr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 5, 1994, Mark Bell (“Bell”) appealed from Bankruptcy Judge John Schwartz’s order entering judgment for Robert G. Douglass (“Douglass”) and holding Douglass’ debt to Bell dischargeable. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and remand in part. I.Background In 1981, Bell sought investments to help him reduce his tax burden. Pl.’s Br. at 7. 1 “...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is defendant Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.’s (“Prudential”) Motion for an Injunction Against the Arbitration of Certain Claims (Doc. 8), which requires that we determine whether any of plaintiffs’ remaining claims are eligible for arbitration. Defendant Charles Vollmer joins in this motion. I. Background The Complaint filed by ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION FACTS This action seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for the violation of civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is before this Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Defendants, County of Orange and Orange County Sewer District No. 1 (“the County”) and Langdon Marsh and Jean-Ann McGrane (“the State”), move to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This action revolves around the environmental contamination of a piece of industrial property currently owned by plaintiff Dartron Corporation (“Dartron”) and previously owned by Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. (“Uniroyal”). Dartron alleges that Uniroyal contaminated the property during its 25 years of ownership, and concealed this fact when it sold the property to ...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action for the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and for fraud and deceit, based upon an alleged conspiracy on the part of defendant’s employees to conceal the rape of plaintiff Barbara Johnson (“Barbara”) while she was a passenger on board one of defendant’s cruise ships. By Memorandum and Order dated October 11,1994, we dismisse...
Views: 0
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER comes before the court on motions by plaintiff and defendant for partial summary judgment. Having considered the pleadings filed in support and in opposition to the motions, the court finds and rules as follows: I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed this declaratory judgment action for a de...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM AND PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIMS I. INTRODUCTION The defendants are two small businesses who, together with their principals, have been sued by General Electric Company (“G.E.”) for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on appeal from the Order of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge George R. Hodges, filed July 8, 1993. For the reasons stated below, the order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The decision of the Bankruptcy Court is reviewed by a two-step process. Reversal of the findings of fact of the Bankruptcy Court may occur only w...
Views: 0
*738 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendant from denying full coverage and benefits under its policy, and reasonable attorney’s fees filed ' June 23, 1995. A hearing was held by this Court on July 5, 1995, at which both parties...
Views: 0
891 F. Supp. 1201 (1995) Michael SANFORD, v. KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Civ. A. No. 93-1341. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. July 5, 1995. *1202 *1203 Laurence Cohen, Morris Bart, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for plaintiff. Elton Ford Duncan, III, Kaye N. Courington, Woodley, Williams, Fenet, Boudreau, Norman & Brown, New Orleans, LA, for Kostmayer Const. Co. James C. Murphy, J...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on appeal from the Judgment of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge George R. Hodges, entered May 6, 1994. For the reasons stated below, the Judgment is affirmed. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The decision of the Bankruptcy Court is reviewed by a two-step process. Reversal of the findings of fact of the Bankruptcy Court may occur only wher...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Introduction These matters came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), upon the filing, in Civ. No. 5-94-154, of a Motion to Intervene by various public interest groups, as well as by the Sawbill Trail Outfitters Association (hereinafter, “Movants”). Also befo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The plaintiff in this action — Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), as subrogee of Alpha Housing and Health Care, Inc., t/a Main Line Nursing Rehabilitation Center (“Alpha”) — has brought this suit against (1) Hüls America, Inc., including its division, Trocal Roofing Systems, (2) Hüls America’s predecessors-in-interest, Kay-Fries Holding, Inc., and Dynamit Nobel o...
Views: 2
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION This cause of action is before the Court on Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Motions for Reconsideration and to Alter or Amend Judgement (Docket Nos. 40 and 38, respectively) and Defendant’s Motion of Opposition by United States to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 43). The parties petition this Court pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), Federal Rules...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought by John Haussman (“Haussman”) against E.S. Fergus (“Fergus”), John Doe (“Doe”), “John” Holmes (“Holmes”), Richard Roe (“Roe”), J.C. Mondello (“Maldonado”) 1 and two other unknown defendants. Plaintiff brings the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and seeks recovery for violation of his constitutional rights by defendant ...
Views: 1
ORDER Presently before the court is the plaintiffs motion to remand this action to the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. For the reasons which follow, the court will DENY the motion. 7. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiff commenced this action on March 16, 1995, by filing a Motion for Judgment (“the complaint”) in the state court noted a...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on appeal from the September 28, 1994 Order Denying Shinwa’s Motion to Intervene as Moot; from the November 2,1994 Order Denying Reconsideration of the September 28, 1994 Order, and from a Final Order of Dismissal entered November 28, 1994 by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Alexander L. Paskay. Jurisdiction over appeals from the final judgments, orders and ...
Views: 1
ORDER On June 9, 1995, this court affirmed a report and recommendation of the magistrate judge that Hale Intermodal Marine Company (“Hale”) be granted summary judgment in its claim against Universal Maritime Service Corporation (“Universal”) for indemnity arising out of a fire on a barge on April 15, 1994. On June 13, 1995, the court issued an order, upon motion by Universal, certifying its decis...
Views: 0
891 F. Supp. 516 (1995) George Thomas FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. William DUNCAN, Warden, Respondent. No. C-94-1430 DLJ. United States District Court, N.D. California. June 15, 1995. *517 *518 Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Rosenthal, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner. Deputy Atty. Gen. Bruce Ortega, San Francisco, CA, for respondent. ORDER JENSEN, District Judge. On May 3, 1995, the Court heard ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In this personal injury action involving a United States Post Office in Frankdn, New York, defendant United States of America (the “government”) has moved for summary judgment against plaintiffs Louise and James McHale. Westcott has moved for summary judgment against the McHales and for indemnification against the government. In addition to ...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (D-37 & D-40). This Court considers these motions upon the parties’ joint stipulation (D-31) to resolve this matter by summary judgment based upon submitted stipulations and briefs. FACTS On October 24, 1986, the M/V KALLIOPI II came into the Tampa Bay port under pilotage to load a shipment of scr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on an emergency motion filed by Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6) to remove Magistrate Judge Robinson due to her alleged bias. On April 6, 1993, Plaintiffs filed an attorney malpractice action alleging that Defendant, while acting as Plaintiffs’ counsel, failed to file an answer in a fraudulent conveyance case filed aga...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In this age discrimination lawsuit, defendants Cornell University, Richard Costello and William Szabo (collectively, “Cornell”) moved for summary judgment against plaintiffs Edward W. Austin and Henry L. McPeak, who previously held seasonal positions at Cornell’s golf course. In the alternative, Cornell sought summary judgment dismissing the...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER PROCEDURE Plaintiffs bring this action claiming damages as a result of a breach of the Defendant union’s duty of fair representation, breach of the union’s constitution, and violations of 29 U.S.C. § 411. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union (“Defendant”), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on appeal from the decision of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge George R. Hodges, denying the Debtors’ motion pursuant 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to avoid judicial hens. For the reasons stated below, this Court affirms the Bankruptcy Court. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The parties do not dispute the facts below. Therefore, this Court conducts a de novo review of ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Delaware Health Care, Inc. (“Delaware Health”) has filed this action alleging that MCD Holding Company (“MCD Holding”), MCD Foundation (“MCD Foundation”) and its subsidiaries, The Medical Center of Delaware, Inc. (“Medical Center”) and Visiting Nurse Association of Delaware (“VNA”), have violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, the Clayton...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Plaintiff, The Newspaper Guild of Salem, Local 105 of the Newspaper Guild (the “Guild” or the “Union”), seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction. Plaintiff asks this Court: (1) to compel the defendants, who are the Publisher of The Salem Evening News, to submit grievances arising under the collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff to arbitration; and (2) to...
Views: 0
*60MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on motions of two of the defendants: (1) Motion of the Defendant Omer Belle To Dismiss;1 and (2) Motion to Vacate Defendant Camille Belle’s Plea Of Guilty To So Much Of The Indictment As Is Count V For Violation Of Fifth Amendment Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy. After oral argument, the Court hereby denies both motions, for the reasons s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 27, 1994, Isadore Goldberg (“Goldberg”) sued Prudential Insurance *203Company (“Prudential”) and Sun Microsys-terns, Inc. (“Sun”) for tortious interference with contract. On September 7, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), Prudential and Sun moved to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, we grant Prudential’s and Sun’s motions, and we dismiss this ease, wit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER On January 6, 1995, after a four day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. The issue of jurisdiction, based on Defendants’ claim of the requirement that Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of *1564 Alcoholic Beverages and Tobac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Court has before it the defendants’ motion (filed March 31, 1995; Docket Entry No. 18) to dismiss and their memorandum (filed March 31, 1995; Docket Entry No. 19) in support, as well as the plaintiffs response (filed April 13, 1995; Docket Entry Nos. 22 and 23). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant the def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Court has before it the motion (filed December 15,1994; Docket Entry No. 20) to dismiss of the defendants, James R. Sasser and Friends of Jim Sasser, as well as their memorandum (filed December 15, 1994; Docket Entry No. 21) in support. 1 Also before the Court is the motion (filed December 22, 1994; Docket Entry No. 22) to dismiss of the other named defendants, William H. Fri...
Views: 0
885 F.Supp. 335 (1995) Gabriel R. KERN v. KOLLSMAN. Civ. No. 93-612-SD. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. February 9, 1995. *336 *337 *338 Francis G. Murphy, Jr., Nixon, Hall & Hess, Manchester, NH, for plaintiffs. James W. Donchess, Wiggin & Nourie, Nashua, NH, for defendant. ORDER DEVINE, Senior District Judge. In this civil action, plaintiff Gabriel R. Kern alleges a fed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Panayiotis Tsenes (the “plaintiff’) commenced the above-referenced action, by complaint dated September 30, 1994 (the “Complaint”), against defendant Trans-Continental Credit and Collection Corporation (the “defendant”), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “Act”). Presently before the Court is the defendan...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner David L. Liller petitions this court to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum, Decision and Order, petitioner’s motion is denied. I. Background On December 23,1991 petitioner was driving in Guilderland, New York, when local authorities pulled him over and placed him under arrest...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Margaret Maeciaehera brought this suit against the above captioned defendant under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), to review a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”), denying in part the plaintiffs claim of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income be...
Views: 0
*607 ORDER This action, brought by a tenth grade student and his parents, challenges the decisions of public school officials following the student’s disciplinary suspension on January 5, 1995. The plaintiff F.N., by his “Next Friends and Parents” D.N. and M.N., brought an order to show cause on May 2, 1995, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs move...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. Background: This action seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under state law negligence principles for personal injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff through defendants’ violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments came before the Court for a bench trial on April 17, 1995. Plaintiff is an inmate of the New York State Dep...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lynne Schlude, the parent of a learning disabled child, has brought this action against defendant Northeast Central School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), on the ground that this court lac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Greenery Rehabilitation Group, Inc. (“the Greenery”) specializes in the field of traumatic brain injury treatment and operates facilities in several states. The Greenery entered into an agreement with the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) which provided that the Greenery, with the approval of the New York State D...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), the parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Presently under consideration are the defendants’ motions to file an amended answer [40] and for summary judgment [45]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion to file an amended answer and grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgm...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that Keith L. Pryatel cannot represent the co-defendants in this action without violating DR 5-105. Accordingly, this Court orders Pryatel to withdraw from representing either defendant and instructs each defendant to secure independent counsel. Furthermore, this Court denies, without prejudice to refiling, the defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT I. BACKGROUND. This case for patent infringement centers on the sort of dispute over a mere improvement in gadgetry from which the United States Supreme Court sought to liberate the Federal District Courts with its opinion in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). Plaintiff L...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION When sentence is to be imposed for a crime of violence, the court must permit the victim to speak. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(E) (as amended Sept. 13, 1994). This sensible process helps the court gauge the effects of the defendant’s crime not only on the victim but on relevant communities. It also may act as a catharsis, facilitating quicker dissipation ...
Views: 0
891 F. Supp. 1062 (1995) Kevin Brian FORNSHILL, Plaintiff, v. Christopher W. RUDDY, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. AW 94-2723. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. July 24, 1995. *1063 *1064 Philip Matthew Stinson, Sr., Bochetto & Lentz, Philadelphia, PA, for Kevin Brian Fornshill. James E. McCollum, Jr., College Park, MD, Michael E. Geltner, Law Office, Washington, ...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Marie Drew, has brought this action alleging that the foreclosure action instituted in state court by the defendant, Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) violates a discharge in bankruptcy that she received in 1980. She has made numerous applications in state trial and appellate courts, and in the bankruptcy court, all in an apparent effort to avoid foreclosure; a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Howard Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals the final decision of Commissioner of Social Security Shirley Chater (“Commissioner”) denying Hughes’ claims for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. 2 Fifty-five-year-old Hughes suffers from severe arthritis. At issue is the date upon which his arthrit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Karol K. Howard, filed a five-count, amended complaint 1 against defendants, Board of Education of Sycamore Community Unit School District No. 427 (the Board), Charles McCormick (individual capacity) and Jeffrey Weleker (individual capacity), seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), 20 U.S...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Ralph and Delores Harmon were debtors in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy reorganization which has been completed. The Farmers Home Administration (“FmHA”) loaned money to debtors and had a second lien on real estate owned by the debtors. The real estate has been sold, and FmHA claims a secured interest in the proceeds. Plaintiff asserts that FmHA’s lien was “stripped”...
Views: 0
ORDER Sami Fayez S. Aburahmah (“petitioner”) petitions this Court to vacate,’ set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, the petition is denied. BACKGROUND In 1992, a federal grand jury sitting in Arizona indicted petitioner for the kidnaping of his estranged wife, Emerald Crawford Aburahmah (“Emerald”).’ See 18 U.S.C. § 1201. In 1982, ...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 This matter is before the court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and D.ow Corning Wright Corporation. The motion is opposed. This products liability action based on Louisiana law was filed by the plaintiffs, Della and Houston Zachary. 2 Plaintiff Della Zachary sustained an injury to her right wrist ...
Views: 1
RULING ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion to amend the judgment and motion for a finding that the action was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, and the plaintiffs motion for an award of attorney’s fees. The motions are opposed. Plaintiff, Ruth E. Johnson, brought this action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ...
Views: 0
ORDER The court has before it plaintiff’s appeal of the Secretary’s decision which found the claimant’s application date for Supplemental Security Income to be January 5,1993. The government has filed its brief in support of an order affirming the Secretary. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The applicant, Stacia Jacobs, applied for and has been granted benefits pursuant to Title XVI, Supplemental Security In...
Views: 0
*356 ORDER DENYING SOUTHWESTERN BELL MOBILE SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SWB) moves to quash the grand jury subpoenas served on it to the extent that the subpoenas seek records that SWB believes are not subject to subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(C). Specifically, SWB argues that it lawfully be required to p...
Views: 0
*983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this court are the following motions: • a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants Peter Kiewit and Sons, Inc., Kiewit Construction Group, Inc., Kiewit Construction Company, MFS Network Technologies, Inc., Kiewit Diversified Group, Inc., Kiewit Mining Group, Inc., Grow Tunneling Corp., and PKS Informatio...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL Defendant has moved for an order compelling plaintiff to produce for inspection and copying documents plaintiff contends are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. Counsel have submitted letter memoranda identifying the documents in issue and arguing as to whether or not the documents are protected from disclosu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER On October 6, 1990, Plaintiff Donald Burton Baker was seriously injured by an exploding wheel rim alleged to have been made by one of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed this product liability action in 1991. The case proceeded in a normal fashion through case management, and the trial was originally' scheduled to commence on July 14, 1992. Due to protracted discovery,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this action, Defendants Brad Palmer, Russell Palmer, The Palmer Group, James Membrino, American Education Centers, Inc., and Southern Ohio College (“Defendants”) have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ motion is granted. Plaintiff Career Initiative...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INDEX Background.1054 I. Res Judicata.1056 A. Legal Standard for Res Judicata.1057 B. Applicability of Res Judicata to the Parties.1057 1. NOW.1057 2. Wojnar.1060 a. Identity of the Parties.1060 b. Identity of Causes of Action.1060 c. Final Judgment on the Merits.1060 II. Supplemental, Ancillary, or Pendent...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF HUI MALAMA’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This court heard the parties’ motions on July 10, 1995. Paul F.N. Lucas, Esq., and Aan T. Murakami, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Hui Malama I Na Kupuna 0 Hawañ Nei (hereinafter “Hui Malama”); Daria J. Zane, Attorney for the Department of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Appellant United States Trustee (“U.S. Trustee”) appeals the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining an objection to the proposed distribution of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate of Herbert M. and Wendy N. Ehrman (“Debtors”). The U.S. Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that quarterly fees owing to the U.S. Trustee do ...
Views: 0
Before the court are two motions, plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For reasons set forth below, plaintiffs Motion to Remand is denied, and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Motion to Remand: Plaintiff filed suit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, seeking damages pursuant to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I, II, III, IV AND V (Docket No. 26) I. INTRODUCTION In July, 1993, plaintiff Nancy Johnson was terminated from her employment at Plastic Packaging, Inc. (hereinafter “Plastic”) for violating a company directive not to speak with a certain male employee. The directive resulted from managem...
Views: 2
ORDER According to the Complaint, the plaintiff, Jessica Kinzel, wished to purchase a used car. She lacked the money for the purchase or a down payment. As a result of these otherwise unremarkable facts, the plaintiff asserts her qualification to represent a presently uncertified class of individuals who financed used cars using the defendants’ services. The defendants move for judgment on th...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a Miller Act case. 40 U.S.C. § 270a. Dawson Construction Co., Inc. (Dawson or prime contractor) and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF & G) (collectively, defendants) move to stay proceedings. Hearing was held on the motion on July 21, 1995. For the following reasons, I will deny defendants’ motion. I. In January, 1992, Dawson c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a securities fraud ease, arising from the dust of large and complex issuance of certain industrial development bonds. The plaintiffs’ eighty-plus page Amended Complaint, which exhaustively sets forth their knowledge of these bond dealings, had but one attachment, a copy of a promissory note. On July 6, 1995 three clusters of defendants filed separate motions to dismis...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER The defendant Commissioner of Social Security moves to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted and this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust ...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the court are the motions of defendants, Coopers & Lybrand and a defendant class of Coopers’ partners and principals (collectively “Coopers”), for summary judgment with respect to the claims of plaintiffs, TriCon Capital, Computer Leasing Inc., Center Capital Corporation, and New England Capital Corporation (collectively “plaintiffs”). For the reasons that follow, Coopers...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction The Plaintiff, Peter Dimitropoulos (“Plaintiff’), commenced this action against District Council 9 of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades (“DC-9” or “Union”) pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C....
Views: 0
ORDER On May 25, 1995, the Plaintiff, Barry N. Paige, filed a motion in which he seeks to have this Court dismiss the indictment in the above-captioned cause. For the reasons that have been stated below, his motion will be denied. I. Paige and four other individuals were arrested on August 16, 1994 for drug trafficking activities. Immediately following the arrest, the federa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Glendora, an individual who produces video programs, brings this pro se 1 action under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended and supplemented by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, codified principally in 47 U.S.C. §§ 521 et seq., (“the Cable Act”), as well as the First and Fourteenth...
Views: 2
OPINION George W. Gantt, an inmate in the Maryland Division of Correction, is plaintiff in each of the captioned cases. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the Court has determined to dismiss all of these cases with prejudice. I. For the past five years since Gantt has been an inmate of the Division of Correction he has filed over forty civil rights complaints, suing virtually everyone he ha...
Views: 0
ORDER Pro se prisoner Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 15, 1994. Plaintiff names as Defendants Harry K. Singletary, Secretary of the Department of Corrections; Kermit Kerley, Superintendent of Hardee Correctional Institution (HCI); Lt. L.R. Bliss, Correctional Officer at HCI; and C. Moskowitz, Correctional Officer at HCI. Plainti...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff brought suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for disability-based employment discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on the issues of tort liability, punitive damages, and front pay awards. For reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. I. Facts The essential facts of...
Views: 0
OPINION Joan Coleman (“Coleman”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. Both par...
Views: 0
ORDER Before this Court is the Motion For Summary Judgment Or Alternative Motion For Declaratory Judgment of Defendant The Jolt Company, Inc. (“Jolt”) against Defendant Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation (“Clearly Canadian”) and the Motion Of Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative Declaratory Judgment against Defendant Jolt. Both Motions are based on...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS The Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (“PCF”) brought this motion for declaratory judgment pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, and for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the PCF remains liable for up to $400,000 for each of the pre-bankruptcy medical malpractice claimants...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this action by Defendant, Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation (“RIHMFC”). RIHMFC moves for summary judgment on all nine counts contained in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs, New England Multi-Unit Housing Laundry Association (“NEMLA”); Automatic Laundry Services Co., Inc. ...
Views: 0
RULING ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS This matter came before the Court on various discovery motions. Hearings were held February 10th and February 14, 1995. Appearing were: John Moeller, Gary Gordon, David Eddy, William Wallace, Stuart Lefstein, Lori Lefstein, Jean'Feeney, Roger Lathrop, Jim Hoffman, John Egan & Michael Stone. This set of motions is part of the ongoing discovery drama which has reflected ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a “Motion to Set for Bench Trial” filed by defendant La-roche Chemicals, Inc., and a “Motion for Jury Trial” by plaintiff, which were taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memo-randa of the parties, the record and the *284applicable law, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion and DENIES defendant’s motion. Ba...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) Petition for Summary Enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum. In addition to filing an Opposition to the Petition for Summary Enforcement, the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. After oral argument, the Court grants the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.1 In...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING In June 1993, the United States by and through its Agency for International Development (“AID”) and the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”), donated certain food products to private relief organizations, World Vision Relief & Development, Inc. (‘World Vision”) and Doulos Community (“Doulos”), for shipment and distribution to needy persons in Africa. The cargo w...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation (“RHD”) brings this action against defendants Mark I Marketing Corporation (“Mark I”), Mark I Marketing Corporation of America (“Mark I-A”), and Wallace Edwards for a declaration that it is not infringing United States patent no. 4,554,241, that the patent is invalid, that it is not in violation of a licensing agreement (the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This cost recovery action by the United States (the “Government”) under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), is before this Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This Court was directed to determine whether defendant Alcan Aluminum Corporation (“Al-can”) c...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendants Medical Towers, Ltd. (MTL), Diva Corporation (“Diva”), and David A. Lawson’s (“Lawson”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 45). MTL, Diva, and Lawson seek summary judgment on Humphreys’ claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retali...
Views: 0
OPINION In this perjury prosecution of a New York City police officer, defendant Patrick Regan moves to dismiss the indictment or portions thereof on the grounds that (1) the declarations alleged to be false in the indictment were not “material” to any Grand Jury investigation but were elicited solely as part of a “perjury trap,” (2) the Grand Jury that issued the present indictment was not p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 4, 1995, the special March 1995 grand jury returned an indictment against defendant Marshall Sehoeneman, charging him with 43 counts of submitting false “petitions for non-immigrant worker” to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). -Defendant has filed four motions: (1) to dismiss the indictment; (2) for immediate disclosure of favorabl...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) for a turnover order. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. FACTS TMs is a supplementary proceeding which derives from a suit based on an indemnity agreement executed by Joel Engel (“Engel”). Travelers obtained a judgment against Engel as indemmtor under the agreement in the amount of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. Background This is a discrimination action arising from plaintiffs visit to a job fair, which took place in Newark, New Jersey and in which defendant participated. Plaintiff is an African-American woman, aged 41 years old and appears to allege that defendant did not employ her on account of her...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 5, 1995. Defendant filed a response on May 2, 1995. Plaintiff filed a reply on May 24, 1995. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 5, 1995. Plaintiff filed a response on May 24, 1995. Th...
Views: 0
ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF HIALEAH MIAMI SPRINGS MEDICAL FUND AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT The appellant, Patrick J. Barry, appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Granting Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Hialeah Miami Springs Medical Fund and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Granting Final Summa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court are: 1. United States’ Motion for Entry of Consent Decree and brief in support thereof, filed November 30, 1994; 2. State of Texas’ (TNRCC) Motion for Entry of Consent Decree and brief in support thereof, filed December 16, 1994; 3. Response and Joinder of Settling Defendants to United States’ Motion for Entry of Consent...
Views: 1
894 F. Supp. 14 (1995) Ronald SCALES, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-2301. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 25, 1995. *15 Ronald Scales, Lorton, VA, pro se. Richard Stuart Love, Office of Corp. Counsel, D.C., Washington, DC, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION SPORKIN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants'...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs George Serafino and his daughter, Anita Serafino, initially filed this suit in state court challenging certain actions arising *106 out of their employment with Milton Bradley Company (“Milton Bradley”), a division of defendant Hasbro, In...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Testimony at Trial of Plaintiffs Proffered Expert Witness, Nathan Shechter, M.D. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiff has filed a response. Defendant has filed a reply. The matter is ready for the court’s decision. *678Defendant moves to exclude any testimony at the trial of the action from plaintiffs retained expert...
Views: 4
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is “Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Limit Damages” filed by Laroche Chemicals, Inc., which was taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part. Background Plaintiff seeks redress pursuant to th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This defamation action is before me on defendant Nancy Jo Johnson’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a public school principal and state employee, Johnson contends both that her statements about plaintiff Mylene Rae Zerr were privileged and that Zerr’s claims are barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“GIA”), Colo.Rev.St...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1384 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald BRAMBLE, Defendant. Crim. No. 95-00150 DAE. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. July 21, 1995. *1385 *1386 *1387 Mark E. Recktenwald, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney's Office, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff. Hayden Aluli, Honolulu, HI, for defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDIC...
Views: 1
ORDER The only ground for habeas relief remaining in this habeas corpus action is whether Petitioner Noah Harjo was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel due to a conflict of interest as a result of multiple representation. At trial Petitioner and three of his co-defendants were represented by two attorneys from the Tulsa County Public Defender’s Office, although defense counsel had o...
Views: 0
Sitting by Designation. OPINION OF THE COURT This appeal involves three lawsuits brought by the same plaintiff ("Williams" or "appellee") over the same automobile accident. The first one ("Civil Action")1 named appellant Newman, then a minor, as defendant. The second suit ("Small Claims Action")2 named Newman, still a minor, and his mother and owner of the car *386("Vandenberg" or "appellant") as ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by defendant Laroche Chemicals, Inc. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part. Background Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”), alleging that he suffer...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant Dr. Irvin Sopher’s (“Sopher”) motion to dismiss the claims pending against him filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have fully briefed this motion in accordance with Local Rule 2.07(f) and, accordingly, the Court finds it ripe for consideration. 1 For th...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, Varco-Pruden Buildings (“Varco-Pruden”), to dismiss the complaints in the above-referenced actions and on the motion of the plaintiff, Debra Collier (“Collier”), for leave to amend her complaints. For the reasons that follow, Collier’s motion for leave to amend is granted in part and Vareo-Pruden’s motion to dismiss is granted ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pursuant to the memorandum and order of this Court dated May 12, 1995, default judgment has entered against the defendants in counterclaim, Chuang Investments, Y.C. Hospitality, Inc., and Dr. Ying C. Chuang (collectively, “the Chuang parties”), on each of the counterclaims of plaintiff in counterclaim, Marriott Family Restaurants, Inc. *103(“Marriott”). Pending before this Cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before this Court on the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court’s examination of the record indicates that the Defendant Hoke County has not had the benefit of a ruling on its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court in its de novo review of the motion for summary judgment has considered the issues raised in the Defe...
Views: 0
ORDER The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Love-green, filed on May 17, 1995 in the above-captioned matter, is hereby accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the debtor, Edouard Gadoury’s appeal be denied is hereby approved. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION LOVEGREEN, Unite...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Both defendants in this case are charged with two counts of extortion and one count of conspiracy to commit extortion, all in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The charges stem from two incidents in which defendant Wentworth’s daughter, Michelle Campbell, allegedly released butyric acid into facilities in which abortions are performed. The first a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In a Memorandum-Decision and Order (“MDO”) filed June 9,1995, this court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction after finding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright infringement claim and that they were entitled to the presumption of irreparable injury which normally flows from a sho...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court imposes a sanction of $1,000 against plaintiff Miltope Corporation for its continued failure to comply with its discovery obligations within the time limits ordered by the Court. A Reminder/Waming to the Bar and Litigants In Sieck v. Russo, 869 F.2d 131, 133 (2d Cir.1989), the Second Circuit reminded the Bar of the need to comply with discovery orders in a timely f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER On July 13, and July 14, 1995, the court conducted a non-jury trial in this case. At the close of the proof the court indicated that perhaps it would render a decision from the bench on July 18,1995. After further reflection, however, and in large part because the court is being called upon, among other things, to interpret and apply the Supreme Court’s recent deci...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of Georgia’s Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act (“the Act”), Act No. 770, 1994 Ga.Laws 256 (1994) (codified at O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1050 (Supp.1995)). Plaintiff Brian Gillespie Bown (“Bown”), a school teacher at South Gwinnett High School, filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a declarati...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the defendant Randy Blackwell’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND On December 17, 1991, the defendant pleaded guilty to Count III of a three count indictment, which charged him with distributing a substance containing c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes to this court on appeal from a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Virginia, Judge William E. Anderson, denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The appellant sought an order that a dismissal “with prejudice” of the appellee’s prior bankruptcy petition had rendered pending debts nondischargeable in subsequent petit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Kenneth Copeland (“Copeland”) has filed a putative class action on his own behalf and on behalf of other persons who have been or will be subjected to the same claimed infringement of their constitutional liberty interests by practices of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department”) and Sheriff of Cook County Michael Sheahan (“Sheahan”) that affect individua...
Views: 0
Opinion & Order BACKGROUND Plaintiff Edward Mandelbaum is a former member of the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”). Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 14 and 85. He sold his NYMEX seat in April 1993. Complaint ¶ 85. Mandelbaum is also the owner of co-plaintiff Cooperative Trading Services, Incorporated (“CTS”), Complaint ¶¶4 and 5, which was a floor brokerage company engaged in trading on NYM...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Harold J. Robbins (“Robbins”) and Alan Freberg (“Freberg”) sue Defendants Moore Medical Corporation, Mark E. Karp, Steven Kotler, Jerald K. Rome, Bruce Slovin, Robert H. Steele, Richard M. Tasso, Wilmer J. Thomas, Jr., Alan L. Feir, John A. Murray and Peter C. Sutro (“Moore” or “Defendants”) under § 10(b) and § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a securities fraud class action and shareholders derivative suit. Plaintiff is suing defendants Arthur S. Feher, Jr. (“Feher”) and James R. Leone (“Leone”) (collectively, the “defendants”) both as individuals and in their capacities as officers and directors of corporate defendant Members Ser*108vice Corporation (“MSC”), a Colorado holding company with principal off...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This in appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court (Burton R. Lifland, Chief Bankruptcy Judge) confirming a Chapter 11 plan. The appeal raises various issues pertaining to the sale of assets both prior to the submission of a disclosure statement and subsequent to the confirmation of a plan as well as to the liquidation of the debtors’ estates under Chapter 11 of the Ba...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the court are defendant’s summary judgment motion and plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint for a second time. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. I. FACTS A. General Background In May 1991, plaintiff had corrective eye surgery on her left...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this diversity action brought to obtain payment under a commercial standby letter of credit, the beneficiary moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. Background Plaintiff Continental Grain Company (“CGC”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York City, is a merchandiser of grains, rice, an...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1360 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Allan A. MUSSARI, Defendant. No. CR 95-009 PHX PGR. United States District Court, D. Arizona. July 26, 1995. *1361 Michael Joseph Bidwell, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff. David Lee Titterington, Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant. ORDER ROSENBLATT, District Judge. I. BACKGROUND Allan Mussari ("Defendant")...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants in this action have filed several motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. We treat them as motions for summary judgment because we consider material outside the pleadings. Upon *61 consideration of the matter, the Court concludes that plaintiffs claims are not actionable. Accordingly, defendants’ motions for summary j...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION FACTS In 1994, Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) approved a concept for the development of a public housing project submitted by Defendant Greensboro Housing Authority (“GHA”). HUD reserved a grant to pay for the project whenever a proper site could be located and approved. GHA located a site on Glendale Drive in Greens...
Views: 0
ORDER I. BACKGROUND Donald Sehroeder (“Defendant”) was indicted on January 11, 1995 on one count of *362 Failure to Pay Child Support Obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (“CSRA”) 1 . The complaint alleges that the Amona Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, by an order dated January 24, 1992, ordered ...
Views: 1
ORDER I have reviewed the comprehensive Report of Magistrate Judge Grubin. There are no objections. I hereby adopt the Report in full. So Ordered. *156 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONORABLE SHIRA A SCHEINDLIN GRUBIN, United States Magistrate Judge: Pending in this action filed pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are cross-motions for summar...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court in the above-entitled case is the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside and/or Modify his Sentence and the Government's Opposition thereto. Upon carewi consideration of the parties’ pleadings^che entire record herein, and the law applicable thereto, the Court shah deny the DefÉflant’s Motions. I. BACKGROUND The Defendant, an inmate at the FPC Cumberland...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on May 19, 1993. On April 25, 1994, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment. On March 10,1995, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted. Plaintiff file...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Morris LaSalle, an incarcerated felon, commenced this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Thomas Coughlin, Bert Ross, and Jackie Davis move under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted by default, and the action is dismissed in i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Francis Mungiovi, acting pro se, brings this eight-count complaint against the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”), and two of its employees, Essie Smith and William Bradley. He alleges that defendants have violated his right as a public housing tenant to serve as president of his building, as well as several of his rights protected under state law. Presentl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil forfeiture action brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 1956. This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1355. The defendant vehicle, a 1991 Chevrolet Corvette, was seized from the premises of the claimant, G & O Service, Inc. (“G & O”), in March, 1994 on the ground that it was purchased with the pro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Timothy Agunbiade petitions this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 for a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the United States Department of Justice to investigate charges of criminal activity allegedly engaged in by an Assistant United States Attorney and several law enforcement officials. For the r...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court in the above-entitled case is the Plaintiffs Motion to Revise the Court’s June 14,1995 Scheduling Order. Upon careful consideration of the Plaintiffs Motion, the entire record herein, and the law applicable thereto, the Court shall DENY the Plaintiffs Motion. The Court’s Scheduling Order directs that in preparation for trial and pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the instant personal-injury action founded upon diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff Barbara Gilinsky brings suit against the defendant, Dr. Joseph Rosario Indelicato, alleging that his negligent conduct contributed to the injuries she sustained on September 24,1990. The plaintiff alleges that, on that day, she suffered a stroke while under the ehiropractic care a...
Views: 6
MEMORANDUM Presently before this Court is Defendant Playworld System’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff originally brought this claim in response to Defendant’s alleged patent infringement of the design for the “Auto-Play,” a piece of playground equipment developed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff concedes that ten years passed between the time Plaintiff first became aware of the infringement and ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has brought suit against an insurance company alleging that it has acted in bad faith in refusing to settle her claim for uninsured motorist coverage. Because plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action, I will grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In an 89-paragraph complaint supported by nine exhibits, plaintiff, Dorsen Turner, alleges that she was a passenger in a v...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Presently before the Court is an appeal of Bankruptcy Judge Steven D. Gerling’s Mem *891 orandum, Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order of January 5, 1994. Therein, Judge Gerling denied a motion by Debtor, Bernard Friedman, to disallow two proofs of claim that had been timely filed by New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff moves to remand to state court this action alleging breach of contract and slander against his former employer, defendant British Airways. Plaintiff also seeks to impose costs and sanctions against defendant. British Airways cross-moves for dismissal and to enjoin plaintiff from filing further vexatious litigation. For the reasons set forth below, the mot...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Losch Boiler Sales & Service Company (“Losch”), a retail fuel oil dealer that supplies and installs heating equipment, alleges that Defendant, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (“PP & L”) violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and state law by unlawfully restraining trade in the residenti...
Views: 5
MEMORANDUM Defendant, Miller Building Corporation, requests this Court to sanction Plaintiff, Blue Grass Steel, Inc., under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) for failure to comply or participate in discovery and for otherwise failing to participate in this action. The sanctions Miller seeks are a dismissal of the Complaint against it and a default judgment in its favor on the Counterclaim it has brought against ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., state law violations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 73 Pa.C.S.A. § 201-2(4), and Delaware usury laws, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2301(a) (1975). 1 Jurisdiction is federal...
Views: 1
*84 MEMORANDUM On May 9, 1995, this court, after trial, entered a $4,432,324 judgment in favor of plaintiff, North River Insurance Company (“North River”) and against defendant, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”). The court later awarded attorneys’ fees to North River in the amount of $211,921.68. GNY has appealed from both orders. It has now filed a supersedeas bond in the a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action is before the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, requests an advisory statement vis-a-vis whether a voluntary or court-approved dismissal would be allowed should the Court of Appeals grant plaintiffs motion to remand. Having considered defendants’ objections, this Court upon remand would permit a dismissal under either Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Patricia E. and Marianne F., on their own behalf and on behalf of Rachel F., a minor (“plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendant Board of Education of Community High School District #155 (“District”) to recover attorneys’ fees and costs as an alleged prevailing party pursuant to Section 1415(e) of the Individuals With Disabilities *1162 Educat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David N. Hurd for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to a Standing Order dated August 2, 1985. The Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff and Defendants filed timely objections to the Reporb-Recommendation. I. BACKGROUND A...
Views: 0
*7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have brought the present action against defendant, Consolidated Edison Company (hereinafter “Con Ed” or defendant) alleging employment discrimination. Presently, plaintiffs seek to depose Dr. Kenneth Clark and Hilton Clark regarding a 1979 study performed for Con Ed entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action at Consolidate...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER The Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motions for summary judgment on May 26, 1995 at Binghamton, New York. In a decision issued from the bench on that date the Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, granted defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims in plaintiffs Complaint and his Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. At that time all defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER The Clerk of the Court caused an entry of default against VSH Restaurant Corporation (d/b/a The Vestal Steakhouse and Seafood Grill), Thomas Panzella, and Robert Hotch-kiss on April 27,1995. Plaintiff Denece Can-field thereupon made a Motion for Default Judgment against the above captioned defendants. Her motion was scheduled to be heard by the court on June 23, 1995. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David N. Hurd for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to a Standing Order dated August 2, 1985. The Magistrate Judge’s Report-Recommendation recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because Plaintiffs claim lacks any genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS I. Background This opinion addresses this court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a ease in which a former Michigan resident, a United States Citizen, residing on the Island of Saint Martin, a French protectorate in the Caribbean, is being sued by a California corporation, for nonpayment of a lease that was assigned to...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION BACKGROUND Before the court is plaintiff Clark Construction Company, Inc.’s (hereafter “Clark Construction”) motion for preliminary injunction filed March 30,1995. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Federal Highway Administration (hereafter “FHWA”), the U.S. Department of Transportation (hereafter U.S. DOT), and the Alabama Department of Transportation (hereafte...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion filed June 20, 1995 to remand this action to the Circuit of Barbour County, whence it was removed. The defendants responded in opposition on June 18, 1995. In the two-count complaint, the plaintiffs aver that in connection with certain refinancing loan transactions, defendant Commercial Credit Corp., through ...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff POLARIS POOL SYSTEMS, INC.’s (hereinafter “Polaris”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction came before this Court for review on January 30, 1995. After careful consideration, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Polaris has sued defendant LE-TRO PRODUCTS, I...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the defendants’ motion filed January 4,1995 to dismiss the complaint and/or for summary judgment. 1 Also before the court is the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment filed January 17, 1995 and amended on February 14,1995. In ruling on these motions, the court has considered the parties’ respective briefs, as well the replie...
Views: 0
*1548 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is defendants Houston County Department of Human Resources (“Houston County DHR”), Lucia B. Parsons (“Parsons”) and Donna Jones’ Motion to Dismiss, for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, for Full or Partial Summary Judgment. 1 Said motion was filed on June 13, 1995. The plaintiffs commenced thi...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is now before the court on the defendant Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.’s (hereafter “Bell Helicopter”) motion for summary judgment, filed March 31, 1995. The plaintiff, Max Motley, responded to Bell Helicopter’s motion for summary judgment on May 9, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is due to be granted. Jurisdiction The court has jurisdiction ov...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND On July 6, 1987, the respondents, Roger and Concetta Sarver, opened a stock brokerage account with Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. (“Shearson”) and signed a standard form Client Agreement which provided for resolution of account-related disputes by arbitration in accordance with the rules of one of three broker organizations.1 The parties appear to agree that the N...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion filed April 7, 1995 to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Macon County, Aabama, from which the defendants removed the action. Defendants American Central Insurance Co. and Continental Loss Adjusting Services, Inc. filed briefs on May 1, 1995, opposing the motion to remand on the theory that the plaintiffs ...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1511 (1995) Charlie C. LESTER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. TWITCHELL, a DIVISION OF LUDLOW, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-D-1640-S. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division. June 13, 1995. *1512 Malcolm R. Newman, Dothan, AL, for plaintiff. Jere C. Segrest, Tina Stamps, Dothan, AL, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION De MENT, District Judge. Before the court is the defen...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is presently before the court on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment,1 which were filed February 21, 1995.2 Defendants contemporaneously filed supporting briefs. Plaintiffs filed a response and supporting brief in opposition to Defendants’ motions on March 10, 1995. A careful and full examination of the facts, pleadings and applicable law compels the conclusi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, the Villages of Cornwallis Owners Association and several individuals, filed this suit in state court seeking an order enjoining Durham Housing Authority and HUD from developing a low income housing project on a particular site in Durham. Defendants removed the action to this Court on March 2, 1995. The ease comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for a prelimin...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 207 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michelle T. MARENGHI, Defendant. Crim. No. 94-68-P-C. United States District Court, D. Maine. July 17, 1995. *208 *209 Helene Kazanjian, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, ME, for the Government. Daniel J. Perry, WARREN M. SILVER, P.A., Bangor, ME, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 1 This proceeding represents the second attempt by plaintiffs Victor and Estelle Zelman to obtain judicial relief following the government’s refusal to replace six United States savings bonds that were purchased by Mrs. Zelman in 1968 and 1969 and which the plaintiffs now contend are lost. In Zelman v. Gregg, 1...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Transamerica Premier Insurance Company (“Transamerica”) brings this inter-pleader action asking the Court to determine the proper distribution of the penal sum of a payment bond issued by Transamerica to East Coast Marine (“ECM”) as a requirement of ECM’s contract with the United States for a dredg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Rosa Higgins filed this action on June 24, 1994, alleging that Defendant United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq, for personal injuries sustained by Higgins at a United States Post Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. This case comes before the Court on the United States’ 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack ...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER This action was commenced on August 19, 1994, with the filing of a complaint with the state of Wisconsin division of hearings and appeals. The defendant, Volkswagen of America, Inc., d/b/a/ Volkswagen United States, Inc. [“Volkswagen”], filed a notice of removal in the United States district court for the western district of Wisconsin on September 15, 1994. On October 3, 1994, t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The facts are undisputed. The collective bargaining agreement between Beverly Enterprises, doing business as Colonial Manor of Balaton, (hereinafter referred to as the Employer), and Minnesota Health Care Union, SEIU Local 113, AFL-CIO/CLC (hereinafter referred to as the Union), provides that all employees shall, as a condition of employmen...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER The plaintiff, Joseph G. Chambers, a shareholder of 17 shares of stock in the defendant corporation, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on September 14, 1994. Presently before the court is the plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs motion will be denied. *862 I. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this litigat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying plaintiffs applications for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Plaintiff has filed a motion for judgment (Doc. 6), which seeks an order reversing the Secretary’s deci...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Rodney Sullivan, by his insurer, seeks to recover for property damage to the fishing vessel SEA FEVER resulting from the sinking of that vessel on April 4, 1992. Plaintiff claims against Defendant Vernay Products, Inc. and Defendant Young Brothers and Company Inc. under the theory of strict liability (Count I), negligence (Count II), and breach of implied ...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter came before the Court for a bench trial upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff, Omega Industries, Inc. (Omega), is a commercial development company which owns the Sahara Professional Center located at 2069 East Sahara Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada. Omega is owned and operated by its president, Edward M. Ni...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1395ff(b) for judicial *393 review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying a part of plaintiffs claim for Supplemental Medical Insurance Benefits under Part B of Medicare. The plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment 1 (Doe. 9) which seeks an order rev...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon joint motion of the defendants World Karting Association (“WKA”) and Charlotte Motor Speedway (“the Speedway”) for summary judgment and joint motion to strike the affidavit of John C. Fitch, submitted by the plaintiffs in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant the defendants’ j...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a proceeding for review of action by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Title 42 of the United States Code. Pursuant to Rule 503 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court, on January 31, 1994, the Secretary filed an answer and certified copy of the transcript of the administrative record. Docs. # 11 and # 12. Plaintiff responded th...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER On May 9, 1995, a federal grand jury sitting for the eastern district of Wisconsin returned a two-count indictment against the defendant, Robert Edwards. It charged him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession of a firearm which had not been registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction In this case plaintiff Kenneth L. Deitchman has brought a claim against defendant Stephen F. Weiner for negligent entrustment of his automobile to his minor daughter. The matter is currently before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #29). For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is granted. II. Fac...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT Plaintiff Sidney Abbott moves to amend her complaint in her action against Defendant Dr. Randon Bragdon alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). Until now, Abbott’s complaint has included a claim for civil penal damages asserted pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I.Introduction This case involves a claim by plaintiff The Garland Company Incorporated (“Garland”) against defendant Ecology Roof Systems Corporation (“Ecology”) for a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This matter is currently before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doe. #6)....
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER In a May 19, 1994, decision and order, I granted the plaintiffs’ request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Kirsch v. Smith, 853 F.Supp. 301 (E.D.Wis.1994). The defendants were directed to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint and to respond to the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on defendants’ motion (Doe. 3) to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is denied in part and granted in part. I. Backg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This product liability action comes before the Court on Plaintiffs [sic] Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. # 53) filed May 15, 1995. On May 3, 1995, the Court sustained defendant Positive Safety Manufacturing Company’s (“Positive Safety”) summary judgment motion, finding that plaintiff Kathy D. Grider did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the ten-year useful safe life...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On April 13,1994, U.S. Magistrate John C. Tillotson convicted Ahamed Salama of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation *976of K.S.A. § 8-1567. Defendant appeals that conviction under Rule 58(g) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the following motions: Plaintiff Sinclair Oil Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 57); Defendant Sylvan State Bank’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 94); Defendant Sylvan State Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 103); Plaintiff Sinclair Oil Corporation’s Motion to Strike D...
Views: 0
OPINION From May of 1981 to October of 1990 the plaintiff, Jerry Diaz, worked as a maintenance mechanic in New Jersey for Johnson Matthey, Inc. (“JMI”), a corporation which, inter alia, refines, recovers, and markets platinum. Defendant, Johnson Matthey, PLC (“JM PLC”), is JMI’s parent corporation. Plaintiff developed the platinum allergy from on-the-job exposure to platinum sa...
Views: 0
*729 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE AND FOR CONVENIENCE ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The above-entitled action was recently transferred to this Court’s docket from the docket of the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima. See Order of Transfer, filed May 3, 1995. Upon reviewing...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendant Sony Magnetic Products, Inc. of America’s (“Sony”) motion for summary judgment filed May 23, 1995, to which plaintiff Terry Whaley (“plaintiff”) did not respond. 1 Sony contemporaneously filed a brief and tendered evidence in support of its motion. In this action, the plaintiff seeks redress under the Age Discrimination in Em...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case comes before the Court on Clarence B. Hauk’s motion seeking summary reversal or remand of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. (Doc. # 9). The Commissioner requests an order affirming the denial of benefits. (Doc. # 11). FACTUAL BACKGROUND Claimant, Clarence B. Hauk, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The court presided over a bench trial in this action on July 10,1995. Presently pending is the defendants’ Rule 41(b) motion for involuntary dismissal, which the court construes as a motion for judgment on partial findings as provided by Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 After careful consideration of the arguments of the ...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a removed action purportedly sounding in admiralty but which the plaintiff elected to commence as a common law action in state court. Defendants have moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) for dismissal of this action on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s election to commence this action as a common law action cannot be undone...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 10), filed November 16, 1994, Defendant’s Crossmotion [sic] for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16), filed December 29, 1994, and plaintiffs Motion for Imposition of Costs and Attorneys Fees Against Defendant Four B. Corp. (Doc. # 24), filed February 16,1...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner John Brooke (“Petitioner”) has filed this Complaint and Petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (“the Convention”) and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq., against his ex-wife Terry Willis (“Respondent”). Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent to ap...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs instituted the above-styled discrimination action on November 2, 1994. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and a brief in support thereof on March 13, 1995. On May 23, 1995, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion, and, concomitantly, a Motion for ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court are defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to strike certain types of evidence offered by plaintiffs. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. A Summary Judgment Defendants maintain their entitlement to summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants would...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, ORDER & DECISION Plaintiff Douglas Miller brought this suit against the above captioned defendant under *74 section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), to review a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “Secretary”), denying in part plaintiffs claim of Social Security Disability and Suppl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Four Way Plant Farm, Inc., McDonald Construction Co., and Walker Logging Co., Inc., (“Plaintiffs”) brought this ac *1541 tion in the Circuit Court for Bullock County, Alabama. They sued individually and also alleged a class action on behalf of other similarly situated Alabama employers who purchased workers’ compensati...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Background. This copyright infringement case was filed on April 7, 1993. More than two years later, on June 22, 1995, Plaintiffs founder and president, Dr. Raymond Damadian, had never submitted to a deposition by the Defendants, although requested by Defendants to do so and although specifically ordered by this court to do so on April 20, 1995. On April 20 this court issued a...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 7, 1994, Plaintiff Stephen G. Nemeckay filed a three-count complaint in Macomb County Circuit Court against Defendant Trooper Denise Rule. Defendant Rule removed the case to this Court on May 5, 1994, based on federal question jurisdiction. On November 3,199...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an action brought by Plaintiff Louis Harry Behr (“Behr”) on his own behalf and allegedly on behalf of his minor natural children Matthew, Daniel, Joshua, and Zachary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal and state statutes. Behr, who is proceeding pro se, has sued two state court judges, numerous state and county officials, medical personnel, and others based on ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Steven Laynas, Counsel for Defendants David Griffin, Ronald Griffin and Gloria Griffin (Griffin Defendants) has moved this Court for leave to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the Griffin Defendants. This case is a declaratory judgment action by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. It seeks a ruling that a policy it issued to the Griffin Defendants does not cover damages arising out...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND This employment discrimination case is before the Court today on motion of the plaintiff, who seeks leave to amend her complaint. The plaintiff is Joyce Schofield, an African American woman and an employee of the defendant, the University of Pennsylvania (“the University”). On September 27, 1994, Ms. Schofield filed a complaint in this Court, in...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff has moved this Court to remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on the ground that the parties are not diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) directs a district court to remand an action to state court if it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. A district court may remand an action on jurisdictional grounds any time b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 10) filed February 16, 1995, and Defendant’s Crossmotion [sic] for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 14) filed March 20, 1995. Plaintiff, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 576 [“the Union”],1 seeks an order compelling arbitration of a labor dispute pursuant to Section 301 of the Lab...
Views: 0
*1157 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Western and Southern Life Insurance Company (“Company”) filed this action against defendant Cindy Sue Wall to recover benefits paid by the Company’s Life, Medical and Disability Benefit Plan (“Plan”). The Plan was established and ma...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. At oral argument on April 7, 1995 we granted plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint and their motion in limine but reserved decision on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of defendants’ former employees who were injured as a result of the loss of benefi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiffs Kevin Martin and Philip Figueroa brought this suit against the above-captioned defendants under title 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs motion before the court seeks a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the above-captioned defendants from employing a “blocking system”...
Views: 0
ORDER This Cause is before the Court on Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) Motions for Summary Judgment (Doe. No. *43153, filed May 10, 1995). Plaintiff filed a response on June 5,1995 (Doc. No. 83) and a supplement to its response on June 28, 1995 (Doe. No. 100). While one document, Defendant’s petition contains four motions for summary judgment. The four motions allege: (1) the con...
Views: 0
*437MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff Leonard Hinton brought this suit against the above captioned defendants under title 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Specifically, plaintiff seeks relief from defendants’ violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution flowing from alleged brutality and un...
Views: 0
ORDER ON APPEAL OF MOTION TO ANNUL STAY This cause of action is before the Court on appeal from a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Honorable C. Timothy Corcoran, III, United States Bankruptcy Judge, presiding and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The legal issue on appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is now before the court on the following motions: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 115); Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 118); Joint motion for hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment (Doc. 145); Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of defendants’ expert witnesses and to strike defendants’ e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (Doe. #30) filed April 11, 1995; Plaintiffs Motion to File Supplemental *1481 Pleading (Doc. # 47) filed May 9, 1995; the Motion of Plaintiff, Leonard J. Asselin, Jr. Requesting Leave of the Court To File A Third Amende...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on appeal from the final judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama, in favor of the appellee, Von G. Memory, trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Donald M. Martin (“Martin”), on October 1, 1993. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER J. INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on appeal from the final judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama, in favor of the appellee, the United States of America, on October 20, 1994. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. 1 After independently reviewing the ...
Views: 0
*244 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doe. # 135), filed May 1, 1995, and Defendant Recoil Management Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 126), filed May 1, 1995. Plaintiff David E. Hoxeng, d/b/a ADX Communications, claims that he had a contract with defendant Topeka Broadcomm, Inc. (“TBI”) to buy KTPK Radio ...
Views: 0
REVISED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This price-fixing case comes before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion in Li-mine to Exclude Dr. Richard C. Hoyt’s Testimony and Expert Report From this Case (Doc. # 443), filed May 5, 1995. Class action plaintiffs claim that defendants engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and—more specifically—t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a motion by the plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, to prosecute this action under a pseudonym. Plaintiff has filed, as Exhibit A to this motion, a statement disclosing her true identity. Plaintiff asks the Court to order that her true identity remain confidential, except as to the parties, their attorney’s, and such e...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This case involves a declaratory judgment action brought by plaintiff The Home Indemnity Company against defendant Hyplains Beef, L.C. (“Hyplains”). In its declaratory judgment action, plaintiff seeks a ruling from this court that a claimed loss by defendant is not covered under its policy of insurance and that plaintiff has no obligation ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Burlington Northern Railroad Company (“Burlington Northern”) filed a “Motion for Show Cause Order” on April 20,1995, asking the court to hold Defendant in contempt for violating an order of this court. The court received affidavits and briefs from both sides and heard oral arguments on May 25, 1995. The question presented is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in ...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 974 (1995) ARCH MINERAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Bruce M. BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior United States Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 2:95-0032. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. August 1, 1995. *975 *976 Christopher B. Power, Michael B. Victorson and Amy A. Davis, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, WV, Blair M....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs application for preliminary injunction (Doe. # 5). Plaintiff PackerWare Corporation filed this action against defendant Corning Consumer Products Company claiming trademark infringement. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant from using the term “Casual Elegance” with its new product line. After carefully considering the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Plaintiff DLS, Inc. (“DLS”), a Tennessee corporation, operates an “adult cabaret” in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which offers the public live semi-nude dancing by females. Plaintiff Ann Martin is the sole stockholder of DLS. Plaintiffs Karen Chadwick and Kim Tyndall are employees of DLS. The business operated by DLS is known as “Diamonds and Lace.” The plaintiffs b...
Views: 4
ORDER Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (docket entry 12) and the government’s opposition (docket entry 15). Defendant Henry Cifuentes-Riascos (“Cifuentes”), also known as William Allegria and Carlos Otero-Rivera, a Colombian citizen, entered the United States in 1987 as a non-immigrant visitor for pleasure. Transcript of Deportation Proceedings, June 7, 1994, p. 1....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Science Applications International Corporation’s (SAIC) moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff Jerry Lawson worked for SAIC from April 29, 1991 to March 12, 1992 when SAIC dismissed him. Lawson makes three claims alleging this dismissal was unlawful: intentional breach of *379 contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of contract c...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GOLD’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Abraham Gold’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b) came before this court on July 17, 1995. At the hearing, William Gilardy, Jr., Esq., *1372 and Jeff Miyashiro, Esq., appeared for Plaintiffs Lui Ciro, Inc., Calvin W. Lui, and Theresa M. Lui (...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Plaintiffs Pagan, Hernandez and Colon, citizens of the United States, filed the instant action claiming that their individual constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights of Latino prisoners incarcerated at Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Shirley (“MCI-Shirley”), are being violated by the lack of Latino cultural programs at the prison, by the limited numb...
Views: 1
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiffs filed a complaint in North Dakota state court on August 8, 1994, for monetary damages “in excess of $29,000” and equitable relief against the defendant railroad. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges Defendant’s railroad acts as a dam and blocks the flow of water off Plaintiffs’ land. They seek a judgment requiring Defendant to construct a culvert ...
Views: 0
DETERMINATION ON REMAND This matter comes before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of that Court’s opinion in Critical Mass Energy Pro *317 ject v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C.Cir.1992) (en banc). Also before the Court is defendant National ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment, and plaintiffs motion for leave to file a supplement to the administrative record. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine issue as to any material *322 fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is n...
Views: 1
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1115 Third Avenue Rest. Corp. (the “Debt- or”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of its motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) and (b) for correction, clarification and/or modification of an order confirming the plan of reorganization. For the reasons discussed below, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision is affirmed. Background The Debtor and New ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On July 26,1995, the Court held a hearing on the following four Motions now pending before it: (1) the Defendant’s Motion to Substitute; (2) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join the American University as an Indispensable Party Defendant and to Amend the Complaint to Reflect Such Joinder and Seek Other and Further Relief or, alternatively, to Remand Matter to D.C...
Views: 0
*497 OPINION AND ORDER The underlying action involved in this case is a declaratory judgment action brought by USF & G Insurance Co. and American Bankers Insurance Co. to declare two policies of insurance void because defendants (Joseph and Judy Houska) allegedly made material misrepresentations and intentionally set, or caused to have set, the fire causing the loss. The insu...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1029 (1995) Phyllis GLAZER and Mothers Organized To Stop Environmental Sins, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CORPORATION, f.k.a. Gibraltar Chemical Resources, Inc., et al., Defendants. No. 6:94 CV 708. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. June 13, 1995. *1030 *1031 *1032 Michael Douglas Richardson, Arnold White & Durkee, Austin, TX, for...
Views: 2
*507 MEMORANDUM OPINION This action was filed to obtain judicial approval of a class settlement (the “Global Settlement”) which, if finally approved, will resolve all future1 asbestos-related personal injury claims against Fibreboard Corporation (“Fibreboard”), and a longstanding dispute between Fibreboard and two of its insurers, Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) and Pacific Indemni...
Views: 10
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON January 27, 1995, oral argument was heard on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12. In a decision delivered from the bench on that date the Court denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, denied the rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of all defendants but...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs are prisoners committed to the custody of the Maryland Commissioner of Correction (“Commissioner”) who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole. 1 Prior to 1993, plaintiffs were classified *753 to minimum or pre-release security (the two lowest levels), and several participated in work release and/or family leave programs. In ...
Views: 1
ORDER This is a patent infringement case in which Plaintiffs Pipe Liners, Incorporated (“Pipe Liners”), Hydro Conduit Corporation (“Hydro Conduit”), and Quail Pipe Corporation (“Qual Pipe”) allege that Defendants have infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 4,985,196 and 4,986,951, both of which are patent claims for installing thermoplastic pipeliners inside an existing pipe. Before the Court now is Defe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On October 5, 1994, plaintiff Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., initiated this action with the filing of a complaint alleging that defendant S & W Petroleum Service, Inc., is responsible for the release of fuel oil at a facility owned by plaintiff. The release was discovered on October 10, 1988. Plaintiff has withdrawn two counts of the complai...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 553 (1995) In re PHILLIPS, BECKWITH & HALL. Misc. No. 93-9-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. August 2, 1995. *554 *555 Robert C. Adams, Tydings, Bryan, Adams & Ritzert, P.C., Fairfax, VA, Jerry Phillips, Phillips, Beckwith & Hall, Fairfax, VA, for Phillips, Beckwith & Hall. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Jay Apperson, Gordon ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, entered February 9, 1995. I.Factual and Procedural Background Appellee Tracy Marie Gibson [“Debtor”] filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on July 22, 1994. On October 19, 1994, Ms. Gibson filed a complaint against the Commo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff State Wide Photocopy, Corp. (“State Wide”) commenced this action against Tokai Financial Services, Inc. (“To-kai”), Atlantic Business Products, Inc. (“Atlantic”) and an Atlantic employee, Robert Cohen (“Cohen”), on November 21, 1994. State Wide filed an amended complaint (“the complaint”) on January 18, 1995, alleging violations of (i) the Racket...
Views: 1
OPINION The Defendants in this multidistriet litigation have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure alleging that the complaint fads to allege with sufficient specificity a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Part...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1994, plaintiff Estate of John B. Franks initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County, Pennsylvania. The case was removed to this court by defendant Allstate Insurance Company with the filing of a notice of removal on August 2, 1994. Plaintiff alleges that it is due sums under a contract of insurance i...
Views: 2
*588 OPINION AND ORDER The motion before me is the result of a disturbing oversight by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. On the eve of trial, defendant’s counsel, a member of the Southern District of New York Federal Defender Division, received materials produced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500. These materials revealed that a cooperating...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 507 (1995) Michael G. GILMAN v. WHEAT, FIRST SECURITIES, INC. Civ. No. JFM-95-1245. United States District Court, D. Maryland. July 31, 1995. *508 John B. Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg, Baltimore, MD, Richard M. Meyer, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes and Lerachlerach, New York City, for plaintiff. Michael Patrick McQuillen, John Ray Range, Hunton and Williams, Washington, DC, James E...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before us today is the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), in this declaratory judgment action. Nationwide seeks a declaration that it is under no duty to indemnify or defend Defendant Feryo Hearing Aid Service, Inc. (“Feryo”) in a suit that is currently pending in the Philadelphia ...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 424 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Theresa J. BUSH. Crim. A. No. 94-185. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 7, 1995. Ronald H. Levine, Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. *425 Joseph Miller, Federal Defender Ass'n of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Theresa J. Bush. MEMORANDUM DALZELL, District Judge. The Government raises a novel ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this Title VII 1 sexual harassment suit brought against the Navy 2 and one of its employees, the question presented is whether, and under what circumstances, an employee of a government contractor is also deemed to be an employee of the government for Title VII purposes. The threshold, general question is whether an employee may have more th...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court must now determine whether Plaintiff properly asserted a cause of action for recovery in tort based on Defendants’ alleged outrageous conduct. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that she has not. This ease concerns a boating accident. Plaintiff alleges that Betty McFarland im*708properly operated the boat in which Plaintiff was a passenger by driving intoxi...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff seeks review of a final decision denying him disability and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 401, et. seq. At the time of the administrative hearing on September 2,1993, plaintiff was forty-eight years old, had two years of college education, and had. past relevant work experience as a machinist, truck and s...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On January 9, 1995, defendant United States of America filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint based on the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). After being granted an extension, plaintiffs opposed defendant’s motion by alleging that the discretionary function exception is in...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Defendants Gerard H. Dericks, Jr., M.D. (“Dericks”), Orthopaedic & Sportsmedicine Clinic of Hawaii, Inc., Ligastic Investment Corp., and Orthosport International (collectively “Dericks Defendants”) filed their mo*632tion on March 21, 1995 for an order determining that Plaintiff Timothy R. Hum’s action may not be maintained as a class acti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06, of a decision by the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], acting through the Soil Conservation Service [SOS] and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service [ASCS], depriving Plaintiff of certain USDA benefits upon determination that the Swamp-buster provi...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the consent of the parties as authorized by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3), upon the Plaintiffs’ Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, for a New Trial as to Damages, and for attorneys’ fees. A Motion on the Hearings was conducted on June 2, 1994, at which the Plainti...
Views: 0
*761 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND.761 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.762 A. Want Of Prosecution.762 B. Standard Of Review.764 C. Preservation Of Issues For Appeal.764 D. Qualification Of Annuity For Exemption.764 E. Extent Of Exemption .766 III. CONCLUSION.76...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION In July' of 1991, Roadmaster Industries rescinded its agreement to purchase a bicycle manufacturing plant owned by Columbia Manufacturing Company after it determined that hazardous pollutants had contaminated the soil and groundwater at the facility. The stock purchase agreement signed by...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an appeal from a decision of the Honorable Joan Feeney, United States Bankruptcy Judge, allowing the Louises’ Motion under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) to Modify the Rights of a Holder of a Secured Claim, and the Louises’ Motion for Determination of Secured Status under 11 U.S.C. § 506. Jurisdiction to consider this appeal is found under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). This Court’s re...
Views: 0
ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon Roger Allen Wolfe’s petition contending this Court’s sentence was imposed in error, See 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and an assortment of related motions. Petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether he was twice punished for the same conduct in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) whether his counsel provided ineffecti...
Views: 0
OPINION ON INQUEST MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Background Plaintiff Malvina D’Orange (“D’Orange”) commenced this action on June 6,1994 claiming damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994) (“RICO”). This court, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994). Defendant Charles L. Feely (“Feely”) did n...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Jewel Falk, moves for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 on two grounds: (1) that the judgment of the jury in favor of defendant, Diana Paluch, was contrary to the weight of the *9evidence and (2) that the verdict was the result of defense counsel’s misconduct. The.case concerns a ear accident allegedly caused by Ms. Paluch’s ne...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs in this action are The DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, Endo Laboratories, L.L.C., a fully owned subsidiary of The DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a competitor of DuPont Merck and Endo. For ease of reference, Plaintiffs will be referred to as “DuPont/Mylan.” The Defendant is Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”). D...
Views: 0
During the early morning hours of November 15, 1990, Erin Kathleen Jones (“Jones”) was raped by Michael D. Ziegler (“Ziegler”) while he was on duty as an Anne Arundel County Police Officer. Following a three-day trial in this Court in September of 1994, a jury returned a verdict finding for plaintiff Jones both on her claim against defendant Ziegler asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on her cl...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Alfred DiSabatino complains that the defendants violated various provisions of the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), specifically those codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-68, which amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Presently before the Court a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This products liability case, over which this court exercises diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, is before me on Defendant, Case Corporation’s Motion to Compel Discovery Pertaining to Plaintiffs Remaining Mental Anguish Claims. Case seeks to compel the plaintiff to submit to a six-hour psychiatric examination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 35, and to produce his psychol...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut, brings this action against Gregor M. Poleschuk and Gregor Poleschuk, residents of Pennsylvania, for personal injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ. P., for failing to allege an amount in controversy in exc...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Good Samaritan Hospital Regional Medical Center (“Good Samaritan”), Long Island College Hospital (“LICH”), and Northern Westchester Hospital Center (“Northern Westchester”) bring this action against Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”), in her official capacity, and Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (“Emp...
Views: 0
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS In this, Plaintiffs third attempt to recover against Defendant Northrop Corporation under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b), 1 Plaintiff alleges various fraudulent acts on the part of Defendants in connection with the Blue Laser, MX Missile, and Bl-B Bomber defense programs. 2 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On November 10, 1993, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department (“Committee”) commenced a disciplinary action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, seeking Phillip E. Shapiro’s suspension from the New York State Bar, pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 603.4(e)(l)(i). On April 12, ...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 447 (1995) Robert W. RICHMOND, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and on Behalf of the General Public of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 95-196-B (CGA). United States District Court, S.D. California. April 25, 1995. *448 William S. Lerach, Alan M. Mansfield, Frank J. Janecek, Jr., and Timothy G. Blood...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (“Great Lakes”) and plaintiff Lone Star Industries Inc./New York Trap Rock Corp. (“Lone Star”) have brought separate actions for limitation or exoneration of liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C.App. § 183(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Supplemental Rule F. Certain of the claimants1 in both actions have made timely requests for a jury trial of their claims. For the follo...
Views: 0
ORDER In this civil action, plaintiff Marion Sirois claims defendant Business Express, Inc., acted in breach of both written and oral employment contracts when it terminated her from the positions of flight attendant and ground employee. Plaintiff seeks recovery for (1) loss of employment; (2) loss of compensation; (3) loss of seniority; (4) loss of standing in the airline industry; a...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 14 (1995) Ann K. GARDNER and Donald A. Gardner, Plaintiffs, v. BLUE MOUNTAIN FOREST ASSOCIATION, Defendant. Civ. No. 94-599-M. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. July 27, 1995. *15 Eleanor H. MacLellan, Concord, NH, for plaintiffs. Linda S. Johnson, Manchester, NH, for defendant. ORDER McAULIFFE, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Ann and Donald Gardner, filed an eight count c...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND....................................................... 547 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 549 A. The Analytical Framework.......................................... 549 B. The Factors In The Court’s Calculus................................ 550 1. “Marginal” untimeliness of defendants’ answer................... 550 2. Rule 60(b)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion to suppress, Doc. 24. The court held an evidentiary hearing addressing some of the issues raised by the motion to suppress. 1 For- the reasons set forth herein, the motion to suppress shall be denied. On December 10, 1994, defendant Toro was stopped by the Kansas Highway Patrol. A search of defendant’s vehicle ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants are charged with interfering by physical obstruction with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1). Specifically, the United States alleges that the defendants welded themselves into vehicles, thereby blocking the entrances to a clinic in Wichita, Kan...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action for damages resulting from salt pollution of the Cow Creek Aquifer by the defendant. The matter has been the subject of a number of motions, dispositive and otherwise, which the court has addressed. Trial is set for June 27, 1995, and is expected to last at least three weeks. The court held a status conference on March 29, 1995, for the purpose of clarif...
Views: 0
*1514 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a nuisance action brought by several landowners who claim that the groundwater underlying their properties was polluted by salt which escaped from the American Salt plant in Lyons, Kansas, while it was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that because of the pollution, they are unable to grow irrigated corn on their pro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants are charged with interfering by physical obstruction with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1). Specifically, the United States alleges that the defendants welded themselves into vehicles, thereby blocking the entrances to a clinic in Wichita, Kansas, whe...
Views: 1
ORDER In this product liability action, Defendants moved for dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. In response to the motion, Plaintiff argued that S.C.Code Ann. § 15-3-30 operated to toll the statute of limitations. Section 15-3-30 provides: If when a cause of action shall accrue against any person he shall be out of the State, such action may be commenced within the terms in this cha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a nuisance action brought by several landowners who claim that the groundwater underlying their properties was polluted by salt which escaped from the American Salt plant in Lyons, Kansas, while it was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that because of the pollution, they are unable to grow irrigated com on their prop...
Views: 0
In 1985, Silva Brothers Investment borrowed $750,000 from Security National Bank. To secure the loan, Silva Brothers assigned a mortgage — of which it the owner — to the bank. It was agreed that once Silva Brothers repaid the loan, the mortgage would be reassigned to Silva Brothers. While the loan was in repayment, Security National failed. The FDIC appointed a bridge bank, New Bank of New Engl...
Views: 0
*3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Following this Court’s decision in McGuinness v. Dubois, 891 F.Supp. 25 (D.Mass. 1995), familiarity with which is presumed, there remained for trial only Counts IV and V of McGuinness’ complaint, as well as the counterclaim against him by Ronald Bissonnette alleging assault. At a final pre-trial conference held on June 26, 1995, in an attempt to narrow the issues p...
Views: 0
*536 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER “Three strikes and you’re out” is the popular phrase, universally understood here in America. 1 Despite the popular catchwords, however, as politics is not beanbag 2 so law is not baseball. A hallmark of the law is its capacity for further, reflective proceedings. To exhaust the metaphor, this case presents the intriguing questi...
Views: 3
When William and Melissa Hatch bought a home in Rowley, Massachusetts in April, 1986, they purchased a title insurance policy from First American Title Insurance Company. A little over a year later, the Hatches contracted to sell their Rowley property for $186,000 and, in anticipation of that sale, bought a home in Wayland, Massachusetts. To finance the purchase of the Wayland property, the Hat...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 48 (1995) L.A.R. SERVICE CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 93 Civ. 12280 (MEL). United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. June 27, 1995. *49 John F. Foley, Jr., Wakefield, MA, for plaintiff L.A.R. Service Center, Inc. Ben L. Fernandez, Liam C. Floyd, Michael A. Fitzhugh, Fitzhugh & Associates, Boston, MA, for defendant Whirlpool Corp. LASKER, ...
Views: 0
POSTURE OF THE CASE Plaintiffs commenced this action, ostens *246 ibly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1 on September 6, 1994, in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of Wake County, North Carolina. Defendants subsequently removed the matter to this court on October 11, 1994. Defendants now have moved to dismiss this action, which motion is supp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Petitioner, Alfonso Garfias, has filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner also seeks an evidentiary hearing on his motion and appointment of counsel. For the following reasons, I grant Petitioner’s request for a hearing and counsel. I. BACKGROUND On June 9,1992, Petit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Habeas corpus ... constitutes an extraordinary remedy, regularly sought but less regularly granted, protecting fundamental federal rights by correcting certain important abuses which everyday legal mechanisms have faded to prevent.1 Petitioner Michael S. Owen (“Owen” or “Petitioner”) brings this habeas corpus action against Peter A. Pepe, Superintendent of the Massachusetts ...
Views: 0
Paul Ferragamo sues Chubb Life Insurance Company of America, alleging that Chubb wrongfully stopped paying him disability benefits under a Chubb disability insurance policy. Ferragamo alleges that Chubb breached, and was negligent in its handling of, the policy, committed violations of M.G.L. c. 93A and both negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. On the theory that Chub...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dr. David D. Stark (“Stark”) brings this action against Advanced Magnetics, Inc. and several of its officers, Jerome Goldstein, Ernest V. Groman, and Lee Josephson (collectively referred to here as “Advanced”) to establish his rights as the inventor of technology utilized in the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases by magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”). Stark al...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM This action involves a dispute arising out a merger between Chronologic Simulation, Inc. (“Chronologic”) and Viewlogic Systems, Inc. (“Viewlogic”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). The complaint was originally filed in Massachusetts Superior Court and was removed by the Defendant. Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. I. Background I...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION This case stems from statements made by the plaintiff Edmund G. Storlazzi and certain actions allegedly taken in retaliation for those statements by Storlazzi’s employer, the Arlington School Committee. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his First Amendment rights, and sues to redress that violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 60 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Richard P. SKODNEK, Defendant. Cr. No. 94-10155-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 27, 1995. *61 Robert A. Griffith, Schwartz, Shaw & Griffith, Boston, MA, John F. Palmer, Law Office of John F. Palmer, P.C., Boston, MA, James P. Brady, Jeffrey Denner, Cuddy Bixby, Boston, MA, Theodore A. Barone, Perkins, Smith & Cohen...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1488 (1995) Leslie (Buddy) SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff, v. DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC., and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local # 226, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-1615-FGT. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 31, 1995. *1489 *1490 *1491 Jim Lawing, Wichita, KS, Tom C. Kelley, Tom Kelley, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Leslie (Buddy) Sutherland. Richard C. Dearth, Dearth, M...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is Heath A. Wilkins’ First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the State’s 1 response, petitioner’s traverse, and supplemental briefs on the issue of petitioner’s competency. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Wilkins’ petition will be granted. I. Background Petitioner pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Both defendants move for an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) imposing sanctions against the plaintiff and/or counsel for the plaintiff on the grounds that the causes of action in the complaint were (1) brought for an improper purpose and (2) not supported by non-frivolous argument. The basis for the defendants’ motion are as follow: (1) there is no federal subject matter ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Raymond Rosen (“Rosen”) has filed a complaint against defendant Ciba-Geigy Corporation (“Ciba-Geigy”), wherein plaintiff alleges that Ciba-Geigy’s negligent marketing, development, sale, and distribution of the Habitrol patch used by Rosen caused his June 11, 1992, heart attack. Plaintiff alleges Ciba-Geigy was negligent in that it: (a) fail...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Albert Chaney brings this two-count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various provisions of Illinois law. Presently before the court are defendant Michael F. Sheahan’s motion to dismiss, defendant James Collins’ motion to dismiss, and defendant George F. Nichols’ motion to dismiss and motion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. For the reason...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND On July 6,1994, Edith LiButti, doing business as Lion Crest Stable (“Lion Crest”), brought the racehorse “Devil His Due” to Saratoga, New York to run in the Whitney Handicap on August 27, 1994. On August 25,1994, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) delivered a Notice of Seizure and Levy to Devil His Due’s trainer at Sara-toga. T...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND In March 1990, petitioner pro se Robert Carpenter (“Carpenter”) and a co-defendant were tried on a three-count indictment for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. During trial, Carpenter pleaded guilty to the second count; the first and third were dismissed. Carpenter was sentenced, on May 22, 1990, to 30 months incarceration. On March 6, 199...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 763 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eddie L. FRYER, Defendant. No. 90 CR 57. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 2, 1995. *764 Eddie Fryer, pro se. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHADUR, Senior District Judge. Eddie Fryer ("Fryer") is a multiple bank robber who is serving a 262-month term in the Bureau of Prisons, following a jury convic...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 2255 I. Background Luvigj Juncaj (Juncaj or petitioner) was arrested on April 24, 1987 for distribution of cocaine and heroin. During his arrest the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized a 1985 Jaguar XJ6, worth approximately $25,000.00, pursuant to Title 21 United States Code...
Views: 0
OPINION This action arises out of failed tax shelters. Plaintiffs are investors who claim they were defrauded in connection with their purchases of limited partnership interests in one or more of eleven limited partnership tax shelters marketed and managed by defendants. Plaintiffs also claim they were defrauded in connection with their investment in discretionary trading accounts maintai...
Views: 3
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the following motions: Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on June 13, 1995; Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 18, 1995; Defen *1126 dants’ Motion to Strike Paragraphs 5 and 12 From the Affidavit of John T. Toma filed June 28, 1995; and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of James P. Hunt...
Views: 2
*869 MEMORANDUM On July 5,1994, the Fourth Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals remanded the case sub judice to this Court for reconsideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Clark v. Sims, 28 F.3d 420 (4th Cir.1994). 1 The Court now reconsiders Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Defendant Scott Paper Company’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, to alter the judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial, will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff James W. Woodson’s motion for prejudgment interest will be granted. The verdict will be reduced to $1,496,698.70. This employment discrimination action, filed November 16, 1...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Richard Noel claims that he was beaten by two Plymouth police officers, in the presence of several others, when a series of misunderstandings led the chief of police to chase him down a dirt road and crash into a tree. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Introduction Rosemarie Leija brought this case under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88. She claimed that, while she was a second grade student in the Canutillo Independent School District, her physical education teacher Tony Perales sexually abused her. At the end of the testimony, this court determined as a matter...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff UAW is seeking to enforce an arbitration award reinstating a former employee of defendant Micro Manufacturing, Inc. The employee had been terminated because he physically assaulted the owner of his company. Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment to confirm the arbitrator’s award. Defendant contends that the ar...
Views: 0
OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW I. Introduction Plaintiffs BRB Printing, Inc. (BRB) and Ben C. Maibach III (Maibach), chief exeeu-tive officer and principal owner of BRB, filed this case on December 15, 1993. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Vernon G. Buchanan (Buchanan), former chief executive officer of American Speedy Printing Cente...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION Defendant Anthony Woods was indicted on two counts on March 9, 1993. In Count I, defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver and to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846. In Count II, defendant was charged with attempted possession with intent to distribute co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 40) against the interest of the claimant Steven M. Muchnick (hereinafter “claimant” or “Muchnick”). This is a civil forfeiture action brought by the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The following facts as set forth by the United States are uneontrov...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1104 (1995) William A. ORTMAN, Plaintiff, v. Philip THOMAS, John Van Bolt, Michigan National Corporation, Robert Mylod, David Vigna, Douglas Bernstein, Comerica Bank, Lynn Allen, Gerald Poisson, Donald Slavin, John Ronayne, III, Chester Kasiborski, Jr., Kasiborski, Ronayne, and Flaska, Michigan Attorney *1105 Discipline Board, Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, George Bushnell, ...
Views: 0
ORDER This dispute comes before the Court in an unusual posture. In a state court action for defamation and malicious prosecution brought by Edwin Bosaw (“Bosaw”), defendant Valerie Stewart (“Stewart”) sought third-party discovery from certain officers of the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS Officers”), nonparties in that action. 1 The IRS Officers refused to produce the ...
Views: 3
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS This is a personal injury action brought by Plaintiff Gwen Hardwick et al. (“Hardwick”) against Defendants Pro-Line Boats, Inc. (“Pro-Line Boats”), Pompanette, Inc. (“Pom-panette”), and American Suzuki Motor Corporation (“American Suzuki”) for the death of her husband Edward Hardwick, Jr., who was killed on Lake Houston on March 7, 1993, while operating a boat manufac...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) filed by Defendants on June 5, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, TJ’s South, Inc. (“TJ’s”) currently operates a tavern in Lowell, Indiana. Defendants are The Town of Lowell (“Lowell”), The Lowell Town Council ...
Views: 0
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER MORGAN’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 53, has reviewed the special master’s April 17, 1995 report and recommendation. No objections were filed. The district court’s standard of review of the special master’s findings and recommendations is the same as the standard of review used by the Court o...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Robert Ward, a fifty-two year old white male, was discharged by the Defendant Gulfstream Aerospace (Gulfstream) pursuant to a reduction in force (RIF). Ward sues Gulfstream alleging age and race discrimination in the process by which the RIF was conducted. Gulfstream moves for summary judgment on grounds that Ward cannot establish a prima facie case. Alternatively, Gulfstream ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants, Hamilton County Prosecutor and Cincinnati City Solicitor’s, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 20), the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition (doc. 30), and the Defendants’ Reply (doc. 37). Additionally, the Attorney General of Ohio has filed a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 36), to which the Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Oppositi...
Views: 0
ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JANUARY 30, 1995 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The court, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(d)(2) (E.D.Mieh. Jan. 1, 1992), has reviewed the magistrate judge’s January 30, 1995 report and recommendation as well as plaintiffs February 16,1995 ...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims brought under the American’s with Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”) pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims brought under the ADA is GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiff brings this action for damages resulting from Defendant’s alleg...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs filed this action seeking damages and an injunction for defendants’ alleged use of plaintiffs’ trademarks and unfair competition. The court previously denied a motion for summary judgment made by defendants. Before the court is defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment. The court will deny defendants...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 456 (1995) Gordon S. GARBUTT, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN CLAYS, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 5:93-cv-433-1 (WDO). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. August 4, 1995. *457 *458 Benjamin M. Garland, Macon, GA, for plaintiffs Gordon S. Garbutt, Jr., Frank L. Garbutt, Mary Garbutt Mercer, Margaret Garbutt, Executrix of the Estate of Reese T. Garbutt, De...
Views: 0
*573 AMENDED MEMORANDUM-OPINION 1 This case presents a challenge to the authority of the President of the United States to issue an Executive Order, pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“FPASA”), 40 U.S.C. § 471, et seq., authorizing the Secretary of Labor to disqualify employers, with federal contracts exceeding $100,000, wh...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Appellant, Carlomagno Shipping, S.A. (“Carlomagno”), has appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of its motion for payment of administrative expenses, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(e). This appeal raises a jurisdictional conflict between this Court, sitting in admiralty, and the Bankruptcy Court. *26 I. BACKGROUND Carlomagno, the appellant-debtor in this bankruptcy procee...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER These two consolidated cases involve various claims made by three disgruntled franchisees against Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (“Little Caesar”) and various affiliate companies or subsidiaries. The first action, Little Caesar Enterprises v. Smith, No. 93-73354, is a declaratory judgment action by Little Caesar against one of its franchisees, ...
Views: 1
The government appeals a $270,000 judgment awarded the plaintiff in a bench trial under the Guam Government Claims Act. During the night of July 3, 1987, Gary Lampley consumed a quantity of beer at a carnival, and while driving toward home, narrowly missed sideswiping a police officer who was writing a ticket for a parked motorist. The officer gave chase, and after stopping Lampley, had some diffi...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Appellate Division after a decision by the Guam Worker’s Compensation Commission denying disability benefits to appellant, which decision was affirmed by the Superior Court of Guam. Procedural History Marina G. Lopez filed a claim with the Worker’s Compensation Commission, seeking an award of total disability for injuries allegedly suffered while she was employ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER comes before the Court 1 on Defendant Gold Fields Mining Corp.’s motion to dismiss counts 1-4, filed August 15, 1994 (Docket No. 12), Defendants’ motion to dismiss counts 3 and 4, filed September 23, 1994 (Docket No. 23), Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on count 1, filed November 7,1994 (Docket No. 31), Plaintiffs’ motion to st...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Chevron Corporation’s (hereinafter “Chevron”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Also before the Court is Defendant Chevron Nigeria Ltd.’s (hereinafter “CNL”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Chevron...
Views: 1
ORDER Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion For Expedited Consideration Of Plaintiffs Motion For New Trial And Accelerated Response Of The Defendants filed on *123June 19, 1995, Plaintiffs Motion For New Trial filed on June 19, 1995, Defendants’ Response filed on June 30, 1995, Foundation Health Federal Services, Inc.’s (“Foundation’s”) Motion To Intervene filed on July 5, 1995, Plainti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this opinion, the Court addresses one of the remaining motions filed by Defendants in this case. Defendant Barney Ward has moved to suppress what the Court will label the 1992 Tapes and the 1994 Statements. Ward’s motion is not premised on a violation of the Constitution. Instead, Ward seeks suppression on the novel ground that the Government obtained t...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action filed by Douglas B. Firestone and Amy del Valle, the Firestone grandchildren of Dorothy Firestone Gal-breath, against Daniel Galbreath, individually, and doing business as Darby Dan Farms, as executor of the estates of Dorothy Gal-breath and John W. Galbreath, and as trustee of the Dorothy Bryan Galbreath Family Trust (“the Family Trust”), the John ...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Plaintiff Jack E. Bridges (“Bridges”) for an extension of time, and the motion of Defendant IIT Research Institute (“IIT”) for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Bridges’s motion for an extension is denied and IIT’s motion for summary judgment is granted. I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME On June 26, 1995, the court ordered that Bridge...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Appellant, SB Properties, Inc., seeks to set aside the dismissal of its bankruptcy appeal and seeks to file its designation of the record and statement of the issues on appeal nunc pro tunc. Appellee, Mary Scatton, Executrix of the Estate of John P. Scatton, opposes the motion and asserts that Appellant's procedurally flawed appeal should be dismissed because the...
Views: 1
ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on July 26, 1994. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. On January 9, 1995, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation were filed by defendant. The...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 270 (1995) Kevin James TARBRAKE, Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen Marie Tarbrake, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Mark E. SHARP, Administrator of the Estate of John Mark White, deceased, Stephanie Bailiff, Delane's Truck Brokerage, Inc., and Southeast Farms, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 95-147-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. March 28, 1995. *271 R...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I.INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion for Acquittal or for New Trial. The government has filed a response, to which the defendant has replied. This Court finds that the facts and the legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs, and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral arguments. Accord...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant Federal Express Corporation is a federally certificated all-cargo airline operating under authority granted to it by the Federal Aviation Administration. On or about April 4, 1994, Plaintiff Caporieci Footwear, Inc. tendered twenty packages to Federal Express for shipment from Fa...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action brought by petitioner, the United States of America (the “Government”) to enforce an Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) summons (the “IRS Summons”). Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345. Venue appears to be proper. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1396. The IRS issued the IRS Summons to respondent Jos...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She seeks an injunctive order enjoining the defendant and anyone acting in concert and participation with him from terminating her Section 8 Housing assistance and a declaration th...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the appeal of Burditt & Radzius, Charted (“Burditt”) from the bankruptcy court’s order of January 11, 1995, granting the motion for summary judgment of defendant-secured creditor Citibank, F.S.B. (“Citibank”). The bankruptcy court ruled that Citibank’s liens against certain parcels of property were superior to the purported liens of any other defe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on motion of Defendant Equifax Credit Information (“Equifax”) for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a response, to which Defendant replied. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs, and the decisional process will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D.Mich.Local R. 7.1(e)...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter involves a dispute over the use of a common trade name, Harrison Avenue Recycling. Both plaintifl/counter-defendant and defendants/counter-plaintiffs operate recycling businesses on Harrison Avenue in Camden, New Jersey, with plaintiff/counter-defendant’s business incorporated as and operating under the trade name “Harrison Avenue Recycling, Inc.” and defendants/counter-plai...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 183 (1995) Terry VAN DYKE, Plaintiff, v. Odie WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. No. 92-1301. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division. August 3, 1995. *184 *185 Marguerite Conboy, John Lapham, Kevin Evans, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff. Assistant Attorney General Chad Fornoff, Springfield, IL, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FOR...
Views: 0
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW INTRODUCTION Dr. Robert Sunenblick (“Sunenblick”), plaintiff, is a medical doctor who operates an independent jazz record company called Uptown Records and has sold his records since 1979 under the unregistered label “Uptown Records”. Andre Harrell (“Harrell”) is a rap artist who has sold many records and compact discs featuring su...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendant unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of their national origin and race by instituting a policy requiring them to speak only English at the workplace. Plaintiffs Luz A. Long (“Long”), Sylvia E. Velez (“Velez”), Mayela D. Salvador (“Salvad...
Views: 2
OPINION This case is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to modify class certification and preliminary injunction. The Court concludes that plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. I. BACKGROUND On March 17, 1995, the Court certified a class defined as follows: all [District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”)] students currently placed in private special education schools or receiving ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE COURT, in the above-captioned cause of action, a hearing was held on January 18, 1995 in El Paso, Texas. The hearing was called in light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion filed October 11, 1994, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the decisio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lt. Paul G. Thomasson brings this action seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the Defendants from discharging or otherwise removing him from active duty in the United States Navy as a result of his statement that he is a homosexual. The Plaintiff maintains th...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on plaintiffs and defendants’ motions in limine. The plaintiff, through the General Services Administration (GSA) entered into a five-year lease with the then owner of the Cedar Hill 3 building for the use and occupancy of the building by the State Department. Occupancy was to begin on September 15, 1989 and end on September 14,1994. On the da...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the court pursuant to section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), upon the petition for injunction by the Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (“Director”). The filing of this petition follows the issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint pursuant to section 10(b) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael C. Quinn filed this lawsuit against his former employer Workforce 2000, Inc. and James E. Kincaid alleging that Defendants breached the employment contract with Plaintiff or, in the alternative, Defendants negligently, intentionally, or fraudulently misrepresented the nature and extent of the benefits to be provided to Plaintiff as a result of his employment with Work...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This proceeding is a tax refund action filed by the Trustee in this Chapter 11 bankruptcy ease. The Trustee and the United States have each appealed the findings of the bankruptcy court, and it is before the district court for a third time. Oral arguments were heard on June 20, 1995, and the following is the Court’s review of the bankruptcy decision and judgment pur...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1418 (1995) Jack BEARDEN and Cindy Bearden, Plaintiffs, v. PNS STORES, INC., a California corporation dba MacFrugal's Bargains, Close-Outs, Defendant. No. CV-S-94-397-HDM-(RJJ). United States District Court, D. Nevada. May 31, 1995. *1419 Randall M. Rumph, Shinehouse & Duesing, Las Vegas, NV, for plaintiffs. Stephanie M. Smith, & Elissa F. Cadish, Jolley, Urga, Wirth & Wo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendant Arch A. Moore’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND On June 12,1992, the State of West Virginia (“the State”) filed a 13-count Amended Complaint against former West Virginia Governor Arch A. Moore (“Moore”). The complaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action is before the court upon various motions of the parties and for judgment following the presentation of evidence to the court sitting without a jury. The parties have consented to the exercise of authority by a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). Hearings were held on October 31 and December 27, 1994. Plaintiffs Donald Stefl and Gale Stefl commenced ...
Views: 0
ORDER This case comes before the court on plaintiff Heim’s appeal of the Secretary’s decision. After considering the parties’ oral and written arguments, the court affirms the decision of the Secretary. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on September 25, 1990. (Tr. at 145-47). This application was denied initially and upon reco...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an action for declaratory relief and damages in which Plaintiff Cal Lombardi, individually and d/b/a Cal’s Jackpot Casino *370 (“Lombardi”) alleges that he was the insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by Defendant Maryland Casualty Company (“Maryland Casualty”). On December 27, 1993, Maryland Casualty informed Lombardi that the company ...
Views: 0
ORDER I. Background Plaintiff Sharon Ritzer (“Ritzer”) filed her Complaint (# 1) on October 18,1994, alleging sex and age discrimination and other violations of Title VII. Defendants Gerovicap Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Gerovicap”) and Terry Fleischer (“Fleischer”) filed their Answer to Complaint (# 14) on March 17, 1995. On April 14, 1995, Fleischer, the one hundred percent owner of Gerovica...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-394, the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-706. Plaintiffs are American consumers of commercially sold dairy products. Defendants are Donna Shalala, Secretary of...
Views: 2
897 F.Supp. 276 (1995) STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff, v. Arch A. MOORE, Jr., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 2:90-0747. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. July 20, 1995. *277 Rebecca A. Baitty, Sarasota, FL, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Katherine A. Schultz, Office of Attorney General, Charleston, WV, Michael Goldsmith, Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Re...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on Federated Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Federated”) motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, new trial (Doc. 294). Pamela Torre brought this action alleging violations of various federal statutes and Kansas common law. Mrs. Torre requested a jury trial. In a Memorandum and Order issued May 31, 1994, the...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Keystone’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (#68) and Motion for Summary Judgment (# 69). The Court has also raised a subject matter jurisdiction issue sua sponte. The Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether Title VII provides a cause of action for an employee who claims to have been the victim of sexual haras...
Views: 0
Robert Schaub (the “Plaintiff’) contends that Consolidated Freightways Inc. Extended Sick Pay Plan (the “Defendant” or the “Plan”) violated ERISA § 503, 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (1985), by failing to provide adequate notice of Schaub’s alternatives when the Plan terminated Schaub’s long-term disability benefits. Schaub also contends that the Plan acted arbitrarily or capriciously in terminating his ben...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [7] and Motion for Summary Judgment [15]. Pursuant to Local Rule 1.4, the Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert J. Kauffman. While reviewing the motion, Magistrate Kauffman determined that due to the existence of the affirmative defense of federal preemption, the Motion to Dismiss should not ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Michael Sciarrino, is an Italian-American. He worked at Municipal Credit Union (“MCU”) for approximately twelve years before he was asked to resign in February, 1990. He subsequently sued MCU and William Porter, MCU’s African-American President and Chief Executive Officer, alleging reverse discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the City of East Peoria’s (“City”) Motion to Dismiss (# 10), the Board of Trustees of the City of East Peoria Police Pension Fund’s (“Board”) Motion to Dismiss (# 11), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (# 18), the City’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of Jerome Duran (# 25), the City’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of Mark Piquard (# 26), Plaint...
Views: 4
ORDER On June 7,1995, defendant’s filed a motion to strike plaintiffs expert report (Doe. 46). Plaintiff filed a response on June 16, 1995 (Doc. 49). A reply brief was filed on June 21, 1995 (Doc. 52). On December 22,1994, the court issued its scheduling order in this case. That order required plaintiff to make their expert disclosures no later than February 13, 1995. At no time did plaintiff requ...
Views: 0
ORDER On May 5, 1995, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file her first amended complaint (Doc. 33). A response was filed on May 19, 1995 (Doc. 37). No reply brief was filed. Defendant objects to the proposed amendment for two reasons: (1) the motion is untimely, and (2) plaintiff seeks to add a Title VII sexual harassment claim which is futile. Plaintiff, inexplicably, has failed to respond t...
Views: 0
ORDER On May 26,1995, plaintiff filed a motion to compel (Doc. 55-56). A response was filed on July 18,1995 (Doc. 65-66). No reply brief was filed. *11In their response, defendant asserts that plaintiffs counsel has failed to make a reasonable effort to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the motion, as is required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B) and D.Kan.Rule 210(j). Since plaintiff did ...
Views: 2
ORDER Appellant, United States trustee appeals the bankruptcy court’s opinion (# 15) denying its motion for an order directing payment of quarterly fees as a priority expense. The bankruptcy court’s order has been published at 166 B.R. 438 (Bankr.D.Nev.1994). No opposition was filed. I. Background The debtor in this ease originally filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Ba...
Views: 0
ORDER This ease was tried to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Following the trial, the parties have submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT Jurisdiction and Venue 1. For the purposes of determining jurisdiction, plaintiffs are residents and cit...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 383 (1995) PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The ESTATE OF Steven R. CRONE, et al., Defendants. No. 95-1015-MLB. United States District Court, D. Kansas. June 20, 1995. Kevin M. McMaster, McMaster & McMaster, Wichita, KS, for Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. M. John Carpenter, Carpenter Law Office, Great Bend, KS, for Estate of Steven R. Crone, Marty Joan Crone, Jenn...
Views: 1
ORDER On March 3,1995, defendant General Host Corporation filed a motion to compel (Doe. *647174-176). A response, in the form of a motion to strike and impose sanctions, was filed on March 20, 1995 (Doc. 177). A reply was filed on April 3, 1995 (Doc. 178-180). This case was originally filed in 1984. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff on July 28, 1987. In August, 1991, the 10th...
Views: 0
ORDER On April 17, 1995, the intervenor, The Hardaway Company, filed an objection in part to this court’s order of April 3, 1995 (Doc. 51). In their motion, The Hardaway Company points out that the court did not consider their reply brief, filed on February 24, 1995. The court acknowledges that the reply brief was inadvertently not forwarded to the court for its consideration. Therefore, the cour...
Views: 0
< ORDER On May 5, 1995, defendant filed a motion to compel (Doc. 36-37). A response was filed on May 30, 1995 (Doc. 42-43). A reply brief was filed on June 12, 1995 (Doc. 47). Defendant seeks from the plaintiff a notebook containing handwritten notes and other documents pertaining to meetings involving former Boeing employees. Defendant has sought since October 26, 1994 to obtain either the noteb...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (EOCI), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) seeking damages and equitable relief. 1 In his second amended complaint 2 plaintiff alleges, in part, that prison officials offended his First Amendment rights by ordering him to undo his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafaria...
Views: 1
ORDER On March 8, 1995, plaintiff filed a motion to compel (Doc. 27). A response was filed on April 6,1995 (Doc. 31). A reply was filed on April 21, 1995 (Doc. 31). Plaintiffs motion seeks further responses to request for production number 5, and in*650terrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11. In plaintiffs reply, he indicates that he will submit a revised request for production number 5 that will be cle...
Views: 1
ORDER The first motion before the court, filed April 4, 1995, is plaintiffs motion for an order compelling the defendant’s participation in the discovery process and for sanctions against defendant for failure to participate in the discovery process (Doc. 32). Plaintiff contends there is no conflict of interest, as alleged by defense counsel, by plaintiffs counsel representing the defendant in a ...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff has filed two motions in response to this court’s order of April 3, 1995. The first motion seeks clarification of this court’s denial of plaintiffs Rule 11 motion (Doc. 59). The court order of April 3, 1995, denied the Rule 11 motion for procedural deficiencies. The order did not address the substantive issues raised in the motion. Plaintiff argues that the motion should have never...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge and the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (Doc. 7). In response, defendant moves to affirm the Commissioner’s decision (Doc. 9). Having reviewed the record in this case and for the reasons set forth in this o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Court now decides the motion for summary judgment filed by the Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”). For the reasons given below, the Court shall DENY the motion. I. FACTS The following facts are undisputed. On September 17, 1989, Augusta Federal Savings Bank (“Augusta”), through Senior Credit Officer Robert Schmuff, issued a check for $76,000, payable...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Having considered the motion, the submissions and the applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted. This case arises out of a denial of a claim for health insurance benefits under a health benefits plan authorized by the Federal Employees Health...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are defendant’s motions to dismiss and to suppress. The United States has filed briefs in response. The Court conducted a hearing on the matter on June 13,1995. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the defendant’s motions. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 6, 1993, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Inter...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Awarding Attorneys’ Fees Against Counsel and Plaintiff is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that this Court’s Order of February 10, 1995, granting Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $30,000, be and is AMENDED as follows: The award of attorney’s fees...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is the Second Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant the City of Houston. Having considered the motion, the submissions and the applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted. Plaintiffs Jesse Campos, W.R. (Resendez) Morris, and Mexican American Bar Association of Houston (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Camp...
Views: 0
ORDER Pendmg before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Vida Jean Goodman and the motion for sanctions filed by defendant Vida Jean Goodman. Having considered the motions, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion for summary judgment should be granted and the motion for sanctions demed. The facts before the Court are undisputed. Orlando an...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1163 (1995) Phyllis Gould PETTIS, Plaintiff, v. BROWN GROUP RETAIL, INC., Defendant. No. 95-30141-RV. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division. July 17, 1995. *1164 Ross M. Goodman, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, Pensacola, FL, for plaintiff. John M. Fite, Barron, Redding, Hughes, Fite, Bassett & Fenson, Panama City, FL, for defenda...
Views: 0
ORDER Appellants Woodman H. Miner, Sr. and Doug E. Gilmore have appealed from a decision of the Bankruptcy Unit of this Court which granted appellee Bay Bank & Trust Company’s motion to dismiss the appellants’ *364 amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Bankruptcy Judge is AFFIRMED....
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This is a contract action carrying diversity of citizenship and involves questions of long-arm jurisdiction. Defendant, Centron Security Systems, Inc. (“Centron”), has moved this court for a transfer to the Western District of Kentucky, pointing to that venue as a more convenient and appropriate forum. FACTS Plaintiff LaCorte Electrical Const...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is the motion of plaintiff Richard Barker, Jr. to substitute the Estate of Stacey Lynn Sheppard Barker as the real party in interest, (doc. 186). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND On October 8, 1990, defendant Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Jackson National”) issued a $350,000.00 term life insurance policy on the life of Stacey Lynn Shep...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pamela Torre brought the instant action alleging the following: (1) sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”); (3) discrimination in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 62A; (4) breach of employment contract; ...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE Plaintiff David DeLeo brings this action against the City of Stamford alleging discriminatory treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 792 et. seq. He demands a jury trial and seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees. The defendan...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Illinois *1016 Central Railroad Company (“ICR”). Having considered the supporting and opposing memoranda and the attached exhibits, the Court rules that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken and should be granted, and Plaintiffs cause of action should be dismissed with p...
Views: 1
ORDER On June 20, 1995, the Court sentenced Defendant Brian Brophil for the offense of manufacture, possession with intent to manufacture, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 1 Brophil received a prison term of 151 months, to be followed by a five year term of supervised release. Shortly before his sentencing, on J...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doe. 50). Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 63). Defendant filed a reply to plaintiffs response (Doe. 69). *1464 This case arises out of plaintiffs claim that she was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her employment and in the termin...
Views: 1
*49 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff, The Foxboro Company, Inc. (“Foxboro”), has moved that this court issue a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant, Soft Systems Engineering, Inc. (“Soft Systems”), from proceeding with the sale of Soft Systems to a third party Wonderware Corporation (“Wonderware”). The court held a hearing on this motion on August 7, 1995. For the reasons whic...
Views: 0
OPINION-ORDER Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment bring this matter to the Court’s attention. Each party has filed opposition to the other party’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs have requested oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 5(a)(4). Because the Court finds that oral argument will not materially assist our decision, we will proceed to rule on the papers. ...
Views: 0
OPINION: MEMORANDUM This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to close the class of plaintiffs by declaring that the Department of Education has fulfilled its responsibility and is no longer legally responsible for services to the subject individuals. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to close the class shall be denied. I. Facts and Procedure This action was filed on F...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on a motion by defendant for immediate release. Based upon a review of the file and record, the court denies defendant’s motion. BACKGROUND On December 5, 1994, the Grand Jury returned a three-count indictment against defendant Richard J. Garin (“Garin”) charging him with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, distribu...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, a convicted defendant argues that because his property has been forfeited to the government, he has already been punished and that sentencing him now would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Following a lengthy trial at which he was represented by counsel, a jury in November 1993 convicted Peters C. Ukandu and five others of con...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Alvin Goodman (“Goodman”) brings this two-count action against Heitman Financial, Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Heitman Financial Services (collectively “Heitman,” treated as a singular noun), alleging age discrimination (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA,” 29 U.S.C. *1168 ...
Views: 0
AMENDED * ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES James E. Ireson (“Plaintiff’) seeks review of the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) 1 to uphold the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) reduction of plaintiffs Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OR STRIKE DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE IMPROPER SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW COUNTERCLAIMS IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff POLARIS POOL SYSTEMS, INC.’s (hereinafter “Polaris”) Motion for Order Dismissing Defendant’s First Amended Answer, or, Alternatively, Striking Counterclaims came before...
Views: 2
*77 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION. Pending before this court are the summary judgment motions of defendants DuraWound, Inc. (“Dura-Wound”) and Protective Coating Developments, Inc. (“PCD”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Oral argument was heard on July 13, 1995, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs filed their original complaint against defendants on February 21, 1995. On July 5, they moved for the court to grant them leave to file their first amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 15(a). In this c...
Views: 0
Opinion In 1992, some eighty African-American homeowners living on a tract of chemically contaminated land in Texarkana, Texas, sold their residences to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which was acting as agent for the Environmental Protection Agency. The homeowners also accepted government relocation assistance. The homeowners, now plaintiffs, claim in this action that the Gov...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action alleging violation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Title 5 United States Code Sections 552 et seq., and the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, Michigan Compiled Laws Sections 15.231 et seq. Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. I. Plaintiff alleges that on June 20, 1994, he sent a FOIA request by certified mail to defe...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority and the seven defendant hospitals. Also remaining before the Court are a motion for misjoinder filed by the defendant hospitals and a motion for dismissal filed by defendant Vernice Davis Anthony, dir...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST AMERICAN INDIAN FISHER PLAINTIFFS This document relates to: Wakpat, CY90-3091-AAM. On January 19, 1995, the court heard oral argument on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the Wahpat plaintiffs. 1 William Squires argued on behalf of the defendants, and Kevin McGuire argued...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 507 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The BUILDING INSPECTOR OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Ralph L. Tisei, individually, and as an officer of The Building Inspector of America, Inc., Beverly A. Tisei, individually and as an officer of The Building Inspector of America, Inc., and Lawrence Finklestone, individually and as an officer of The Building Inspector of America,...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION The central question in this ease is what level of culpability must the Resolution Trust Corporation establish in order to recover damages against former directors and officers of a federally chartered savings and loan institution. This question in turn, requires a determination of whether federal statutory law, federal common law o...
Views: 0
*330 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND These consolidated actions raise difficult issues of corporate successor liability in the products liability context. They require this Court to determine the extent to which the sins of a defunct manufacturer of faulty products may be visited upon a firm which, although formally unrelated to the manufacturer, seeks to continue the business in whi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Michael A. Cronin (“Cronin”) alleges that the Town of Amesbury Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager, and certain podce officers conspired to terminate him from his position as the town’s podce chief, in violation of his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Town Manager term...
Views: 0
*22 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. SUMMARY Plaintiff Picker International Corporation (“Picker”) designs, manufactures, sells, and services medical diagnostic equipment including the computed tomography scanners (“CT Scanners”) involved in this case. Defendant Imaging Equipment Services, Inc. (“Imaging”) is an independent servicing organization (“ISO”) which competes wi...
Views: 4
ORDER BACKGROUND: On October 13, 1994, plaintiffs initiated this action with the filing of a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). Plaintiffs, with the exception of the Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania (“CILCP”), are individuals with disabilities who use the fixed-route transportation system of defendant Capitol Area ...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on the motion of the federal defendants for summary judgment and the motion of the plaintiffs for summary judgment against the federal defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court determines for the reasons given below that the motion of the plaintiffs should be granted and the motion of the federal defendants should be ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action, brought under New York law, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for alleged breach of a contract between plaintiff Guenther Rosemeier and defendant Schenker International, Inc. (“Schenker”) and alleged tortious interference with that contract by defendant Newbalt, Inc. (“New-balt”). Defendants move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the tortio...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Robert Sapienza (“Sapienza”) moves for judgment on the pleadings reversing a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits, or, in the alternative for remand for further proceedings. For the reasons that follow, Sapienza’s motion is denied in its entirety. BACKGROUND Sapienza...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), upon the Motion of CF Industries, Inc. (“CF”), for an Order determining its right to participate, as one who has filed a Notice of Appearance, in the further pretrial processing of these ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. This is a service mark case. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq. Plaintiff/C ounter-D efendant, Express Funding, Inc. (Funding), seeks a declaratory judgment that its use of the name “Express Funding, Inc.,” does not infringe any rights of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Express Mortgage Brokers, Inc. (Mortgage), to the mark “Express Mortgage.” Mortgage in its cross-compla...
Views: 0
ORDER The Secretary of Labor filed suit to enforce an administrative subpoena served upon Defendant, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (the “Company”). The Company operates a firearms manufacturing plant in New Hampshire. The subpoena directed the Company to produce records and information related to potential workplace hazards that might be linked to multiple movement disorders, like carpal t...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 18 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. A) ONE RURAL LOT LOCATED AT FLAMBOYAN ST., LOS MANANTIALES SECTOR, COROZAL, PUERTO RICO, Together With All Its Contents, Appurtenances, Improvements, and Attachments Thereon, Described in the Registry of Property as Follows: "Rustica: Granja agrícola marcada con el número ciento siete (107), sita en el Barrio Palmarejo de Corozal, com...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The following matters bring these actions to the Court’s attention: 1. Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier’s Report and Recommendation, filed March 31, 1995. Magistrate Niedermeier recommended that the Court grant the various motions for summary judgment submitted by the law firm Defendants in all three of the pending actions. Numerous objections and responses have been fil...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment by Defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (amended 1991). Plaintiff also alleges pendent state claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and of negligent r...
Views: 0
Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that defendants violated his First Amendment rights. The parties have submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion is granted and plaintiff’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Gilbert Windsor brought this qui tam action against DynCorp, Inc. and various of its officers and employees (collectively, “DynCorp”) for alleged violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). 1 Principally at issue is the somewhat unusual question whether alleged violations by DynCorp of the Davis-Bacon Act’s 2 reporting and cl...
Views: 1
RULING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The plaintiff class of more than 50,000 persons who are heads of households of families receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children (“AFDC”) in Connecticut have brought this civil rights action claiming that the defendant Joyce Thomas, Commissioner of the Department of Social Services, has failed to fulfill her federal statutory obligation...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Louis J. Hamros brings this seven count complaint against Bethany Homes and Methodist Hospital of Chicago (the “Hospital”) and Barry Kurcz, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a), the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, an...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a class action securities fraud suit brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who sold Allegis 1 common stock or puts in Allegis common stock between October 29, 1987 and December 8, 1987. 2 The suit arises out of defendant UAL Corporation’s (“UAL”) public announcement on October 29, 1987, that it would distribute th...
Views: 1
I. This is a habeas corpus case. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, Kenneth Daniels (Daniels), challenges his State of Michigan conviction for second degree murder and felony firearm use. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who filed a report and recommendation (MJRR) recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Now before the Court are Daniels’s objections to the M...
Views: 0
*93 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kurt S. Adler, Inc. (“Adler”) seeks a preliminary injunction against defendant World Bazaars, Inc. (“WBI”), on the ground that WBI’s “Musical Bubble Blowing Santa” Christmas tree ornament infringes plaintiff Kurt S. Adler, Inc.’s (“Adler’s”) copyright and trade dress rights in Adler’s “Christmas Bubble Santa” Christmas tree ornament. On July 27...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 450 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Michael ROTHBERG. Crim. A. No. 95-00063. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 14, 1995. *451 Frank J. Marcone, Media, PA, for Michael Rothberg. Karl K. Lunkenheimer, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for U.S. *452 MEMORANDUM LUDWIG, District Judge. Following a jury verdict of guilty, defendant Michael Rothberg moves f...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 110 (1995) Paul T. HANSEN, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, Defendant. No. 92-CV-6454T. United States District Court, W.D. New York. August 4, 1995. *111 *112 Brian M. McCarthy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rochester, NY, for plaintiff. Gary J. O'Donnell, Saperston & Day, Rochester, NY, for defendant. DECISION AND ORDER TELESCA, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Paul Hansen, ("Hansen")...
Views: 0
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action pursuant to § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, by plaintiffs, Pittston Coal Group, Inc., Thames Development, Ltd., Buffalo Mining Company, Clinchfield Coal Company, Eastern Coal Company, Elkay Mining Company, Ranger Fuel Corporation, Sea “B” Mining Company, Dante Coal Company, Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation, Kentl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER The plaintiff INTEREL Environmental Technologies, Inc. (“Interel”) brings this diversity action on behalf of itself and as a representative of approximately twenty five other subcontractors to recover monies allegedly due for construction work performed for the defendants. Presently, before the Court is the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Ralph Cifarelli (“plaintiff” or “Cifarelli”) brought the above-referenced civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Village of Babylon (the “Village”), the Village’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”), and the individual members of the *617 Board 1 (collectively, “defendants”) 2 deprived him of a p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the court are plaintiffs and defendants’ motions for summary judgment, regarding claims arising from an alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Plaintiffs claim is for restitution and defendants counterclaim for benefits. Opposition to the motions was filed by the parties. Oral arg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Respect Incorporated has brought an action for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (the “Act”) against a number of defendants, including Law Bulletin Publishing Company, American Forms, and Sigma Graphics (the “Printer Defendants”) 1 alleging that they unlawfully reproduced plaintiffs work in violatio...
Views: 0
I. Introduction This matter is before the Court, in accordance with the parties’ consent pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 686(c), upon the Motion of the Defendant Willbros Butler Engineers, Inc. (‘Willbros”), for the entry of Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs or, in the alternative, against the Defendant Murphy Bro’s, Inc. (“Murphy”). A Hearing on the Motion was conducted on July 13, 1995, at w...
Views: 0
OPINION In this sexual discrimination action, defendants City University of New York (“CUNY”) and Dr. Stanford A. Roman, Jr., M.D. (“Roman”) (collectively, CUNY and Roman are the “Defendants”) move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for an order granting summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will be denied in part and granted in part. The Parties ...
Views: 3
896 F.Supp. 916 (1995) In re POTASH ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL No. 981. Civ. No. 3-93-197. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division. July 17, 1995. MEMORANDUM ORDER ERICKSON, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 ...
Views: 0
895 F.Supp. 254 (1995) Fred C. MUTH, Plaintiff, v. COBRO CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 4:94CV1956SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. August 11, 1995. *255 Lee W. Barron, Lakin Law Firm, Wood River, IL, for plaintiff. Richard H. Ulrich, Summers and Compton, St. Louis, MO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LIMBAUGH, District Judge. On October 6, 1994 plaintiff filed...
Views: 1
902 F. Supp. 1439 (1995) Kari LANE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. CIV-94-1833-R. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. August 2, 1995. Patrick M. Castleberry, Scott C. Sublett, Kline & Kline, Oklahoma City, OK, for plaintiff. Ronny D. Pyle, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oklahoma City, OK, Charles P. Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Disseminate Class Notice. The Defendants have challenged the form and content of the Notice that the Plaintiffs have proposed and, in turn, the Pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), upon the following Motions of the parties: 1. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for the issuance of letters rogatory. 2. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Defendants to respond to their Interroga...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In this civil action, plaintiffs Valmet Paper Machinery, Inc., and Valmet-Charlotte, Inc. (collectively, Valmet) sought damages from defendant Beloit Corporation for infringement of Valmet’s U.S. Patent No. 3,868,780. Valmet also sought a declaration that Beloit’s U.S. Patents Nos. 5,144,758 and 5,249,372 are invalid and not infringed by Valmet’s sale of a paper making m...
Views: 0
Harvey Duncan, a creditor in the above-captioned matter, has filed an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and motion for expedited hearing (filing 1). Duncan requests that this court grant him leave to appeal United States Bankruptcy Judge Minahan’s May 11,1995, journal entry granting the debtor’s motion to incur secured indebtedness and denying Duncan’s objections thereto (f...
Views: 0
*207 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute Medical Authorization filed by CSX Transportation, Inc., on January 31, 1994. The plaintiff, Jason M. Shots, filed responses on February 3 and 9, 1995. Defendant CSX filed a reply brief on February 14, 1994. The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order filed February 3, 1995. Plaintiffs Memorandum Pertaining to the Limited Scope of 23 U.S.C., Section 409 was filed on February 6, 1995. The Court, being duly advised, now GRANTS the Motion for a Protective Order. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is ...
Views: 0
*839MEMORANDUM OPINION ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT This is an appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appellant Betty A. Linton, a Chapter 7 debtor in the underlying case, appeals the denial of her objection to a claim filed by appellee Carl W. Grow. Linton argues that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing Grow’s claim because the basi...
Views: 0
185 B.R. 726 (1995) In re BULLION HOLLOW ENTERPRISES, INC., Debtor. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. BULLION HOLLOW ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee. Bankruptcy Nos. 7-92-02845-HPB-11, 94-0259-B. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division. August 3, 1995. *727 S. Randall Ramseyer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Abingdon, VA, Margaret M. Earnest, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC...
Views: 0
ORDER This case came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law Regarding Ex Parte Communications by Plaintiffs with Former and Current Employees of Defendants (Doc. No. 26, filed February 9, 1995); Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing and Scrivener’s Error (Doc. No. 29, filed February 14, 1995); Defendant Reedy Creek’s Memorandum of Law Regarding Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Communications wi...
Views: 3
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Gerald Jarvis and Ann Marie Jams Sled this action seeking a tax refund in the amount of $11,396.78. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment. The government opposes plaintiffs’ motion and has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated belo...
Views: 0
FINAL ORDER GRANTING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgment that Florida Statute § 43.29(l)(a) is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. The Court finds that the race and gender-based quota as established by § 43.29(l)(a) violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Con...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Monica A. Valadez filed the instant complaint against defendant Uncle Julio’s of Illinois, Inc. d/b/a Uncle Julio’s Hacienda (“Uncle Julio’s”), alleging that while working for defendant plaintiff was subjected to a pattern and practice of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Robert Felder (Felder) brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking habeas corpus relief from his state conviction for murder. In his petition Felder advances two arguments as grounds for relief. First, that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment and, second, that the evidence admitted at ...
Views: 2
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT This is a medical insurance benefit claim in which Plaintiff The Transitional Learning Community at Galveston, Inc. (“TLC”) filed suit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Met Life”) in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas. Defendant later removed the action to this Court on the same day the state court entered a default...
Views: 0
OPINION Pending before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiffs, Robert Bianco, Mary Pat Flaherty, Lamont Jones, Louis Laurenzi, Steve Mellon and Michael Anderson, for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiffs initiated this civil action against the Pittsburgh Press Company, the Pittsburgh Press Dismissal and Death Benefits Plan, and Scripps Howard, Inc., on June 14, 1993. Plaintiff...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff United States of America (“United States”) for summary judgment against defendant National Steel Corporation (“National Steel”), and the motion of National Steel to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The issues have been fully briefed and are ripe f...
Views: 0
*563 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION The Appellants (New Center Hospital, Park Community Hospital d/b/a New Center Hospital, Central City Health Services, Inc., New Center Clinic — East, Inc., New Center Clinic — West., Inc., New Center Clinic — Central, Inc., Detroit Medical Health Facility, Inc., Detroit Medical and Surgical Center, P.C., Central City Hea...
Views: 1
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination suit in which Plaintiff Mark David Sarff (“Sarff’) has filed suit against Defendant Continental Express (“Continental”) pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Sarff alleges that his firing by Continental was in retaliation for complaints he made about alleged sexual ...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 456 (1995) FIRST KEYSTONE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK v. FIRST KEYSTONE MORTGAGE, INC. Civ. A. No. 94-CV-1894. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 16, 1995. *457 *458 Eugene E. Renz, Jr., Jeffrey K. Rucker, Eugene E. Renz, Jr., P.C., Media, PA, for plaintiff. Peter J. Mooney, Laura W. Brewer, White and Williams, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant. MEMORANDUM JOYNER, Distric...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This is an antitrust suit brought by the Massachusetts School of Law seeking treble damages arising from the failure of the American Bar Association to grant the school accreditation. MSL attached to its complaint a report bolstering the school’s claims of merit. By an order dated June 27, 1995, I granted ABA’s motion to compel Ansel Chaplin, MSL’s “cons...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Currently pending before this Court is the motion by defendant Main Line Federal Savings Bank (“Main Line”) for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) or for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b) on the crossclaim filed by codefendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (“Merrill Lynch”). In dispute is the ultimate liability for pecunia...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BACKGROUND Brian Tanoue (“Plaintiff’) was interviewed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on several occasions in 1993 and 1994 during the course of a criminal tax investigation of David Chang. The IRS made recordings, memoranda, and notes of those interviews. On May 18, 1994, Plaintiff, as dire...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Pending before the Court is plaintiff Aaron Washington’s “Motion to Remand and Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees,” which were taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion insofar as it seeks remand of this matter to state court but DE...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 590 (1995) Dianne CASTANO, et al. v. The AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, et al. Civ. A. No. 94-1044. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. July 27, 1995. *591 Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel, Landry & Becnel, Reserve, LA, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, New Orleans, LA, Wells Talbot Watson, Baggett, McCall & Burgess, Lake Charles, LA, Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz &...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction Defendant, Frank Cervantes, seeks dismissal of charges for assault of a prison official on grounds that the government has violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We refuse to dismiss the action, concluding that ordinary administrative segregation does not constitute “arrest” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (1988). II. Facts On August...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending is the motion of defendant Jackson County, Florida (“County”), to dismiss Count I of the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (doc. 57). Also pending is the motion of defendants Al Green, Charles Lockey, and Willie Spires (collectively “the individual defendants”) to dismiss the second amended complaint, (doc 55). For the reasons ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Continental Field Services Corporation (“CFS”) charges Defendant ITEC International Inc. (“ITEC”) with breach of contract. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth, Defendant’s motion is granted. FACTS ITEC is a Un...
Views: 0
ORDER Pro se prisoner Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 9, 1994. Plaintiff names as De*1416fendants Kermit Kerley, Chief Administrative Officer of Hardee Correctional Institution (HCI); Emile Baudoin d’Ajoux, investigator for Correctional Medical Authority; Harry K. Singletary, Chief Administrative Officer for the Department of Corrections; and Be...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Lori A. Gubitosi (“Gubitosi”), instituted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against John A. Kapica (“Kapica), the Chief of Police of the Town of Greenburgh (“the Town”) and the Town’s Board of Police Commissioners (“the Board”), the Town Board and the Town itself (collectively referred to as “defendants”), on the ground that she was suspended...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendants Spencer and the Town of New-burgh move to dismiss the federal cause of action in plaintiffs complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Further, defendants move to dismiss the pendent state claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Signal Capital Corporation (“Signal”) has moved in this action for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, restraining defendants Hiram J. Frank, Clemence Frank and Susan J. Albert from disposing of or transferring their tangible assets or property, and an order of attachment, pursuant to Article 62 of the New York Civil Pract...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The question for determination is whether the plaintiff has demonstrated possible irreparable injury and probable success on the merits with regard to defendants’ alleged infringement of plaintiff’s copyright in its “Kitchen Basics” box design, and is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, this Court answers that question in the ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on Mercy Ambulance of Fort Wayne, Inc.’s January 17, 1995, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 6,1995, Plaintiff Nielsen filed his Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and on February 14, 1995, Mercy Ambulance filed its Reply. For the following reasons, Mercy...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on Union Defendants’ and Plaintiff Jeffrey Nielsen’s Motions for Summary Judgment. On March 31, 1995, Plaintiff Nielsen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Request for Oral Argument. Union Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 28, 1995. On May 1, 1995, Defendant Mercy Ambulance filed a Brief in Response to Nielsen’s Motion for Summar...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This diversity case was brought by the plaintiff Weyerhaeuser Company (‘Weyer-haeuser”) alleging that the defendant Israel Discount Bank of New York (“IDB”), as advising bank under a letter of credit (“Letter of Credit” or “Credit”) from non-party Bank Leumi Le-Israel (“Leumi”), failed to honor a partial assignment of proceeds to Weyer-haeuser made by defendant Crestmano...
Views: 0
902 F.Supp. 565 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Robert Casey, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Karen F. Snyder, Acting Secretary Department of Public Welfare, Steven M. Eidelman, Deputy Secretary of Mental Retardation Office of Mental Retardation, Alan M. Bellomo, Director Ebensburg Center, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-33J. United States Dis...
Views: 0
OPINION Will the adverse domination doctrine be applied in Illinois? If so, does it toll the statute of limitations? Let us see. I. Background Security Savings and Loan Association, F.A. located in Peoria, Illinois, (Security) was a federally chartered savings and loan which was placed into receivership by the Office of Thrift Supervision on August 17, 1989. The O...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. After a trial in the above styled case on March 21, 1995, the jury returned guilt verdicts against the Defendant on four counts: count I (conspiring to make false statements, representations or certification on United States Mine Safety and Health Administration form 5000-23) and counts VII, XXI...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER After receiving his right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, plaintiff Christopher Leige (“Leige”) filed a complaint against the defendants, his previous employer Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. (“Capitol”), Frank McGough (“McGough”), the majority shareowner and Chief Executive Officer of Capitol, and Lester Salter (“Salter”), the general ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This action is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b), plaintiffs motion contra to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and defendants’ reply. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ refusal to pay prison inmates mini...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction 1 This is a case about corn, clams, copying and confusion. The story begins decades ago, when plaintiff Dorr-Oliver Incorporated (“Dorr-Oliver”) 2 invented a new way to process com using centrifugal force. Prior to these inventions, the corn wet milling industry separated the germ, fiber, starch and gluten (protein) ...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 18 (1995) Eileen ROBBINS, Plaintiff, v. The BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 95-685 (JHG). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 15, 1995. *19 Alan Lescht, Reid & Priest, Washington, DC, Louis Ginnsberg, The Ginnsberg Law Firm, New York City, for plaintiff. Karen Anne Post, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, DC, for defendant. ME...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM “A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation. Ideally of course, litigants will settle the amount of the fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Despite this Court’s hope that the parties would heed the Supreme Court’s admonition and settle their fee dispute, presently before this...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a Chapter 11 case, challenging three orders of *977the bankruptcy court with respect to the contested claims of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for income taxes, penalties and interest allegedly owed by the Debtor, James Berry Craddock. Jurisdiction is based on Rule 8001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and 28 ...
Views: 0
DECISION ON APPEAL The bankruptcy court found appellant’s debt, created by a civil judgment, to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (“willful and deliberate injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand. A brief recitation of the uncontroverted facts would be in order. David Alan Delaney and Danny Corle...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 898 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carl WHITBY, Defendant. Nos. 92-CR-0069-C-03, 92-C-0194-C and 95-C-0171-C. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. August 10, 1995. *899 *900 Jeffrey Anderson, Steven O'Connor, Asst. U.S. Atty., Madison, WI, for U.S. Carl V. Whitby, Leavenworth, KS, pro se. OPINION and ORDER CRABB, Chief Judge. Defendant Carl Whitby has moved f...
Views: 0
Memorandum Regarding Defendant FDIC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 7) I.INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Peter and Catherine Zawrotny filed this complaint on January 6, 1994 against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), receiver for the Vanguard Savings Bank (“Vanguard”), and Aspen Square Management, Inc. (“Aspen”), Vanguard’s management representative. They allege that Aspen and FDIC we...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS The defendant, Albert Foster, Jr., is charged in a twelve-count superseding indictment with various violations of Titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code related to controlled substances, firearms, false identification, sexual exploitation of minors, and transportation of a minor. Before the court for its consideration is Foster’s amended motion to...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMAND This motion to remand requires the court to examine the parameters of the district court’s authority to remand a social security disability case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The plaintiff commenced this action to obtain judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). 1 After filing an answer to the...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND.1236 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1238 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1240 A. Undisputed Facts.1240 B. Disputed Facts.1243 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1246 A. Invalidity.1246 1. Enablement and definiteness.1246 a. Enablement.1247 b. Definiteness.1251 2. Prior art.1255 a. Anticipation.1255 b. Obviousness.1259 ...
Views: 0
ORDER On June 21, 1994, this court granted the summary judgment motion of Varig Brazilian Airlines, Inc. dismissing the three causes of action asserted by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and District Lodge 142, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in its complaint. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 898 (1995) Paul E. KLEBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MITRE GROUP HEALTH CARE PLAN, Defendant. Civ. No. PJM 92-3130. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. August 17, 1995. *899 James P. Koch, Tracey Gann Turner, Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, MD, for plaintiffs. David O. Stewart, Ropes and Gray, Washington, DC, Gil A. Abramson, Hogan & Hartson, Baltimore, MD, ...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Edmund M. Mahern (“Trustee”), Trustee of Merchants Grain, Inc. (“MGI”), appeals from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court in which that Court found against him in his effort to set aside allegedly preferential transfers. Defendants below are customers of MGI of Columbus, Ohio, who entered into delayed price agreements with MGI and who received payments from MGI less than...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause pends before the Court on the appeal by First United Savings Bank (the “Bank”) of the Order of the Bankruptcy Court confirming a Chapter 13 plan (the “Plan”) for appellee, Elizabeth Ann Edwards (“Edwards”). Specifically, the Bank objects to the Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to grant its motion to dismiss the Plan, which the Bank filed based on its view that it should be ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed January 17, 1995 in Civil No. 3:94-CV-2504-H by J.T. and V.T., minor children, by and through their managing conservator, Monica Triplett (collectively, the “Triplett Defendants”). Also before the Court are the Response filed b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of the defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(b) 1 for summary judgment on the plaintiffs claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”), enacted as a part of COBRA — the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. Pub.L. No. 99-272...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the motions of the defendants, United Technologies Motor Systems and The Insurance Company of North America, to dismiss or for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) 1 and 56 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Annie Billingsley, has sued her employer, United Technologies ...
Views: 1
897 F.Supp. 466 (1995) HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff, v. U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Civ. No. 94-875-MA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. July 25, 1995. *467 *468 Bruce C. Hamlin Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, Portland, OR, for plaintiff. James C. Tait, Oregon City, OR, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER MAR...
Views: 0
ORDER REVERSING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ISSUANCE OF PRETRIAL SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM Pursuant to Local Rules 304 — 1(b) and 404-1, the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without hearing. Loretta A. Mat-sunaga, Esq., appeared on the briefs on behalf of the Government; Richard Ney, Esq., appeared on the briefs on behalf of Defendant. After reviewing the motion and the supporting ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM and ORDER Relators John Fallon, Robert Bradley, Jr., Pamela Carr, Kris Sheridan, Kelly Fallon and Atlantic States Legal Foundation commenced this action on behalf of the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) alleging that defendant Aecudyne Corporation knowingly made false claims for contract payments in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1), (2) and (3). Defendant Allia...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER comes before the Court, sua sponte, on the Court’s Order and Notice of Hearing (Docket No. 636), wherein the Court directed that the government show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against Federal Defendants’ counsel, Pamela West, and/or the United States of America, for violations of the Court’s prior orders. Having reviewed the submissions and argument...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the defendant Hess Oil Virgin Islands' ("HOVIC") motion for costs and attorneys fees related to the plaintiffs' motion for declaratory relief which this Court denied on June 6, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, HOVIC's motion will be denied. An Award of attorney's fees under V.I. Code Ann. tit, 5, § 541(b) is a matter of judicial discretion. Colli...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER comes before the Court 1 on Plaintiffs’ third motion to enforce judg *1425 ment and to vacate the decision of the impartial decisionmaker, filed August 22, 1994 (Docket No. 78), Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the Court’s memorandum opinion and order of August 24, 1994, filed September 8, 1994 (Docket No. 85), and Defendants’ mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiffs, P.T.C. Brands, Inc. and The Pinkerton Tobacco Company (hereinafter collectively “P.T.C. Brands” for purposes of this opinion), for summary judgment. On August 30, 1993, this court entered a preliminary injunction, having first made a de novo review and having adopted the findings of fact an...
Views: 0
*400 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Thomas Reimann, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Green Bay Correctional Institution initiated a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden, the Security Director and the Mail-room Supervisor of the prison. The Plaintiff claims that his civil rights were violated by the refusal of prison officials to deliver two issues of a news...
Views: 0
894 F.Supp. 1337 (1995) ENTERPRISE BANK, Plaintiff, v. MAGNA BANK OF MISSOURI, Defendant. No. 4:94CV01411 GFG. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. August 16, 1995. *1338 *1339 *1340 John S. Sandberg, Lyndon P. Sommer, Sandberg and Phoenix, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff Enterprise Bank. Douglas R. Sprong, Paul N. Venker, Armstrong and Teasdale, St. Louis, MO, for defendan...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order The defendant has moved this Court to unseal grand jury records and files, for disclosure of communications, to dismiss the indictment, and/or for sanctions against the government.1 The essence of this motion is an allegation that the government revealed grand jury information prior to the indictment in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e). Because of the alleged prejudicial nature ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER On July 22, 1994 and January 28, 1995, United States Customs Agents executed searches of the premises at ICS Cutting Tools, Inc. (hereinafter “ICS”) pursuant to search warrants. Documents, machinery and inventory were seized. On March 14, 1995, ICS moved for the return of property pursuant to Rule 41(e). This court has jurisdiction over a Rule 41(e) motion for the return of p...
Views: 0
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS This case arose after the Connecticut State Police began a policy of automatically recording all calls made into and out of each State Police barracks in the State. The policy first received public attention in November 1989, leading to the filing of the several lawsuits consolidated in this action. The Court has certified a plaintiff class, composed of all perso...
Views: 10
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants, formerly manufacturers of DES for use in pregnancy have moved for summary judgment on the claims of plaintiff Lynn Yarnall. They contend that Yarnall’s claims are time-barred under the New York statute of limitations. Defendants’ motion is denied. Yarnall was born in New York in 1943. She moved to Florida in 1992, where she currently resides. She filed h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to exclude the videotape of the “kick test” and related evidence, defendant’s motions to exclude certain photographs, defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Hartford Buckel on the development of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration’s (“UMTA”) specifications, and defendant’s motion to exclude the tes...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1492 (1995) Gary L. HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. CV 94-806-AAH. United States District Court, C.D. California. August 7, 1995. *1493 *1494 Roxanne A. Davis, Frank Hakim, Law Offices of Kourosh Sadighpour, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiffs. Mark W. Robbins, Robert F. Millman, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason, Los Angeles, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs Motion in Limine, and on the defendant’s corresponding Motion for Leave to Present Evidence Under Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiffs motion. Additionally, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. Factual Background At all times...
Views: 1
After a nine day trial of these consolidated cases, a jury returned a verdict, based on answers to special interrogatories, finding for the plaintiff, Ramakrishna Rao, against defendants Anthony Japha, Dennis Newman, and Robert Weigand on the plaintiffs claim that their termination of his employment at the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (“HHC”) violated his First Amendment right...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Linda Slater, has filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Richard E. Marshall’s Counterclaim against her for defamation. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that Defendant Marshall is a professor at Montgomery County Community College (MCCC) 1 who sexually harassed and stalked Plaintiff while she was his student. Defendant’s Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff defamed him when she ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Currently before the court is a petition by Andre Lonzell Burroughs to have his sentence modified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 For the reasons that follow, Burroughs’ request for relief must be denied. 1. BACKGROUND On August 24, 1990, a jury convicted Burroughs of distributing and conspiring to distribute cocaine base, or “crack cocaine,” ...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiffs, the United States of America and Robert B. Reich, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (collectively the “Government”) moved for an order pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., granting them partial summary judgment on Claim V against defendants James Lupo (“Lupo”) and Joseph Fater (“Fater”), and Claim VII (against Fa-ter), which charge ERISA violations b...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The second superseding indictment charges defendant Louis Cantor with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666 and with conspiracy to violate that statute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Cantor seeks an order (1) dismissing the indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 666 is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2)...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 577 (1995) James T. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 95-936-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. August 17, 1995. *578 John K. Zwerling, Joel B. Simberg, Moffitt Zwerling & Kemler, P.C., Alexandria, VA, for plaintiff. John Klock, Commonwealth's Attorney, Erik Barnett, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This case presents a conflict between the enforcement of a mandatory tuberculosis (or “TB”) screening program instituted by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) and the demonstrated religious convictions of a prison inmate who has refused to submit to the screening test. The plaintiff, who is twenty-eight years old and who has been confined in ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This lawsuit began when plaintiff Humphrey L. Shuford, an African-American, brought an employment discrimination claim charging that he had been denied promotions in Alabama’s postsecondary educational system because of his race. He named as defendants the Alabama State Board of Education and its chancellor and individual board members and the Atmore State...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 782 (1995) RESOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant. No. 95 C 0373. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 18, 1995. *783 Jeffrey H. Hornstein, Pia Norman, Rachel Ellen Lutner, Holleb & Coff, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff. Andrew Dash, Berlack, Israels & Liberman, New York City, Arnold ...
Views: 0
Memorandum and Order I. Procedural Background On August 10, 1994, this Court held that the possessory interest and business activity taxes on Peabody Coal’s leasehold interest respecting a coal mine on the Navajo Reservation were not “proceeds” for the purposes of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act provision stating that “proceeds” from minerals within underlying reservation land were to be di...
Views: 0
*1431 OPINION (Equal Protection) In November 1994, Oregon voters narrowly approved a ballot initiative that allows a terminally ill adult to obtain a doctor’s prescription for a fatal drug dosage for the express purpose of ending their life. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act (“Measure 16”) 1 is the first of its kind in this country, and it is an understatement to ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant-Counterclaimant Rammax Maschinenbau GmbH [“Rammax”] owns the registered trademark “RAMMAX” [“the RAMMAX mark”]. Rammax, and its American distributor, Defendant-Counterclaimant Multiquip, Inc. [“Multiquip”], have moved for a preliminary injunction against Plaintiff-Counterdefendants Sea-Roy Corporation [“Sea-Roy”] and AMERAMAX Contractors Equipment & Supplies, Inc. [...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case, involving a program in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System requiring students to perform fifty (50) hours of unpaid community service outside of the normal school hours during their high school years as a condition of their graduation, comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by all parties. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 15). For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted insofar as it relates to the claims raised in the plaintiffs complaint. I. FACTS The basic facts of this ease are not in dispute. The plaintiff, Lori Kubes, was covered under a group health insurance po...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael McQuerry brings this action under the Medical Devices Amendments (MDA) to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-395, against American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS), Charles Feinstein, and Watertower Surgicenter Corporation. McQuerry seeks to recover damages he suffered as a result of the failure of a penile implant manufactured b...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Charles Okonkwo, a New York State prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Pet”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1990 state court conviction, asserting that his Fourteenth Amendment rights and his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial were violated. He argues that the trial court’s order to close the courtroo...
Views: 2
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION I. Procedural Background This matter is now before the court on Universal’s objections to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Hale Intermo-dal Marine Company (“Hale”) be granted summary judgment in its claim against Universal Maritime Service Corporation (“Universal”) for indemnity arising out of a fire on a barge on April...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on appeal of the Bankruptcy Judge’s 1 decisions dated March 15, 1995 by appellants Gail Chiang, Peter Chiang, Leona Watson and Corneall Watson [“appellants”], acting in their capacities as shareholders, officers, and creditors of Caledonia Springs, Inc. The issues 2 raised by appellants include whether the Bankru...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Eugene Whytosek (“Whytosek”), a letter carrier with the United States Postal Service, brought this action for assault and battery in state court against defendant Carl C. Rademan (“Rademan”), his immediate supervisor. Defendant, represented by the U.S. Attorney, removed the suit to federal court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). He did so based on a ce...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the motion of the defendants Leonard Gereau, William Gibson, and the School Board of Franklin County (the “school board defendants”) for summary judgment. .These defendants previously filed a summary judgment prior to the commencement of discovery, which I denied. The parties have briefed the issues involved in the renewed motion and the Court he...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiffs, Defenders of Wildlife et al. (Defenders et al.), filed this action under the citizen’s suit provision 1 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 505(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(2), which reads in pertinent part: (a) Authorization; jurisdiction Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section [regarding 60 day notice requirement] a...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 434 (1995) In re VALUEVISION INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civ. A. No. 94-2838. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 11, 1995. *435 *436 *437 Mark S. Goldman, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector & Roseman, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Steven A. Kalodner. Christopher K. Walters, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Philadelphia, PA, for ValueVision International, I...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties have fully briefed the issues involved and the Court has heard oral argument. Thus, the motion is ripe for disposition. Based upon the reasons contained herein, I am of the opinion that the defendants’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part. FACTS: This suit is bro...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The defendanVappellant/cross-appellee First National Bank of Harvey (“FNB-Harvey”) has appealed the February 17, 1994 decision of the bankruptcy court wherein that court concluded that FNB-Harvey violated 11 U.S.C. sections 364(b), (c) and (d) by extending post-petition overdraft credits to debtor Garofalo’s Finer Foods, Inc. (“Garo-falo’s”) outside of the...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 89 (1995) Andy GARDNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 94-CV-236 (FJS) (DNH). United States District Court, N.D. New York. August 14, 1995. *90 *91 Office of Gustave J. Detraglia, Utica, NY (Gustave J. Detraglia, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff. Thomas J. Maroney, United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY (William F. Larkin, Ass't U.S. Attorney, of counsel), for def...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Alice Jansen (“Jansen”) brings this three-count action against her employer Packaging Corporation of America (“Packaging”). Count I asserts that Jansen was the victim of sexual discrimination by her supervisor A1 Antoni (“Antoni”) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 20006-17 1 ), while Count II states...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Mary Nedder brings this civil action against Rivier College, alleging that Riv-ier’s termination of her employment as an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Pub.Law No. 101-386, 104 Stat. 327 (1990) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117 (Supp.1995)). Plaintiff also asserts claims under New Hampshire la...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1549 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Timothy J. McVEIGH, Defendant. Misc. No. 39. No. M-95-98-H. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. August 7, 1995. *1550 *1551 Stephen Jones, Enid, OK, Richard H. Burr, III, Houston, TX, Robert Nigh, Tulsa, OK, Michael D. Roberts, Robert L. Wyatt, IV and James L. Hankins, Jones, Wyatt & Roberts, Enid, OK, for defendant. Pat...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Terry Lynn Nichols for an order releasing him upon a number of specified conditions pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et seq. and the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The motion was filed following Defendant’s request, at his preliminary hearing on May 18, 1995, for an opportunit...
Views: 0
On May 3, 1993, Ronald Kuehl brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Chrysler Pension Plan (hereinafter “Chrysler Plan”) and Chrysler Corporation (hereinafter “Chrysler”), alleging that he has been denied pension benefits due him under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs, fertilizer producers in the United States, allege that beginning in April 1987, Defendant potash1 producers violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by combining and conspiring to raise, fix...
Views: 4
ORDER This order addresses discovery disputes that counsel for the parties brought to the court’s attention during the pretrial conference in the above-styled case and through subsequent correspondence. As provided in the case management plan and scheduling order, the deadline for completion of discovery in this case was February 15, 1995, and the court conducted the pretrial conference on Marc...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with a subpoena directed to the law firm of Ciardi, Maschmeyer & Karal-is, P.C. (“Law Firm”). The Law Firm represents several of the Defendants in this action. One of the issues Plaintiffs raise in this action is the ownership and control of the various Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that one Defendant, Roger Hiser, controls sever...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) appeals from the May 3, 1995, Memorandum and Order of Chief Bankruptcy Judge David A. Scholl denying the IRS’ motion to dismiss and confirming Ernest Lilley’s Chapter 13 Plan (“the Plan”). 1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts of this appeal are in all material aspects uncontroverted. In January, 197...
Views: 1
Presently pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. This lawsuit was filed by over 150 Emergency Medical Service Personnel (hereinafter “EMS personnel”) of the Baltimore County Fire Department seeking compliance with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). On a previous s...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants City of North Olmsted (the “city”), its Chief of Police, Dennis Sefcek, Captain George Ruple, Lieutenants Barry O’Toole and Frank Viola, Sergeant Robert Flynn, and various John Does (collectively the “defendants”), move this Court for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”). Plaintiffs Ralph and Sharon Hughes opp...
Views: 0
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DENIAL OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Pending is Beverly Lee’s motion for appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII employment discrimination suit. 1 Ms. Lee proposes suit against her employer, the United States Postal Service and Marvin Runyon, the Postmaster General, 2 for racial discrimi *593 nation p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 16, 1991, Willie Powell, a Wisconsin resident employed as a truck driver by a Wisconsin company, stopped at a Truckstops of America (TSA) facility just south of the state line in Illinois for some brake work. He thereafter headed south on a trip for his employer. The following day he was killed in an accident in Tennessee, allegedly because his brakes failed. A W...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Ronald Hrubec’s motion to amend his complaint. Hrubec maintains that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 961, 130 L.Ed.2d 902 (1995), which was handed down after the most recent oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit but before that court ruled, has breathed new life in...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Peter Palivos brings this three count action against defendants City of Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley, and Alderman Joseph Moore. In a nutshell, plaintiffs complaint alleges that defendants have arbitrarily refused to issue plaintiff a building permit, although he has complied with all of the relevant requirements of the City of Chicago Building C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Rusbeiro Messa, has filed a pro se complaint seeking damages under a number of federal and state-law claims, and has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Messa asserts that his debts substantially exceed his assets, and that his income is very small; because there is no reason not to believe these claims, his motion to proceed ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Rusbeiro Messa, has filed a pro se complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2), Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and various state common-law causes of action. Messa has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Messa asserts that his debts substantially exceed his assets, and that his income is ve...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate and/or Reconsider Summary Judgment and for Rehearing or in the Alternative Motion for a New Trial, filed on July 28, 1995. Plaintiff, Tonia Medley, filed this action in federal court on January 27, 1995, alleging that she had been discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the CM Righ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Edwin Chang and Michelle Chang move to vacate the default judgment entered against them on February 17, 1995, as well as the turn-over order entered by Magistrate Judge Rosemond on June 20, 1995. For the reasons set forth below, we grant defendants’ motion in part with regard to Michelle Chang, but deny the motion with regard to Edwin Chang. I. Background...
Views: 1
ORDER Pending before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Instrument #20) Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Instrument # 3). Having reviewed the record and considered the memorandum, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s objection, and the applicable law, the Court finds the recommendations to be proper in all re...
Views: 0
ORDER Status Plaintiff initiated this action on June 5, 1992, by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the following Defendants: (1) William Peter Martin, an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Florida; (2) Bobbie Glover, the administrator of the Department of Corrections Bureau of Admission and Release; and (3) Patricia Roberts, an acco...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 829 (1995) Dean REASON and Virginia Reason, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. IP 95-0261-C H/G. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. July 17, 1995. *830 Michael R. Burrow, Wolf & Burrow, Greenfield, IN, for plaintiffs. Lloyd H. Milliken and Kevin C. Schiferl, Locke Reynolds Boyd & Weisell, Indianapolis, IN, for defendant. ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction On September 29, 1994, plaintiffs Haden Schweitzer Corporation (“Haden”), Thermal Engineering Corporation (“TEC”) and Willie H. Best (“Best”) filed a patent infringement action against defendants Arthur B. Myr Industries, Inc. (“Myr”) and Richard P. Marsh-ke (“Marshke”), Myr’s president, for defendants’ installation of a curved wall, radiant oven at Ford Motor Company’...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 150 (1995) JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GOFEN & GLOSSBERG, INC., Boulevard Bank National Association and Midwest Securities Trust Company, Defendants. No. 93 C 1539. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 21, 1995. *151 *152 James J. Casey, Stacey Lee Prange, Michael J. Dolesh, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, IL, for Jacks...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Thomas Dworak’s motion for summary judgment is before the Court. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted. Background Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum of law in response to the motion for summary judgment, nor has he filed a responsive statement to the defendant’s statement of uncontested facts, as required by N.D. I...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff has filed a complaint requesting a refund of the taxes which he paid to the Internal Revenue Service. The government has responded with a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not submitted any papers opposing the motion. BACKGROUND In his one-page complaint, plaintiff states he was discharged from military service for a wo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND A trial commenced in this Title VII action on May 23,1995. On June 1,1995, the Court entered judgment against the defendant, Pepsi-Cola Binghamton Bottlers (“Pepsi”) based on a jury verdict which found that the defendant had terminated the plaintiff, Denise Dean, on the basis of her pregnancy. The judgment also reflected the jury’s finding of no cause of...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER A hearing which began on Tuesday, May 2, 1995,' and ended on Friday, May-12, 1995, was conducted by the'Gourt.in connection with the matter above identified. Following the suggestion made by the Court; counsel for the respective parties have filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court now files this opinion in' which the Court’s findings of fact...
Views: 0
894 F. Supp. 1181 (1995) Alvin OSWALT, Plaintiff, v. Salvador GODINEZ, et al., Defendants. No. 94 C 2259. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 15, 1995. *1182 *1183 Alvin P. Oswalt, pro se. Jill Anne Glickstein, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Susan Takata O'Leary, Illinois Department of Corrections, Chicago, IL, for defendants Salvador A. Godinez, Tom Schonau...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons to follow, the motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND This action arises from an August 1, 1991 motor vehicle accident on the New York State Thruway. Defendant Troy Howard Olsen was the driver of a tractor trailer owned by defendant Automob...
Views: 0
ORDER AND CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY Before the court are the COMPLAINT FOR EXTRADITION (18 U.S.C. § 3184) filed by the United States’ Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of the Government of Canada seeking the extradition of respondents Thomas Kulekowskis, Anthony J. LoBue, Anthony DeSilva (“Anthony”), Albert DeSilva and Judith Schon, and RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DIS...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 1137 (1995) PETTCO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. James C. WHITE, Sr., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-A-240-N. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. August 18, 1995. *1138 *1139 F. Hilton-Green Tomlinson, Michael L. McKerley, Pritchard, McCall & Jones, Birmingham, AL, and M. Jack Hollingsworth and William S. Crowson, Hollingsworth & Asso...
Views: 0
ORDER The captioned case is before the court for consideration of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties have agreed to an accelerated determination of the merits of this case, and therefore the court will treat this matter as a ruling on a motion for a permanent injunction. FACTS Plaintiff owns and leases numerous parcels of real property throughou...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1522 (1995) GAMBRO LUNDIA AB, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 92-C-574. United States District Court, D. Colorado. August 18, 1995. *1523 *1524 *1525 Willem G. Schuurman, Austin, TX, for plaintiff. Timothy J. Malloy, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, IL, for defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER CARRIGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff,...
Views: 1
897 F.Supp. 290 (1995) DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL OF JEFFERSON, INC. v. SOUTHEAST MEDICAL ALLIANCE, INC. and Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2. Civ. A. No. 93-2493. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. August 21, 1995. Gene W. Lafitte, Sr., Frank E. Massengale, Marie Breaux, Shannon Skelton Holtzman, Liskow & Lewis, New Orleans, LA, for plaintiff. Peter Joseph Butler, Donna DiM...
Views: 0
OPINION: SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND STATEMENT OF REASONS I. Findings of Fact The defendant pleaded guilty to illegally importing wildlife and aiding and abetting the illegal importation of wildlife in foreign commerce, in violation of 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A) and 3373(d)(1)(A). The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 applies, particularly the 1994 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Gu...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The United States of America, on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Minerals Management Service (“MMS”), seeks to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order of February 13, 1995 granting the motion of the appellee, Century Offshore Management Corporation (“Century”), for summary judgment and denying the United States’ cross-motion for summary judgment....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Use Plaintiff, the Balf Co. (“Balf’), filed this action against Defendants, the Casle Corporation (“Casle”) and the American Insurance Company (“American”), on February 2, 1994.1 It alleges violation of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270b, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-100a et seq. Balf seeks compensatory ...
Views: 0
*1449 OPINION Bristol-Myers Squibb Summary Judgment Under submission after appropriate discovery, extensive briefing, and oral argument is the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Bristol is the sole shareholder of Medical Engineering Corporation, a major supplier of breast implants, but has never itself manufactured or distributed breast i...
Views: 0
OPINION (Scotfoam Summary Judgment) Under submission after appropriate discovery, extensive briefing, and oral argument is the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Scotfoam Corporation and its related entities. 1 Scotfoam makes polyurethane foam, some of which was attached to breast implants by several implant manufacturers, including Medical Engineering Corporat...
Views: 0
Presently before the court is the motion of Lorraine A. DiCintio, Esquire, attorney for the plaintiff, Juan Anthony Cruz, for leave pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 to amend the complaint to add new causes of action against “John Doe” defendants and against newly named defendants. After careful consideration of the party’s submissions, and after further consideration of the oral argument conducted o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This is an action for federal securities laws violations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges that defendants participated in schemes to defraud relating to U.S. Environmental (“USE”) stock. According to the Complaint, the alleged fraudulent schemes had several different aspects, including misrepresentations relating to a “blind pool” pub...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM These cases involve claims against an insurer in connection with its handling of Plaintiffs’ insurance claims. We are considering the Defendant’s motions for summary judgment, as well as each Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. The issues raised in each action are nearly identical and, therefore, we will address the motions together insofar as possible. I. ...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Plaintiff Kipling Delano Forbes (“Forbes”), acting pro se, has filed this action seeking damages for alleged statutory and constitutional violations arising out of the investigation of charges of discrimination filed with Defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In addition to the EEOC, Forbes has named as defendants ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND This is an action by the United States for reimbursement of response costs and for a declaratory judgment1 on liability pursuant to sections 107 and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(g)(2), in connection with the Drake Chemical Superfund Site (the Drake site or the site) and the Am...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 389 (1995) UTI CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and American Insurance Company, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-4703 (JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 18, 1995. *390 Neil S. Witkes, Jonathan E. Rinde, Manko, Gold & Katcher, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for plaintiff. Julius F. Harms, Caron, Greenberg & Fitzgerald, Rutherford, NJ, for defendan...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 362 (1995) UTI CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and American Insurance Company, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-4703 (JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 28, 1995. *363 *364 *365 Neil S. Witkes, Jonathan E. Rinde, Manko, Gold & Katcher, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for plaintiff. Julius F. Harms, Caron, Greenberg & Fitzgerald, Rutherford, NJ, for...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against officers of the United States government for unlawfully discharging him from active duty in the Marine Corps and for unlawfully barring him from a retirement benefits program on t...
Views: 0
ORDER The captioned ease is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to defendant’s motion. The court considers the motion below. Factual Background Defendant Huber operates an oriented strand board (“OSB”) plant in Commerce, Georgia. From 1982 through October, 1994, plaintiffs resided in a home located at 220 R...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Phar-Mor, Inc. and Fifteen Affiliated Companies (the “Committee”), brings these actions on behalf of the debtor, Phar-Mor, Inc., and its creditors to recover from defendants, who are or were Phar-Mor shareholders, approximately $72.2 million that Phar-Mor paid to defendants in August of 1991 to repurchase shares of Phar-M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants’ opposition thereto. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) in that an actual controversy exists entitling the Plaintiffs to a declaration of their rights with respect to the significant questions raised related to the validity of newly-enacted amen...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 982 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Emanuel LACY, et al., Defendants. No. CR-94-0384 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. August 18, 1995. William Weiner, William Weiner Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for defendant Gerome Lacy aka Red. Frank Z. Leidman, Frank Z. Leidman Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for defendant Lamarr Lacy. Judd C. Iversen, Judd C. I...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 1190 (1995) HOECHST CELANESE CORP., Plaintiff, v. NYLON ENGINEERING RESINS, INC., and Thomas Popoli, Defendants. No. 94-346-CIV-FTM-24D. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. August 21, 1995. *1191 Gary T. Stiphany, Concepcion, Sexton & Stiphany, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, Daniel Ebenstein, Anthony F. LoCicero, Sheryl D. Jassen, Neil S. Goldstein, Amster, R...
Views: 20
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc. (“Lockheed”) brought this action against Hughes Aircraft Company and GM Hughes Electronics (collectively, “Hughes”), alleging that Hughes refused to honor a promise to supply Lockheed with a component that Lockheed needs to bid on a missile warning system contract for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Wellsboro Hotel Company filed this products liability action 1 to recover for damage to its building allegedly caused by the application of defendant’s product. Plaintiff owns and operates the Penn Wells Hotel located in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania. In April, 1990, plaintiff contracted with defendant Leon Prins t/a Crest Painting to ap...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Gregory Maas, Gregory Binne-bose, Frank Felinski, and Richard Sciaraffa are former members of the United States Air Force who were assigned to clean up debris from an airplane crash involving nuclear weapons in early 1968. Maas and Binnebose have developed cancers which they allege were caused by their exposure to low level dosages of ionizing r...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 23 (1995) Alexandra E. ORFANOS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Civ. A. No. 94-0377 (PLF). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 18, 1995. *24 Thomas R. Dyson, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Suzanne C. Nyland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC, for respondent. OPINION PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. The Program Fraud C...
Views: 1
Order Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc #18) which was converted to a motion for summary judgment by the Honorable William Wayne Justice. The case was then transferred to this court. The court finds that Defendants’ motion regarding the Section 1983 claim has merit and should be granted. Plaintiffs remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1057 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John A. HILL, Defendant. Crim. No. 95-CR-78-B. United States District Court, D. Colorado. August 23, 1995. *1058 Kenneth Fimberg, John Sbarbaro, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Denver, CO, for plaintiff. Shelly B. Don, Earl S. Wylderk, Don, Hiller & Galleher, P.C., Denver, CO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BABCOCK, Distr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now before the court is Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 38). Defendant has filed a response. This is an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in which the plaintiff claims that the defendant unlawfully retaliated against her due to the exercise of her First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern while an employee of the defendant. She claims that she was...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Now pending before the court are the following motions: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Quash (doc. 39). 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 51). This is an employment discrimination action alleging that defendant violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 396 (1995) MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Edward K. MASLAND, Defendant. No. 4:CV-94-1995. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. August 24, 1995. *397 C. Clark Hodgson, John J. Murphy, III, Donna M. Dever, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Timothy Mark Anstine, Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, Camp Hill, PA, f...
Views: 0
*291 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a sexual harassment case in which the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff brings her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), O.R.C. § 4112.99, and Ohio common law. In her complaint, plaintiff names Robert Hampshire, the Lima City School District Board of Education (Board), Dr. Charles Buroker, and Timothy ...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff/Debtor Houbigant, Inc. (“Houbi-gant”) moves to restore the reference of this adversary proceeding to Bankruptcy Court. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion is denied. Parties Houbigant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Houbigant is the parent of a group...
Views: 1
OPINION Before this Court are defendant Rick Arnold’s and defendants Joseph Malak and Scott Damon’s motions for reconsideration regarding plaintiffs assault and battery claim. J. Background On January 12,1995, this Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 1 The Court granted summary judgment to defendants Cambridge Township, Lenawee County, and Sheriff Ri...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER After failing to file a timely answer to plaintiffs amended complaint, Defendant Korean Reinsurance Corporation (“Korean Re” or “defendant”)1 now moves, pursuant to *197Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 6(b)(2) for an extension of time to answer plaintiffs amended complaint. BACKGROUND In a January 19, 1995, Opinion and Order, this Court granted plaintiffs motion for ...
Views: 0
OPINION This is an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds. The amount owed is $70,647.17. A judgment against Goodee was obtained in this amount. However, it appears that the amount cannot be collected from Goodee. Suit is now brought under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630, which provides that the ten largest shareholders of a...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE Pending is the Government’s motion for entry of a consent decree in this action brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Government negotiated the decree with 11 companies and individuals identified as potentially responsible parties (PRP’s) under CERCLA for the contamination at ...
Views: 0
At the heart of this adversary complaint is a very substantial allegation that the former principals of the debtor corporation orchestrated a blatant fraudulent conveyance several months prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. As a result, the complaint alleges, several banks, who were secured creditors to the tune of millions of dollars, were left with little more than the empty husk of ...
Views: 1
OPINION Defendant Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (“Brown & Williamson”) moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted and the complaint dismissed. I. The Allegations of the Complaint Plaintiffs complaint contains five counts as follows: ...
Views: 3
ORDER Defendant Joseph Ray Cantrell, a nineteen-year-old Native American, was convicted by a jury of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(e), 1151, and 1153(a) (# 38). He and his cousin had spent the better part of an afternoon drinking 7% alcohol malt liquor from 24-ounce cans. A drunken quarrel over a trivial matter ensued between them. It evolved into a fight. C...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for new or additional security (Doc. 10). The Court held a hearing to consider such motion on August 22, 1995. For the reasons that follow, such motion is DENIED. I. Factual Background Plaintiff L & L Marine Transportation, Inc. (“L & L Marine”) is a Louisiana corporation and owner of a tugboat named the *299M/V AMY ANN. See First Supplem...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Carol L. Davis d/b/a Mile High Calcium, Inc. commenced this action against the United States, seeking a tax refund of FICA and FUTA employment taxes (first claim), as well as a declaratory judgment against the IRS (second claim). The United States asserted a counterclaim against Ms. Davis and a claim against her husband, Henry Adams, for payment of additional FICA and FUTA taxes. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS This cause is before the court on the plaintiffs motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, contends that the defendant lacks standing to assert any claims based upon the foundation’s alleged violations of its governing declaration of trus...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the court on the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, asserts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb — 2000bb-4 (Supp. V 1993) is not applicable to...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This cause is before the court on the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, asserts that neither the free speech nor the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provide the defe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter came before the Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Court Judge on January 18, 1995 on cross motions of the parties for summary judgment (“motion”). Plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) has moved the Court for a declaratory judgment that the claims of defendant, Cindy Henderson (“Henderson”) for pecuniary loss and/or loss of consortium...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S SECTION 102 COUNTERCLAIM The plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s section 102 counterclaim is aimed at paragraph 96 of the (Revised) Defendant’s Substitute Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim. That paragraph states: “17 U.S.C. 102 lists works of authorship as a) literary works, b) musical w...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 743 (1995) Paul W. HARPER v. BP EXPLORATION & OIL CO. d/b/a BP Oil Company. No. 3:93-1025. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. August 23, 1995. *744 *745 *746 Phillip Lester North, North, Pursell & Ramos, Nashville, TN, for plaintiff. Keith D. Frazier, Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, Nashville, TN, Curtis L. Mack & Sonja F. Bivins, Ma...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Once again, 1 this complex criminal case has presented an issue of first impression in the First Circuit, namely whether a defendant who causes the absence from trial of a potential witness against him has waived the right to object on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds to the admission of the witness’ prior out-of-court statements. More specifically, this ...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 741 (1995) Maxine WILKINSON v. SALLY BEAUTY COMPANY, INC. No. 3:94-0338. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. August 14, 1995. *742 Joyce M. Grimes, Lackey, Rogers, Price & Snedeker, Nashville, TN, for plaintiff. R. Eddie Wayland, Douglas Ray Pierce, King & Ballow, Nashville, TN, for respondent. MEMORANDUM JOHN T. NIXON, Chief Judge. Pending befor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON TRADEMARK ISSUES This cause is before me on the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, alleges that the defendant, Kristen Maaherra, has infringed two of its registered trademarks. The defendant denies the al...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT This cause is before me on the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment pursu *1348 ant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant, Kristen Maaherra, asserts that the plaintiffs copyright in The URANTIA Book is invalid and t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This Cause is before the court on Defen-, dants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on July 10, 1995. Plaintiff responded to this motion on July 31, 1995. Both parties have submitted briefs and evidentiary material. This action was filed on September 12, 1994. At that time, the plaintiff was proceeding pro se; however, plaintiff i...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is now before the court on the Motion for Service by Publication filed by *701plaintiffs on August 8, 1995. By this motion, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 4.3, plaintiffs seek an order that service of defendant, Richard Earl Trimble (“Trimble”), be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Montgo...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Pravin Banker Associates, Ltd. (“Pravin”) has renewed its motion for summary judgment on its claims against defendants Banco Popular del Peru (“Banco Popular”) and the Republic of Peru (“Peru”) (Ban-co Popular and Peru are, collectively, the “Defendants”) for dishonoring their respective obligations under (1) a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), dated as of May 31, 1...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 1155 (1995) Cladie Bobby TOWNSON, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF The TREASURY, Respondent. No. 94-0031-AH-C. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. August 25, 1995. *1156 J.D. QuinLivan, Jr., Mobile, AL, for petitioner. George A. Martin, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office, Mobile, AL, for respondents. ORDER HOWARD, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Peti...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Edward Frey won a hollow victory. Convincing the jury of liability only half-achieved his goal, for the jury found zero compensatory damages. As a further twist, the jury awarded Frey $165 in punitive damages. Even this consolation, however, was ephemeral because the special verdict form told the jury to assess punitive damages only if the jury found at least a dollar in comp...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Limited jurisdiction makes the federal courts a unique institution. When federal courts have the power to act, they can restructure society (desegregation) or prevent the government from using its police power (First Amendment cases). At the same time, they are powerless to hear all sorts of ordinary law suits because they lack subject matter jurisdiction. Rather than d...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 867 (1995) OAK RIDGE CARE CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN and Town of Yorkville, Wisconsin, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-C-1328. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. August 11, 1995. *868 *869 Michael J. Widmann, Welcenbach & Widmann, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff. Mark Janiuk, Corporation Counsel, Victoria L. Kies, Ass't Corp. Counsel, Racine, WI, &...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The Court filed a Memorandum of Decision and Order and a Partial Summary Judgment on February 24, 1995 (documents #63 and # 64, respectively). The only unresolved issue left open in this dispute is whether or not the under-sixteen children are employees of the Shiloh Vocational...
Views: 1
894 F. Supp. 1300 (1995) George W. CHADIMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, and State of Iowa, ex rel., Civil Reparations Trust Fund, Intervenor. No. 3-90-CV-90058. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Davenport Division. August 15, 1995. Kevin H. Collins of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.C., Cedar Rapids, IA, for plaintiffs. Thomas J. Shields of L...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before the Court on the Defendant’s motion for a clarification of the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees in light of the instructions of the Court of Appeals on remand. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety was a sanctionable filing and points out that we have already taken evidence on the amount of fees it reasonably inc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before this court is Acceptance Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff’) Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 26, 1995. Defendants filed a response on August 2, 1995, followed by Plaintiffs reply filed August 11, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, the response, the reply, and applicable case law, this cou...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 528 (1995) 2BD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, et al. No. K-94-698. United States District Court, D. Maryland. March 30, 1995. *529 *530 William D. Evans, Jr., of Annapolis, MD, for plaintiffs. Richard T. Colaresi, and B. Darren Burns, of Annapolis, MD, for defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FRANK A. KAUFMAN, Senior District Judge...
Views: 0
ORDER Creighton DelVerne (“Plaintiff’) was a state inmate incarcerated at the county jail in Harris County, Texas, at the time of filing this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied equal protection and due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution when Defendant charged Plaintiffs inmate trust ...
Views: 0
Third-party defendant Anglo American Insurance Company Limited (“Anglo”) moves pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the third-party complaint brought by third-party plaintiff William J. Fitzpatrick. I. On October 10, 1989, defendant CalFed Inc. (“CalFed”) entered into an agreement to sell 100% of the stock of Anglo, an English insurance company, to plaintiff...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this case, we are asked to determine the obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA” or “the Act”), of the Plaintiff school district (“School District”) in providing a child with learning disabilities (“Andrew L.”) a “free appropriate education.” The School District appeals the decision of the state educational ag...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 968 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Marco Antonio PADILLA-VALENZUELA, Defendant. No. CR 95-057 TUC JMR. United States District Court, D. Arizona. August 21, 1995. *969 Jesse J. Figueroa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for plaintiff. Hector M. Figueroa, Tucson, AZ, for defendant. ORDER ROLL, District Judge. Defendant MARCO ANTONIO PADILLA-VALENZUELA has filed a mo...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. 1 Having reviewed the documents filed in support and in opposition to the motions, and being fully advised, this court finds and rules as follows: I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs 2 ...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 624 (1995) In re TRYGG-HANSA INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED. Misc. A. No. 94-3739. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. August 21, 1995. Robert Fenet, Woodley, Williams, Fenet, Boundreau & Brown, Lake Charles, LA, for plaintiff. Francis J. Barry, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, LA, for Underwriters Marine Services, Ken Francis. John Michael Kops, Kops, Lee, ...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 618 (1995) The PRYTANIA PARK HOTEL, et al. v. GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY. Civ. A. No. 94-3743. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. August 21, 1995. *619 Rockne Locke Moseley, Janet Mary Ahern, Moseley & Associates, New Orleans, LA, for Prytania Park Hotel Ltd., Alvin Halpern, Theone M. Halpern. William H. Howard, III, Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, Raymond Joseph Pa...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 631 (1995) Wayne GALBRETH v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. Civ. A. No. 95-1919. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. August 22, 1995. Barbara G. Haynie, Donelon, Faust & Donelon, Metairie, LA, for plaintiff. Wayne Thomas McGaw, New Orleans, LA, for defendants. ORDER AND REASONS JONES, District Judge. Pending before the Court are plaintiff's motion to remand this mat...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Currently before the Court are defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 345 and 347), plaintiffs opposition (Docket *27No. 346), and codefendants Dr. and Mrs. Héctor Pumarejo’s reply (Docket No. 356). After close perscrutation of the record, including the aforementioned motions, all supporting documents, and plaintiffs third amended complaint, and after a review of ...
Views: 3
896 F.Supp. 921 (1995) Brandon Richard ROBERTS, By and Through his parents, Mary RODENBERG-ROBERTS and Richard Roberts, Plaintiffs, v. KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS, INC., Defendant. Civ. File No. 3-94-1379. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division. August 24, 1995. *922 *923 Gregory R. Merz, Thomas Steven Darling, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, Minneapolis, MN, for plainti...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER As foreshadowed during the pretrial conference held January 27, 1995, defendant has filed a Motion in Limine seeking to exclude any oral evidence to establish that plaintiff Homedical Inc. (“Homedical”) was the exclusive distributor of Sarns/3M products in Puerto Rico, until such time as a proper foundation for the admission of such evidence is laid. It cites to Vi...
Views: 0
OPINION In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her constitutional rights in connection with the alleged attempts of the defendant justice court judge to procure sexual favors from plaintiff. This cause is presently before the court on (1) the motions of the justice court and county to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment and to strike and (2) the cross-motion of plai...
Views: 0
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT The motion of Plaintiffs Church of the Soldiers of the Cross of Christ of the State of California, and one of its pastors, Luis Zepeda (collectively “Church”) for summary judgment against Defendants City of Riverside and Ken Fortier (collectively “City” or “Riverside”) came on regularly for hearing before the Court on February 27, 1995. Upon consideration of the m...
Views: 0
On April 4, 1995, the Court of Appeals vacated the order of dismissal in this case and remanded for reconsideration in light of Jaguar Cars, Inc. v. Royal Oaks Motor Car. Co., 46 F.3d 258 (8d Cir.1995). The parties submitted extensive briefs to assist reconsideration of the order of dismissal. In addition, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve a second amended and supplemental...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER In these lengthy and complex cases United National Insurance Company (“United”) seeks to have this Court determine its obligations and enforce its rights with respect to an insurance policy issued by United to The Tunnel, a discotheque owned by defendant Waterfront N.Y. Realty Corp. (‘Waterfront”). *665 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The State Acti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The question in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes sentencing a person whose property has been civilly forfeited to the government for promotion and concealment of drug proceeds. Following a lengthy trial, a jury convicted Friday Ogbuehi of conspiring to distribute heroin, possessing heroin and aiding and abetting the possession of heroin with the...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND. 1288 DISCUSSION... 1292 1. The Summary Judgment Standard ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In a diversity action, David A. Wojcik (“Wojcik”) filed suit against Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company (“Aetna”), Edward F. Bacher (“Bacher”), an Aetna agent working in Columbus, Ohio, and Edward F. Sommer (“Sommer”), an Aetna regional manáger until 1991. Wojcik alleged intentional interference with prospective business advantage (Count II), decepti...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Albertha Rideau, Claudette Ri-deau, Jim Rideaux, Jr., and Stephfon La-vence, bring this suit on behalf of themselves and their decedent, Kathy Lee Rideau-Smith. Plaintiffs allege federal civil rights *300 causes of action against defendants Daniel Troy Smith, Jefferson County, Texas, and “Jefferson County, T...
Views: 0
ORDER Currently before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Document no. 16. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Karen Presutti, was hired on June 23, 1992 by defendant, Felton Brush, Inc., as a packer/assembler. Plaintiff was so employed until her termination on or about April 23,1993. On November 2, 1992, plaintiff suffered a signi...
Views: 0
ORDER Defendants, the Town of Middleton, Jeremy Johnson, and Roy Snyder, move for summary judgment on most of the remaining claims against them on the grounds of collateral estoppel and accord and satisfaction. Defendant Calvin Roach, pro se, also invokes the collateral estoppel doctrine in support of his summary judgment motion. I deny both motions. I also address a discovery question raised by...
Views: 0
ORDER This is a pro se action filed by a former pretrial detainee against a City of Moncks Corner police officer and the City of Moncks Corner (City). The issues before this court on cross-motions for summary judgment are (1) qualified immunity, (2) Eleventh Amendment immunity, and (3) municipal liability. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a United States Magistrate ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action is a challenge to the decision of defendant United States Forest Service (“USFS”) to relocate a portion of the Lord Flat Road within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Plaintiff contends that the USFS failed to adequately consider the environmental effects of the road relocation, including whether a road in the present location is appropriate at a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by two of the Defendants. T.M.H. International Attractions, Inc. (“T.M.H.”), the owner of the property on which Plaintiffs’ son died, and Gordon Hall, the President and controlling shareholder of T.M.H., assert that Kentucky law bars Plaintiffs’ recovery for the effects of Defendants’ negligence because Pl...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff William Conway commenced this action against defendant the United States seeking an order declaring an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessment under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), 26 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., void and unenforceable. Plaintiff also seeks a refund of a sum paid as a divisible portion of that assessment. Defendant has counterclaimed seeking to reduce the assessme...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 71 (1995) Luis TORRES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 94-1301(PG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. August 22, 1995. *72 Peter John Porrata, Hato Rey, PR, for Luis A. Torres. Nereida Melendez-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, San Juan, PR, for National Starch and Chemical Corp. Rebeca F. Rojas-Colon, Lasa, Escalera & Reich...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pending resolution is co-defendant Fernando Montilla Rivera’s Posh-Jury Trial Motion of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29 (Docket No. 68) and the Governments’ Reply thereto (Docket No. 70). In examining a properly preserved Rule 29 Motion after a Jury conviction verdict, the evidence must be examined and all legitimate inferences therefrom “in the light most favorable to the governme...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1482 (1995) Floyd E. McDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., Defendant. No. 94-0522-CV-W-3. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division. August 24, 1995. *1483 Jerry Kenter and John B. Boyd, Connaughton, Boyd & Kenter, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for plaintiff. Jill Marchant Munden and David A. Sosinski, Allied-Signal Inc., Kansas City, MO, for defendant. ORDER E...
Views: 0
*1088 MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial. Defendants argue that the Court erred by allowing Plaintiff’s strict liability claim to reach the jury and ask the Court to set aside the April 26,1995 Judgment and sustain the motion for a directed verdict which Defendants renewed at the conclu...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter comes before the court pursuant to defendant Fulton Performance Products’ April 17, 1995, motion for partial summary judgment. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The court held oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on July 12, 1995, at which the plaintiff was represented by Dani...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER On April 18, 1995, judgment was entered dismissing this case in its entirety in accordance to my opinion and order of April 12, 1995. On April 24, 1994, plaintiff Puig Segarra filed what I construed to be a Rule 59(e) motion. (See Docket No. 63.) I entered a separate nine-page opinion and order denying plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion on May 12, 1995. (See Docket No. 69.) Before me...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 816 (1995) Debrah K. HENDRY, Plaintiff, v. GTE NORTH, INC., Defendant. No. 1:95-CV-4. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. August 17, 1995. *817 *818 Christopher C. Myers, Myers and Geisleman, Fort Wayne, IN, for plaintiff. Thomas W. Belleperche, Hunt, Suedhoff, Borror and Eilbacher, Fort Wayne, IN, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER COSBEY, U...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs, Charles R. Reyher (“Reyher”), motion to strike affirmative defenses, filed August 30, 1994, (Docket No. 9) and response thereto, filed September 16,1994, (Docket No. 12). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) provides that, upon motion, the, court may order stricken from a pleading an insufficient defense or an immaterial ...
Views: 1
ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14) and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 23). I. INTRODUCTION The Defendant, Guinness Import Company (“GIC”), is a beer manufacturer. The Plaintiffs, Jim Taylor Corporation, Jim Taylor Brevard, Inc., and St. Petersburg Beverage Company, are local beer distributors in the State of Florida...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 342 (1995) TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS and, PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DE-CON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 94 Civ. 5276 (CBM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 29, 1995. *343 *344 *345 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS MOTLEY, District Judge. I. Background This action has been brought by sever...
Views: 1
ORDER Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) filed this patent infringement action against defendant GenRad, Inc. (“GenRad”) contending that GenRad’s product, Opens Xpress I, literally infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,254,953 (“the ’953 patent”), and that Gen-Rad’s subsequently developed product, Opens Xpress II, infringes the ’953 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Pending before this cour...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff seeks, by this motion to remand, reconsideration of this court’s prior denial of a similar motion. We have reviewed that opinion and the cases cited by the parties and we adhere to the positions there stated. Plaintiff does have, however, an additional contention that requires consideration. Lufthansa German Airlines was privatized in *1116 ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION Plaintiff brought this action to obtain judicial review of an administrative decision of the Department of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the provisions of the Social Security Act; at issue is the denial of her application for Widow’s Insurance Benefits. The case is currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. APPLICABLE LAW With respec...
Views: 0
Opinion and Order Defendant moves this Court to dismiss Count 42, which charges him with making a false statement to the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. He argues that the statement was made in the course of proceedings in Bankruptcy Court, making the statement beyond the scope of § 1001 under the holding of Hubbard v. United States, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1754, 131 L...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are two motions requesting intervention as of right, filed by AES Puerto Rico L.P. (“AES”) and EcoEléc-triea “(EeoEléctrica”), See dockets 18 and 19, respectively. Plaintiff, Cabot LNG Corp. (“Cabot”) has filed a motion opposing AES’s application for intervention and requesting the dismissal of EcoEléctrica’s motion to intervene. (Docket 23). Both AES an...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 691 (1995) JAGUAR CARS, Plaintiff, v. Ray COTTRELL, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-78. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky. August 4, 1995. *692 Barbara B. Edelman, Janet M. Graham, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Lexington, KY, Carl J. Chiappa, Townley & Updike, New York City, for plaintiff. Greg E. Mitchell, Shannon Upton Johnson, Frost & Jacobs, Lexington, KY, Dandr...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff filed this action on May 26, 1994, alleging that her employment with Kit-terman Plasties (“Kitterman”) was terminated in violation of the Americans With Disability Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12117 (1995 Supp.) (Count I) and the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.010-21...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are two motions filed by defendant Naoko Strasen (nee Saegusa), and joined by defendant James Strasen. The *1181 defendants have asked the Court to either dismiss the above-captioned action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively to transfer venue to the Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U....
Views: 3
*858 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Chaplin Marine Transport, Inc. (“Chaplin”) and Mon River Towing, Inc. (“Mon River”). Plaintiff has responded and Defendants have replied. This issue is ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff initiated this action on May 28, 1993. He filed an amended complaint on December 7,1994. Pl...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are the plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) in the above-captioned matter. For the following reasons, the plaintiffs motion is denied, the defendants’ motions are granted, and this ease is hereby dismissed. On July 12, 1994, pla...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendants have moved to modify or rear-gue this Court’s preliminary injunction order dated August 14, 1995, and for a stay of that order pending disposition of this motion. For the reasons that follow, and for those expressed on the record at the oral argument of these motions on August 28, 1995, the defendants’ motions are denied. I. The defendants motion to reargue under Rul...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The United States of America moves for an order (1) staying the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the debtor’s third amended plan of reorganization, (2) withdrawing the reference to the Bankruptcy Court of the debtor’s allowance of the government’s pre-petition claims, (3) staying the Bankruptcy Court’s hearing on the objection pending this Court’s ruling on the motio...
Views: 1
OPINION Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have moved for: certification of a settlement class; preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement with certain defendants; and approval of the form and manner of notice to be provided to Class Members. PRELIMINARY After several years of vigorous litigation in this multi-district action and its const...
Views: 1
*164 OPINION Plaintiff David J. O’Brien alleges in this action that defendants damaged his reputation and career by committing various torts — malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, negligence, prima facie tort, general tort and tortious interference with contract — as well as by violating the New York Judiciary Law. He has named as defendants not only his forme...
Views: 1
OPINION Montgomery County, Maryland, has sued a Michigan law firm and one of its members for professional malpractice in connection with alleged misstatements contained in an opinion letter the firm wrote to the County in connection with a construction project in Bethesda, Maryland. The opinion letter was rendered to the County on behalf of a client of the law firm, the limited partne...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 1216 (1995) Jose GARCIA, Jr., Plaintiff, v. AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A., etc., et al., Defendants. No. 94-0435-CV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. February 1, 1995. Joseph S. Rosenbaum, P.A., Miami, FL, for plaintiffs. Francis A. Anania and Amy S. Marcus, Anania, Bandklayder & Blackwell, Miami, FL, for defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION FOR RULE 11 SAN...
Views: 0
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Emanuel Law Outlines, Inc. (hereinafter “ELO”), a publisher of study aids for law students, brings this diversity action against Multi-State Legal Studies, Inc., (hereinafter “Multi-State”), a company that conducts state bar review preparation courses. ELO seeks $60,000 in damages for breach of contract; Multi-State counterclaims' for ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On December 6, 1994, the Court entered an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), remanding this' case to state court and awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees. Plaintiff has requested $14,987.50 in attorney fees and $1,404.00 in expenses. Defendants contend that these fees are excessive. A. Reasonable Attorney Fees. In computing an atto...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER To end the massive flow of Cuban nationals fleeing Cuba in makeshift boats for the United States in the summer of 1994, the governments of the United States and the Republic of Cuba signed the United States-Cuba Joint Communique Concerning Normalizing Migration Procedures (“Joint Communique”) on September 9, 1994. The Joint Communique provides for the migr...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Frank Minelli (Minelli) brought this admiralty action against defendants Frank B. Hall & Co (Hall) and Mutual Marine Office of the Midwest, Inc. (Mutual) alleging breach of a marine insurance con *617 tract. Minelli alleges that defendants have wrongly refused to pay for the damages resulting from the barratry by the master of one...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case was brought on August 21, 1995, as a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 1 A hearing was scheduled on that motion for Thursday, August 24, 1995. Also on August 21, 1995, defendants moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. That motion was the subject of a hearing *7 held this date. For th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Lisa Narwick and Robert Grigus bring this putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. by defendants Norman P. Wexler and Mitchell H. Wexler. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendant Norman P. Wexler’s motion for summary ju...
Views: 2
Defendants move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer venue to the Southern District of California. In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss “in the interests of justice,” arguing that a tort action currently pending in the Superior Court of California between Plaintiff and Defendants renders this contract action duplicative. For the following reasons, the motion to transfer is de...
Views: 2
*512 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Robert Hoban,1 Robert McHughs and Linda McHughs bring this putative class action lawsuit against defendants USLIFE Credit Life Insurance Company (“USLIFE”), Security of America Life Insurance Company (“SALI”), and the All American Life Insurance Company (“All-American”). The plaintiffs’ six-count second amended complaint asserts violations of the Rac...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Kathryn Amiel, Joanne Amiel and Sarina Amiel move this Court for an Order dismissing the Superseding Indictment against them on the ground that their convictions thereunder constitute a second criminal punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby denies the defendants’ mo...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Defendant TALARCHYK’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and/or Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant City’s Motion to Dismiss. Because Defendant TALARCHYK’s Motion presents to matters outside the pleadings and Plaintiffs’ response to the motion is supported by affidavits, the Court will treat that motion as a motion for summary judgment. Su...
Views: 0
Defendant Eagle Insurance Company (“Eagle”) has moved pursuant to Civil Rule 3(j) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of New York for reargument of the motion disposed of by the March 15, 1995, opinion of this Court (the “Opinion”). For the reasons discussed below, Eagle’s request for reargument is granted, and upon reargument the underlying motion to vacate the default judgment is denied....
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a diversity jurisdiction case in which plaintiff seeks damages from defendants. He alleges claims for both ordinary negligence and gross negligence. His claims are for injuries he suffered in a “sprint” automobile racing accident at Lakeside Speedway in Kansas City, Kansas. The case is now before the court on plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court upon plaintiff Alani Pahulu’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 18). A hearing was conducted on August 21, 1995, and the court informed counsel of its decision to deny the motion on August 23, 1995. The court now issues this memorandum and order to memorialize the ruling. Background The plaintiff is the recipient of an...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Alfred Smith’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. On May 18, 1994, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Defendant’s residence. Special Agent Richard Lunn (FBI) submitted an affidavit in support of the warrant. He averred that state and federal law enforcement agencies had begun an investigation ...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs supplemental motion to dismiss (DE 41). Having reviewed the record, considered the argument of counsel, and been advised on the premises, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for the reasons set forth below. I. Factual background Greenview Apartments, Ltd. (“Greenview”) was a real estate developer. On July 28, 1988, it recorde...
Views: 2
ORDER Former outside salespersons claim that their employer laid them off on account of their age. In evaluating this claim, the Court must decide whether certain alleged irregularities in sales goals, performance appraisals and termination forms create an inference of discrimination. I. Factual background 1 Defendant Kloster Cruise Limited (“Kloster Cruise”) is a Bermud...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Bernard Bolender’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“the petition”), pursuant, to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, who has been sentenced to death, is an inmate in the custody of Respondent. The petition was filed on July 11, 1995, immediately before the Florida Supreme Court’s deci...
Views: 0
This Cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amended Post-Judgment Petition to Invalidate Claimed Exemptions, Authorize Execution on Assets and Obtain Declaratory Relief. A. Factual Background Plaintiff, Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York (“Bank Leumi”), is a New York banking institution with its principal place of business in New York. Defendants, Milton Lang and Elena L...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The parties, Time Warner Cable of New York City, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as “Time Warner Cable” or “plaintiff’) and Freedom Electronics, Inc. (“Freedom Electronics, Inc.”), et al. (collectively, the “defendants”), having appeared at a hearing before the undersigned on July 28, 1995 (the “Heari...
Views: 2
ORDER Before the Court in the above-captioned case is Defendant DEKALB Swine Breeders, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Mar. 17, 1995). For the reasons discussed below, DEKALB’S Motion is GRANTED. I. Factual Background 1 At all times relevant to this dispute, Plaintiff, Rayle Tech, Inc., d/b/a Callaway Farms, Inc. (“Callaway”), maintained a rather large swine breeding...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM & ORDER This is a case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as amended (ERISA). Plaintiffs assert claims for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and breach of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a) and 1106(b). Pending are defendant’s motion to strike and cross-motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion to strike shal...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The defendants in this case are charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and related conspiracy and aiding and abetting counts. Three of the defendants have moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. They argue that the combination of previous administrative forfeitures and the impending trial would punish them twice for the same offense. For the reason...
Views: 0
*17 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (hereafter “the Commission” or “SEC”) motion for a preliminary injunction and other provisional relief. The Commission’s complaint alleges violations of the securities and broker/dealer registration requirements and the antifraud statutes. The Commission’s motion was fu...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs assert a. Bivens claim against two Border Patrol agents, De Leon and Rangel, and also sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case arises out of an incident occurring on March 6, 1992, when the Plaintiffs, then students at Texas A & I University in Kings-ville, were stopped on a highway and ...
Views: 2
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR HEARING ON WRIT OF GARNISHMENT This matter came before the court on June 21, 1995, for hearing on defendant and judgment debtor Adeline R. Johnson’s Request for Hearing on plaintiff’s Writ of Garnishment against funds held in her checking account. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and Mrs. Johnson appeared pro se. The court has considered the Request fo...
Views: 0
Opinion The plaintiff, C.D. DiGiambattista, has sued the City of Everett, several Everett police officers, and several of his own family members, in connection with an arrest of him in 1985. Specifically, he filed this suit against Michael J. Doherty and James F. *651 Henry, individually and in their official capacity as police officers of the City of Everett; Edward G. C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on defendant's motions for remittitur or, alternatively, a new trial, pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will order a new trial in this case. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 1,1989, George Henry ("Henry" or "plaintiff"), then a 47-year old pipefitter foreman, fract...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Edith Cross brings this action in admiralty against defendants Kloster Cruise Lines, Limited (“Kloster”) 1 , John Doe, M.D., and Jane Doe, R.N., alleging claims for personal injury arising out of treatment plaintiff received for a poisonous spider bite while aboard the cruise ship M/S Windward, which was operated by Kloster. ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Judee Axelsen, a former principal of Brown Junior High School in Hillsboro, Oregon, brings this action against defendant Hillsboro Union High School District No. 3 (“District”), the District superintendent, several individual school board members, and two assistant superintendents pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that in connection with the termination...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to transfer venue (Doc. #4), and plaintiffs application for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 7). For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. Plaintiffs application for preliminary injunction is granted insofar as set forth in this order. I. Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Ven...
Views: 1
This lawsuit involves a federal constitutional challenge to Ballot Measures 6 and 9 which amended the Oregon Constitution. This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ (# 9) and Defendants’ (# 25) Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the constitutionality of Measure 6, 1 as well as Plaintiffs’ *491 Motion to Strike (# 60), Motion for Leave to File an Additional Affidavit (# 61), and Motion f...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Amello Ambrosio moves to suppress certain wiretap evidence and renews his motion for release on bail. For the reasons stated below, these motions are denied. Defendant Calogero Salemi moves pro se to dismiss the indictment and for release on bail. For the reasons stated below, his motions are denied. DISCUSSION I. Ambrosio’s Motion to S...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, claiming that defendant, Hofs-tra University (“Hofstra”), failed to hire her based on her age. Before the Court is Hofs-tra’s motion for summary judgment. Background In June, 1990, Hofstra posted an advertisement seeking t...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S § 2255 MOTION ISSUE The issue before the Court is whether a civil forfeiture to which a defendant explicitly consented in the plea agreement disposing of his criminal case, and which consent was a specifically bargained-for term of the agreement, violates his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court finds that it does not. BACKGROUN...
Views: 0
Plaintiff, a Philippine resident and citizen, brings this diversity suit on behalf of himself and a consumer group he heads in the Philippines against PepsiCo Inc., incorrectly sued as “PepsiCo International” (“PepsiCo”), alleging breach of contract in connection with a promotional “instant-cash” game conducted by PepsiCo in the Philippines. PepsiCo moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant ...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 786 (1995) NORTH SHORE GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SALOMON, INC., Defendant. No. 94 C 7250. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois. August 22, 1995. *787 James H. Schink, Lise Taylor Spacapan, Diane Katharyne Moore, Kevin H. Rhodes, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff. Richard John Kissel, Mary Beth Cyze, Roberta M. Saielli, Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL,...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a social security appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the basis of the record of the administrative hearing below. Plaintiff Terrian Scott (“Ms. Scott”) appeals the ruling by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) denying her disability insurance benefits. Ms. Scott alleges three grounds for ...
Views: 0
The Court has before it Claimants Timothy and Suzanne Smiths’ Motion to Dissolve Order Enjoining Suits (the “Motion to Dissolve”) and the materials submitted by the parties relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. As discussed more fully herein, the Court will grant the Claimants’ requested relief because: (1) The only objecting party lacks standing to oppose t...
Views: 2
897 F.Supp. 221 (1995) CHEMICAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. Martin DIPPOLITO and Michael Tiedeken, Defendants. No. 94-CV-4535. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 28, 1995. *222 Richard A. O'Halloran, Adler & O'Halloran, P.C., Plymouth Meeting, PA, for plaintiff. Joseph Gindhardt, Wissow, Odza, Steckiw & Gindhardt, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant Bethlehem Musikfest Association has moved this Court for summary judgment on the claims against it. This Motion is opposed both by Plaintiff and the other Defendants. Musikfest is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation that sponsors a large music festival every year in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Mu-sikfest attracts as many as 900,000 people over the course of the ni...
Views: 1
Milton Musa Pacheco brings this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) officials for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility (“SCF”). Defendants are Superintendent Mann and former Commissioner Coughlin, respectively the ...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Background On January 23, 1995, Plaintiff Mary Lou Grace filed a complaint in Small Claims Municipal Court, County of Los Angeles alleging that the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) owes her $5,000 (“Complaint”). She states that she was elig...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction In this action initiated by the United States of America under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), (hereinafter CERCLA, § 107(a)), the original Defendants grouped as “Generator Defendants” have moved for a preliminar...
Views: 0
*1306 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT I. Introduction and Background This is an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Plaintiff T. Patrick Hannon 1 ...
Views: 1
ORDER The Court heard arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, defendants’ motion to amend answer, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, plaintiff’s *1073 motion to strike, and the temporary receiver’s motion for compensation on October 26, 1994. Parties have subsequently filed supplement memoranda. Appearing for plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 25,1991, the plaintiff, Catherine Wagner (‘Wagner”), signed a Separation Agreement and a Release of all liability against her employer, the NutraSweet Company (“NutraSweet” or “Company”), the defendant in this case. Wagner subsequently discovered certain facts giving rise to the present lawsuit. On the eve of trial, the, parties are before the Cou...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before me is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Patrick Madden (“Madden”) is a pro se litigant who alleges that the Postal Service discriminated against him and violated his constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant Marvin Runyon, Jr. (“Runyon”) is the Postmaster General. I construe Madden’s complaint, which consists of a single par...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Gordon Cherwitz’s motion for summary judgment, in which defendant The Davenport Clinic joins, is before the court for ruling. No party requests oral argument, and the court perceives no need for oral argument. Underlying all of plaintiffs claims against defendants is her allegation that defendant Cherwitz, a physician at defendant Clinic, *345while p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Judith Eldred brought this action against her former employer Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware (“Consolidated”) alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that (1)...
Views: 2
ORDER Report and Recommendation Accepted— Judgment shall enter for the defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET ENTRY #4) December 15, 1994. BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before this court is a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion for summary judgmen...
Views: 0
I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are two issues arising from this Court’s earlier Memorandum Opinion of July 28,1995. That Opinion sought to resolve the last remaining issues in this now six-year-old ease, 1 namely, the Plaintiffs’ *12 claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (dated Nov. 28, 1992) ¶¶ 37-39 (Count I); s...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court is the October 11, 1994 Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gustave J. Di Bianco, in which he recommended that the petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. 1 After a thorough review of the applicable law and the entire...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 537 (1995) Alphonzo E. DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, et al. Defendants. Civ. A. No. AW 95-1247. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. September 1, 1995. Judy L. Feinberg, Andrea L. Koyner, Washington, DC, for plaintiff Alphonzo E. Dawson. Crystal Dixon Mittelstaedt, Office of Law for Prince George's County, Michael P. Whalen, Upper Marlboro, MD,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction Ms. Joan Ward, plaintiff, applied for Social Security disability benefits on June 29, 1992. (D.I. 7 at 66-68.) Her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration (D.I. 69-77.) Ms. Ward then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (D.I. 7 at 78-80.) Such a hearing was held on November 19, 1993 and by a decision ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on appellant Fuentes’ appeal of the United States *440 Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation of the Chapter 11 reorganization plan proposed by the trustee, appellee Stackhouse. Two issues have been presented on appeal: (1) Did the Bankruptcy Court err in confirming the reorganization plan; and (2) Did the Bankruptcy Court err in...
Views: 0
ORDER On August 2, 1995, the Court heard arguments on Hessinger & Associates’ appeals from three related orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Joseph Johnson of Hessinger & Associates appeared on behalf of appellant. Peter H. Carroll III of the Office of the United States Trustee appeared on behalf of appellee. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the papers submitted, the ...
Views: 0
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff EDO Corporation (“EDO”) commenced this declaratory judgment action against its primary insurers, Newark Insur-anee Co. (“Newark”) and Aetna Insurance Company (“Aetna”), and against excess insurers, Burnhope and Companies (“Burn-hope”) and American Insurance Company (“American”) (collectively, “the insurers”), seeking a decla...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy’s Memorandum and Recommendation Granting In Part St. Paul Mercury Insurance’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Granting in Part Centennial Insurance’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Landmark Insurance’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denying Lexington Insurance’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Instrum...
Views: 0
*135 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a pro se inmate action in which the plaintiff, Anthony Adolph Bryan, alleges that a corrections officer injured him by pushing him with excessive force. Plaintiff further alleges that, during and immediately after a three-day administrative detention, prison officials denied him proper medical treatment and access to his personal p...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT AND TO REMAND FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS On January 11, 1995, this court, in its memorandum order, affirmed the Secretary’s decision denying benefits to plaintiff, Susan Chamberlin. The court reasoned that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had not committed error in finding, the plaintiff not disabled. This court further concluded that the ...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff Robert Litteer filed a petition for declaratory judgment in Belknap County (New Hampshire) Superior Court on December 15, 1994. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Company removed the declaratory judgment action to this federal court. Jurisdiction is claimed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 2201. Litteer’s declaratory judgment actio...
Views: 0
Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. 1 Plaintiff also asserts claims for violations, of his rights under the Oregon Constitution. This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs (#38) and Defendants’ (#35, #42) Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Additionally, Defendants have also filed...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Joseph Donald Quiron, alleges that Defendants, L.N. Violette Co. and Kevin *19 Violette, terminated Plaintiffs employment and offered him substitute employment in violation of federal and Maine law. Specifically, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants’ actions violated: the Age Discrimination in ...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 1028 (1995) Penny BRANNON v. OSHKOSH B'GOSH, INC., and Lilly Crisp, Individually. No. 2:94-0090. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division. August 9, 1995. *1029 *1030 William Bush, Rural Legal Services, Cookeville, TN, for plaintiff. Timothy K. Garrett, Bass, Berry & Sims, Nashville, TN, for defendants. MEMORANDUM MORTON, Senior District Judge. I. INTR...
Views: 0
RULING Before the court are Motions for Summary Judgment against plaintiffs, Gardes Directional Drilling (“Gardes”), LAJFP Drilling, Ltd. (“LAJFP”) and Marine Transportation Services, Inc. (“Marine”), filed on behalf of defendants, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Phillips Petroleum Company, SONAT Exploration Company, Felmont Oil Corporation, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on two motions for summary judgment: (1) plaintiff *1506 Spenst M. Hansen’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Hansen”) motion seeking a declaration quieting title in the surface rights to a contested tract of land, and (2) defendants Stiehting Mayflower Recreational Fonds’ and Stiehting Ma...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 1205 (1995) Rick E. COATNEY, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, Defendant. No. 95-2087. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas. Fort Smith Division. August 21, 1995. *1206 Gary W. Udouj, Warner & Smith, Fort Smith, AR, for plaintiff. Russell A. Gunter, McGlinchey, Stafford, Cellini & Lang, Little Rock, AR, D. Michael Linihan, Thomas E. Berry, McMahon, Berger, Ha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Rafael DeJesus, an incarcerated, pro se Plaintiff, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendant Raymond O’Connor (“O’Connor”), a New York City Police Officer, and by Defendant City of New York (“City”). The City has filed a motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss the Complaint agains...
Views: 0
ORDER Plaintiff, a former sheriffs deputy, is an African-American woman who alleges racial and sexual harassment on the job. The complaint originally named the county Sheriffs Department, Sheriff Glen Craig, two of plaintiffs former supervisors and eleven other coworkers as defendants. This matter is before me on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In response to the instant moti...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This wrongful death diversity action tests the limits of the power of this Court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. It involves a resident of Massachusetts who accompanied her husband on a business trip to Hong Kong and drowned in the swimming pool of the hotel at which they lodged, allegedly due to the negligence of the hotel and its...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioners Royal Alliance Associates (hereinafter “Royal”), a broker-dealer mem *784 ber of National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (hereinafter “NASD”), and two of its employees, Gerald Wischmeyer and Joseph Gallino, filed this action in New York Supreme Court seeking the permanent injunction of a NASD Arbitration Proceeding brought by resp...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Oscar Gonzalez’ motion to dismiss his indictment. The indictment charges Gonzalez with distributing a total of approximately 45.44 kilograms of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Defendant contends, in view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision United States v. Lopez...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs June M. Sanfelice and Julie Rountree have brought this sex discrimination action against the defendant, Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., under Title VII of the 1964 CM Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. Invoking the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have also asserted three state law tort claims. Defendant...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the court on plaintiffs 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) motion for withdrawal of the reference from Bankruptcy Court. In ruling on this motion, the court must consider the applicability of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d) to adversary proceedings filed in Bankruptcy Court. I. FACTS Plaintiff Paul Grella is trustee for Art & Company, debtor-in-bankruptcy. On Art & ...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 66 (1995) IONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELMWOOD SENSORS, INC., Defendant. CA 94-10548-MEL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 23, 1995. Frank W. Beckstein, III, John F. Rooney, Melick & Porter, Boston, MA, and Tina M. Traficanti and Anthony M. Doniger, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, Boston, MA, for plaintiff. Thane D. Scott, Daryl J. Lapp, and Maureen A. ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Defendant American Massage Therapy Association (“AMTA”) to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted as to Counts II and IV; because Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed, the court sua sponte declines to exercise suppleme...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 644 (1995) UNITED STATES v. Kenneth SCHIAVO. Crim. A. No. 92-10008-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 18, 1995. *645 Albert F. Cullen, Jr., Cullen & Butters, Boston, MA, Richard M. Egbert, Law Office of Richard Egbert, Boston, MA, for Howard T. Winter. James E. McCall, Boston, MA, Frank P. Marchetti, Somerville, MA, for Gennaro Farina. Albert F. Cullen, Jr...
Views: 2
OPINION Randy Francese (“Plaintiff’) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), for judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II and of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed....
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER Concerned Citizens of Allegany County (“CCAC”) has moved to intervene as a defendant in this action as of right under Fed. R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), or alternatively as a matter of discretion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2). Items 23-26. The motion is supported by the defendant Town of Angelica (“the Town”), and is opposed by the plaintiffs, Glenn Herdman, Allegany Environmental Systems, ...
Views: 0
Charles and Linda Polechronis appeal from a determination of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts that the Polechronises’ debt to Cape Cod Needleworks is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Court granted Cape Cod Needleworks’ motion for summary judgment with respect to nondisehargeability, holding that a state court summary judgment against...
Views: 0
RULING Plaintiff George S. Sitka (“Sitka”) brings this action pro se against the defendants, the United States of America (the “Government”) and Nicholas Bagdasarian (“Bagdasarian”), a revenue officer of the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). While Sitka does not clearly identify the legal grounds upon which his claims are based, he appears to seek to enjoin the Governme...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND DECISION Defendant John J. Snell, Jr. [hereinafter “Snell Jr.”] and his father, John J. Snell, Sr. [hereinafter “Snell Sr.”] are charged with operating an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 (count II), conducting financial transactions involving the proceeds of illegal gambling activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Counts III through VI) and...
Views: 1
Upon de novo review this recommendation is hereby adopted. The motion to dismiss is hereby allowed, for the reasons set forth in Judge Neiman’s report. The error, if any, objected to by plaintiff does not affect the report’s substance. The clerk is ordered to enter judgment for the defendant. So Ordered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on Defendant Wells’ motion to suppress Bluegrass Industrial’s corporate tax returns and other documents, which IRS revenue agents gathered during their civil audit. Defendant alleges that the revenue agents wrongfully investigated him for criminal conduct under the guise of a civil audit, and that they deceived him by giving misleading responses to ...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 215 (1995) Waahid MUSLIM, a/k/a David Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Thomas FRAME, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-0554. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 23, 1995. Mark B. Schoeller, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff Waahid Muslim aka David Dewees Richardson. Waahid Muslim, Coatesville, PA, pro se. Deborah L. Doyle, Margolis, Edelstein...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on a “Motion for Order Granting Default Judgment”, filed by the plaintiffs on March 20, 1995. Also before the court is a motion to set aside default and a motion for summary judgment, both filed by the defendant on March 20, 1995. Additionally, the plaintiffs have filed numerous requests for appointment of counsel. Background On Octo...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION I. INTRODUCTION This case was tried before the Court, without a jury, on June 5 and 6, 1995. Upon consideration of the parties’ evidence, arguments and legal memoranda, the Court issues this memorandum decision. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The plaintiff, James B. Curasi, commenced this action “to recover an unstated amount of taxes paid in part...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 180 (1995) Arthur E. SCHMALTZ, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. No. 91 C 6128. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 30, 1995. *181 Steven George Bailey, Callis Law Firm, P.C., Granite City, IL, David J. Walker, William J. Harte, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Arthur E. Schmaltz. Evan Burton Karnes, II, Law Offices ...
Views: 0
This is a pro se petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to set aside petitioner’s sentence, entered upon a plea of guilty. Petitioner is Ciprian Ortega (“Ortega”). Respondent is the United States of America (the “Government”). This Court sentenced Ortega to 37 months imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery. Ortega claims that his sentence should be set aside because (1) his convi...
Views: 1
*270 MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 16, 1994, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (“SW”) sued the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), and others, alleging that the Corps wrongly denied it a permit under § 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, to deposit waste at a proposed site (“Site”). On January 17,1995, the Village of Bartlett (“VAB”) and the Citizens Against the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This case involves the forfeiture of personal property belonging to claimants Robert and Irene Ivy, husband and wife, as a result of claimant Robert Ivy’s involvement with alleged money laundering activities. On November 18, 1988, Congress broadened the sweep of the federal money laundering statutes, permitting the civil forfeiture not only of “gross receipts” of money launderi...
Views: 0
OPINION Mary Schad and Donald Sheldon, both former directors of Debtor Donald Sheldon & *366 Co. (“DSCO”), were found liable to the Debt- or in the amount of $16 million in an adversary proceeding for breaches of their fiduciary duty. The Debtor’s Trustee brought a second adversary proceeding against Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) to recover the liability of Sheldon an...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case presents claims of violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; violation of the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (MHCRA), M.C.L. 37.1101 et seq.; breach of fiduciary duty; 1 and breach of contract. Now before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims. I Plaintiff, a cer...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This Court has conducted an evidentiary hearing (the “Hearing”) in connection with the motions for the entry of turnover orders and citations to discover assets that Consolidated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. (“Consolidated”), a judgment creditor of Rovanco Corp. (“Old Rovanco”), has launched against two targets: Rovanco Piping Systems, Inc. f/k/a Rov...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Currently pending before this Court is a motion by plaintiff General American Transportation Corporation (“GATC”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) and 59(e) to amend and supplement the Court’s findings and judgment of July 14, 1995. Specifically, GATC’s motion seeks to have this Court address three discrete area’s of this Court’s Memorandum Opinion: (1) to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint in this diversity action contains six counts: breach of the GRM agreement; quantum meruiVun-just enrichment; breach of settlement agreement; fraud; fraudulent conveyance; and piercing the corporate veil. Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, requesting judgment only as to count I of the complaint, breach of ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case concerns the federal taxes on the estate of Lucy Lee Bennett. The plaintiff, Eric White, administrator of the estate, brings suit against the government for a refund of federal estate taxes and interest paid on the Bennett estate. In 1957, Lucy Lee Bennett created a revocable trust, reserving the right under the trust’s fifteenth article to amend its terms by wr...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION, AND RULING GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REMAND OF STATE CLAIMS This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (Pleadings 65 & 72), which are resisted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff Phil Quick alleges that the actions of Donaldson Company, Inc. (DCI) and two DCI supervisors, Brett Musgrove and Roger Daniels, constituted sex discrim...
Views: 1
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. This case was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Philip K. Sweigert, who heard oral argument March 24, 1995. Neither party requests further oral argument. Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, and other documents on file, and having reviewed t...
Views: 3
Plaintiffs in this action are Fighting Finest, Inc. (“FFI”), a not-for-profit corporation established to organize and operate an amateur boxing team composed of New York City police officers; current and retired New York City police officers who are members of FFI and who wish to continue to box under its aegis; and Carl Schroeder, President of FFI. Defendants are William Bratton and Raymond Ke...
Views: 2
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW sitting as a United States District judge by designation: INTRODUCTION This is an admiralty action within the meaning of Rule 9(h), Fed.R.Civ.P., and jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The suit arises out of an allision occurring on November 24, 1990 between tank barge B No. 55 (“the barge”) while in tow of tugbo...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America’s (LINA) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Ill), and plaintiffs response (Dkt. 129). 1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action seeking damages against defendant Shores for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference with a business rela...
Views: 0
*100 DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court is the motion of defendants Roy Henneberg and Walter R. Kelly for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging in his first claim for relief that defendants Donald Car-riero, Thomas Breekon, Richard Maronski, Anthony Marrano, and Superintendent Walter Kel...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court reiterated that prisoners “beyond doubt ... have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Id. at 821, 97 S.Ct. at 1494. The Court in Bounds held that prisons must provide inmates with adequate law l...
Views: 1
*853 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendant’s Rule 50, Fed.R.Civ.P. motion which was granted during trial on May 8,1995 at the close of all of the evidence on the federal claim. This court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law on this issue. 1 Plaintiff filed this section 1988 and pendent state wrongful death action against Polk County School Board, the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS On July 11, 1995, the Court issued a decision in this case finding that the defendants Intermedies Orthopedics, Inc. (“Intermedies” or “IOI”) and Marli Medical Supplies, Inc. (“Marli”) literally and willfully infringed claims 8, 10 and 12 of United States Patent No. 4,888,023 (“the 023 patent”) by designing, marketing and sell...
Views: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This cause was tried before the Court non-jury. Having considered the testimony of witnesses, the documentary evidence and the stipulations of the parties, the Court enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. I.Findings of fact 1. On August 24,1992, Hurricane Andrew struck south Florida, downing trees,...
Views: 0
REISSUED ORDER ON HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT * THIS CAUSE came before the Court at a hearing, held on November 18, 1994, and November 23, 1994, pursuant to Section 6 of the Classified Information Procedures Act. Having considered the evidence presented at the hearing, having heard arguments of counsel, and being otherwise ful...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The bench trial now concluded, there remain only two issues for resolution regarding the question of liability: 1 (1) Did a special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) violate the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 regarding restrictions on disclosure of “tax retu...
Views: 0
Defendant moves us to reconsider our opinion of July 25, 1995 (hereinafter “the Opinion”), which dismissed all claims in the amended complaint except for those asserting that defendant negligently inflicted emotional distress upon plaintiffs, and which considered certifying such decision for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (West 1995), but declined to do so. For reasons stated herein, its m...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 100 (1995) Michael BECKER, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. No. 93-CV-1026. United States District Court, N.D. New York. September 5, 1995. *101 Sweeney & Calabrese, White Plains, NY (Robert J. Lucchese, of counsel), Eli B. Basch, Kingston, NY, for plaintiff. Thorn & Gershon, Albany, NY (Paul J. Catone, of counsel), for defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION &...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Frances Hesson filed suit against her former employer and supervisor, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Corrine Gibson, respectively, for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) as amended (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.), Title VII race and sex discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)), and conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)). Defendant moves ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs William Gilbert, Joan Behl, Lewis Bair and Seth Blate bring this putative class action complaint against defendants First Alert, Inc., Malcolm Candlish, Gary Lederer, David Harkins, Scott Schoen, Anthony Dinovi, Thomas H. Lee and the Thomas H. Lee Company (“THL Co.”). They allege that First Alert committed a fraud on the market when it dissemina...
Views: 2
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court is a consolidated appeal by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection of the bankruptcy court’s order selling the property of the debtor Perona Brothers, Inc. to Frank Perona, free and clear of the appellant’s Ken. Also before the court is a motion to dismiss these appeals by Trustee James J. Cain. For the reason...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction. As motions judge, the undersigned considered the matter and heard oral argument in the absence of Judge Oberdorfer, to whom the case is assigned. I. BACKGROUND The Federal Election Commission instituted this lawsuit against defendant, GOPAC, Inc., alleging that between June...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Roger William Wehr moves to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that his conviction following an administrative forfeiture violated the double jeopardy clause. After considering the arguments presented by the parties I conclude that the motion must be denied. BACKGROUND The facts are clear from the briefs presented by the partie...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. INTRODUCTION This is an action for both recovery of damages and a declaratory judgment to determine whether insurance policies issued to the Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) by various defendant insurance companies require defendants to indemnify or pay on behalf of Cessna damage and loss resulting from claims made and costs incurred by Cessna due to g...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Separate defendant Jim Guy Tucker has moved to dismiss the indictment in this case on the ground that the Independent Counsel exceeded his jurisdiction. The Independent Counsel, by way of response, asserts: (1) that the indictment of the defendants in this case falls within the scope of his prosecutorial jurisdiction; and (2) that even if does not, the referral of t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction This case was filed in 1993 to reduce to judgment certain outstanding federal tax as *794 sessments against defendants Harold and Floyd Pottorf, to foreclose federal tax liens on certain parcels of real property owned by those defendants, for court ordered sales of the real property, and for deficiency judgments against the de...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this action seeking damages for allegedly negligent medical treatment against the United States and military personnel alleging jurisdiction under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.; and Bivens. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subje...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this case, plaintiff Oliver M. Redmond asserts that defendant Day and Zimmerman, Inc.’s termination of plaintiffs employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (1988) (Title VII). This matter is presently before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 23). For the reasons set forth below ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case arises from the seizure of the plaintiffs’ property by the defendants. Plaintiffs assert federal due process claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and state law claims of negligence and fraud. The defendants are Charles E. Sharp, the former Sheriff of Cherokee County, Kansas; and Gene Barrett, the former County Attorney of Cherokee County, Kansas. This...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiff MAXXAM Group, Inc.’s (“MGI”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 5). MGI seeks partial summary judgment against the United States of America on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on its claim that it appropriately applied single-item treatment to inventory acquired in a stock purchase and its replacement inventory- Having r...
Views: 0
OPINION On September 5, 1994, a Chesapeake police officer noticed that the car driven by the defendant had a broken tail light. The officer followed the vehicle into the parking lot of the Village Motel in Chesapeake, and conducted a routine vehicle stop. The officer saw the defendant make “jerking movements.” Because the defendant could not provide the officer with a drive...
Views: 1
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) has commenced this action under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act, (“FEGLIA”) as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701-8716 (1988), seeking a court order directing MetLife to pay life insurance benefits which accrued under the life insurance policy of John M. Sullivan’s (“the Insured”) to the Insured’s children, the defendants Jeanne M. Tundís (...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court are DSC Communications Corporation’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum and DGI’s Motion to Vacate the Seizure Order, for Return of Wrongfully Seized Property, and for Forfeiture of the Bond, and Brief in Support. Both parties filed their respective responses and replies to both motions. Having considered the...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Cleotha Jones, a prisoner at Vaca-ville state prison, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding (1) his confinement in a Secured Housing Unit at Pelican Bay state prison beyond his scheduled release date from SHU and (2) Defendants’ subsequent failure to transfer Plaintiff from the SHU at Pelican Bay back to Vaca-ville until ...
Views: 0
*579 MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING MOVANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Movant Eligah Jason filed a motion requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in a Title VII suit which he desires to file. Mov-ant’s complaint is that he was harassed while employed as a temporary laborer at Baptist Hospital (“Hospital”) in Be...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Alvin Kirshner individually and d/b/a East Side Plumbing Specialties (collec *998 tively “defendant”) moved for summary judgment in this action. This case subsequently, was transferred by random selection to Judge John Gleeson, but having heard oral argument, this Court has retained jurisdiction over the case for the purposes of determining ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER This case is brought pursuant to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court to recover for lost and damaged cargo shipped from Hong Kong to New York. Defendant Heilman International Forwarders, Inc. (“Heilman”) moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of Plaintiffs damages pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s m...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This action arises out of a dispute between the current trustees of the Transportation Communications International Union Staff *915 Retirement Plan (“Plan”) 1 and its former trustees and actuary concerning the adoption of a cost of living adjustment (“COLA”) in 1989 and 1991. In an effort that they assert is necessary to save the Plan from termination a...
Views: 0
AMENDED OPINION This case requires the Court to interpret an agreement, styled as an Agreement for Disposition of Collateral (“ADC”), in order to determine the respective rights of the parties. Plaintiff contends that it is owed approximately $400 million in accrued interest. Defendant denies any indebtedness to plaintiff and counters that plaintiff remains indebted to defendant. Desp...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has brought this Bivens action 1 seeking to hold govern *608 ment agents liable in their individual capacities for alleged constitutional violations. He alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq., and its implementing regulations. He names...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ON THE DEFENDANTS [sic] MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT (#83) The within Memorandum is a brief explication 1 of the reasons why I granted Defendants [sic] Motion for A Directed Verdict (#83) on Count I of the Amended Complaint 2 before the case was submitted to the jury on August 8, 1995. 3 Count I of the Amended Complaint sought to impose l...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and claimant's motion to dismiss this action for forfeiture in rem. At the Court's request, the Magistrate Judge prepared a Report and Recommendation which concludes that claimant's motion should be denied and that summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be granted. After careful, independent ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. The underlying action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Darriek Leonard Ger-laugh [hereinafter Petitioner] in which he contends that he is imprisoned and sentenced to death in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Petitioner’s amended petition fil...
Views: 1
This class action arises out of Defendant Campbell Soup Company’s (“Defendant Company”) 1 unilateral reduction of health insurance benefits provided to retirees under the Company’s medical plan. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e). Presently before the Court is Defendant Company’s partial motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set for...
Views: 0
OPINION I. INTRODUCTION These actions arise out of the 1991 closings of two corrugated cardboard product manufacturing plants. Consolidated for trial, 1 the two eases are brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (“WARN”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. (1994). The thrust of the plaintiffs’ claim is that the defendants failed to provide the affec...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wau-sau”) brought this declaratory judgment action to determine insurance coverage of claims arising from contamination of the “Turpentine Run Aquifer” (the “Aquifer”) feeding numerous water wells in the Tutu Region of St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, and of additional pollution in Wells-ville, New York. Wausau, Con...
Views: 0
This matter is opened before the Court upon the motion of defendant Morris Sarno for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court has decided the motion upon the written submissions of the parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated below, the motion for summary judgment on the issues of liability and compensatory damages will be...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication on his Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was heard by this Court on March 10, 1995. Having considered the papers filed by the parties and oral argument on the motion, and good cause appearing, the Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER This action alleges copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraud. Plaintiff is USAR Systems, Inc. (“USAR”). Defendants are Brain Works, Inc. (“Brain Works”) and Avi Telyas. In a Memorandum Order issued on May 31, 1995, the Court denied USAR’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed this action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. US...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendant Russell Nichols (“Nichols”) has moved this Court to compel the return of $500 pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e). The Government opposes Nichols’ motion, and requests, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3666, that the Court order the funds to be deposited in the registry of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. For the reasons s...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Sydney Goldsmith brought this action, pro se, to recover payment of approximately $13,-270 of the $16,340 that the Department of State has withheld from his retirement benefits. The Department claims that this is a legitimate offset for the amount that Mr. Goldsmith wrongfully received in Separate Maintenance Allowance (“SMA”) payments.1 SMA payments are designed to help Depa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Raymond J. Bates, Jr. (“Bates”) moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds. 1 The Court has converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. 2 Resolution of this motion centers on the interaction in diversity c...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a contract action based on diversity jurisdiction. The central issue is whether the expiration of Defendant Concorde-New Horizons Corporation’s (“Defendant”) copyright in the Motion Picture terminates the obligation of Plaintiffs Shoptalk, Ltd. and Alan Menkin (together “Plaintiffs”) to pay royalties pursuant to a contract entered into by the parties in 1983 (“the 1983 Agr...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 8), Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 28), and Defendants’ Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Document No. 28). 1 Having carefully considered the motions, response, arguments, and authorities submitted by counsel, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants’ motions should be DENIED. Plaintiff Equ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above referenced action is a case of first impression, grounded in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Fair Housing [Amendments] Act of 1988 (“FHA”), 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Physically disabled, Plaintiff John Edward Robins...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a ten day trial and over four hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (“Plaintiff’), finding that Defendants Continental Casualty Company and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford (together “CNA”) were liable to Plaintiff on the theory of promissory estoppel in the amount of $7.8 million. CNA now mo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff ACLI Government Securities (“ACLI”) makes this application for costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred during the preparation of its Petition for a Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Stay of a Cross-Claim (“petition”) as well as for this application. ACLI seeks reimbursement from Defendant Be Be Blond (“Be Be”) and its counsel, the Ober, Kal...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve parallel motions filed in two separate patent infringement cases. Plaintiff Central Sprinkler Company is a manufacturer and seller of automatic fire sprinklers and sprinkler systems. It owns a patent for a product called the Extended Coverage Ceiling Sprinkler and System, numbered 5,366,022 (“ ’022 Patent”). Central has brought three lawsuits alleging that the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In an order and report-recommendation filed on June 7,1995, Magistrate Judge Daniel Scanlon, Jr. recommended dismissal of this lawsuit as barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff Ben Gary Triestman on June 19, 1995, timely filed objections to the report-recommendation. Because these objections are without merit, I adopt the magistrate’s reco...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff James Square Nursing Home, Inc.’s (“James Square”) motion for a preliminary injunction and on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. James Square is a nursing home that provides services to Medicare and Medicaid patients. Defendant Brian Wing is the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Social Services...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. On August 23, 1988, Anthony W. Bor-zillo, Jr. died. 2. Anthony Borzillo (the taxpayer), filed Federal income tax returns (Form 1040) for the years 1985 through 1987 reporting Federal income tax liabilities which he failed to pay. 3. As a result, the IRS made assessments against Anthony Borzillo for Federal income tax liabilities totalling $44,568.00. 4....
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF POTOMAC INSURANCE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEBORAH PEPPERS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF POTOMAC INSURANCE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST JOHN MANN AND DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN MANN’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Magistrate is Plaintiff Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois’ Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant D...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................... 1482 A. Procedural Background............................................. 1483 B. Factual Background................................................ ...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.1435 FINDINGS OF FACT.1435 I. The Parties.1435 II. The Site.1436 III. Activities at the Site.1437 A. ASARCO .1437 B. KCSS 1.1437 C. KCSS II.1437 D. Trinity/Mosher.1438 E. BACC.1441 TV. The Contamination and Cleanup.1442 A. The Initial Investigation and Response.1442 B. EPA Negotiations...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff pro se Jose Orraca brings this section 1983 action charging two New York City police officers with assault, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant Ruggio counterclaims for injuries he allegedly suffered in arresting plaintiff. Defendants 1 move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 37(d...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Susan Ciresoli brings this action on behalf of her emotionally disturbed son, Joshua. She contends that Defendants Maine School Administrative District Number 22 (“M.SAD. #22” or “the District”) and the Maine Department of Education failed to provide Joshua with an appropriate education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the appeal taken by the debtor, Blue Mountain Investments, Ltd. (Blue Mountain), from the order of the bankruptcy court filed on September 2, 1993, dismissing with prejudice count 1 of the debtor’s complaint of October *511 1, 1987. Count 1 of the complaint alleges that defendants, William H. Bone and Sunrise Company...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on a suit for patent infringement brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 1-307. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a), as well as in personam jurisdiction over the parties. Venue in this judicial district is provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). Plaintiff...
Views: 0
*347 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on defendant Societe IndustrieUe Ober’s (hereinafter “SIO”) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, brought this action against the defendants, SIO and Oberflex, Inc., for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of impli...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The court has before it the Objections to and Motion to Modify Subpoena Issued to *361Mercy Hospital of Fort Scott, Kansas (doc. 10). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(B) and 45(c)(3)(A), Mercy Hospital (Mercy) as a non-party thereby seeks to avoid production of its cautery machines and related documents and “all original minutes of the OB/ GYN staff for 1990 to the present ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant Weyerhaeuser Paper Company for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion will be granted. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant, has filed this suit alleging that the Defendant discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability and terminating his employment, in vi...
Views: 1
896 F.Supp. 1468 (1995) TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a Mississippi corporation, Defendant. No. C 95-4088. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. September 5, 1995. *1469 George Zelcs of Clausen Miller, P.C., Chicago, IL, Jonathan Jay of Zelle & Larson, Dallas, TX, Gregg Williams of Heidman, Redmond, Fred...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action was brought against two correctional officers employed by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo (“MDC Guaynabo”), regarding a work strike or group demonstration that occurred on or about September 20, 1993. See complaint at pp. 1-2. Plaintiff Pedro Reyes Nieves (“Reyes-Nieves”) seeks monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unkn...
Views: 0
ORDER This Cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doe. No. 6, filed August 25,1995). Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support on August 24, 1995 (Doc. No. 3). Defendant Florida High School Activities Association, Inc. (“FHSAA”) filed a memorandum in opposition on September 1, 1995 (Doc. No. 9). Defendant Pinellas County School Board (the “School Boar...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a proposed class action brought by a former shareholder of defendant American Heritage Fund, Inc., which alleges the commission of numerous violations of the federal securities statutes and the breach of fiduciary duties to the Fund’s shareholders. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff moves to amend the comp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has for consideration the renewed motion of defendants, City of Birmingham (the “City”) and Arthur Deutcsh (“Deutcsh”), in his official capacity as police chief of the City, for summary judgment. On August 20, 1992, this court denied an earlier motion for summary judgment which had been filed by the City and by Deutcsh, both individually and in his official capacity....
Views: 0
ORDER AND OPINION On March 27, 1995, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal contests the decision of the bankruptcy court granting the appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the appellant’s Motion to Dismiss. On May 15, 1995, the appellant submitted his brief in support of his appeal. The appellee responded on May 26, 1995. On June 5, 1995, the appellant filed his repl...
Views: 0
In 1981 a United States Grand Jury for the District of Maryland issued an indictment charging James Dwight Snyder (“Snyder”) with three counts of evasion of federal income taxes for calendar years 1973,1974 and 1975 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; three counts of failure to file federal income tax returns for calendar years 1973, 1974 and 1975 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203; and one count of c...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a contract action by Michigan State University (MSU) against Research Corporation (RC) and Research Corporation Technologies (RCT). MSU alleges breach of contract, injunction, reformation, accounting, unjust enrichment, and interference with contractual relations. Before the Court is defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration in accordance with the co...
Views: 0
*203 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AVOID JUDICIAL LIENS AND GRANTING AUTOMATIC HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION This matter comes before the court by way of an appeal by the debtor/appellant Jim H. Hsia. Hsia appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Honorable Marilyn Morgan, presiding. Hsia attempted to avoid two judicial liens. His motion for avoidance was denied. Initially Hsia filed a ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By Memorandum and Order filed March 10, 1995 the court dismissed plaintiffs claims against his employer for wrongfully firing him in January 1991, and against his union for wrongful conduct of an arbitration in March 1991 over that firing. Defendants seek a Rule 54(b) certificate allowing entry of judgment dismissing those claims. That would start plaintiffs time to appeal tha...
Views: 0
OPINION George Edde has filed a counterclaim alleging that his former employer, Sheikh Ab-dulaziz Bin Ibrahim Al-Ibrahim, breached an oral contract to reimburse Mr. Edde for tax liability Edde incurred when he fraudulently claimed some of the Sheikh’s gambling winnings as his own and paid federal income taxes on those winnings. In addition to this breach of contract claim, Mr. Edde se...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The plaintiffs New York State Association of Realtors, Inc. and Clifford Hall moves the Court for an order granting them attorneys’ fees and costs, together with post-judgment interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs commenced this action on May 28, 1991, seeking injunctive relief as well as a judgment de...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, John J. Mattingly (“Mattingly”) filed the instant complaint seeking relief resulting from his arrest and incarceration for ten days, pursuant to an Order for Body Attachment issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The City of Chicago (the “City”) and Willie Miranda (collectively the “Defendants”) have filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement t...
Views: 0
OPINION Gregory P. Scott moves for a new trial. As to his perjury conviction, motion allowed. BACKGROUND In June of 1995, Scott was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). This opinion is concerned only with his peijury conviction; the arguments raised by Scott regarding his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine...
Views: 0
OPINION The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) brought this action to recover unpaid insurance premiums allegedly owing on Travelers Group Policy No. G and GA-109376 issued to Lakeshore Industrial Supply, Inc. (Lakeshore). 1 In Count I, Travelers claims *529 that defendant Mol, Ine. merged with Lake-shore and thus succeeded to Lakeshore’s liabilities. In C...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff brought this action for declaratory relief to obtain judicial review of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision denying plaintiff relief under the Federal Tree Assistance Program (TAP), Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Pub. Law No. 101-624 § 2255, 104 Stat. 3974 (1990). Facts The parties agree that the facts are not in dispu...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff1 Maximiliano Amparo Concepcion’s pro se and in forma pauperis, action against Judge Antonio J. Negroni Cintron, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Justice, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, filed on December 29, 1994, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See docket 2). Plaintiff brings this action as a result of Superior Court Judge Antonio J. Neg...
Views: 0
*108 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Gary Perfetto seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in 1984 of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree. He is presently serving a concurrent sentence of 20 years to life for murder and 8-$ to 25 years for robbery. In his application for collateral relie...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This cause comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted, filed March 28, 1995 (D.E. # 78), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Count I of First Amended Counterclaims for Damages, In *618 junction and Declaratory Relief for Failure to St...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Motion of Defendant Vaughan Real Estate, Inc., to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. # 6) and on the Motion of Defendant Ron Vaughan to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff Electronic Realty Associates, L.P. (“ERA”), filed this suit for breach of contract, claiming that defendants Ron Va...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s objections to United States Magistrate Judge Mason’s Report and Recommendation dated May 30, 1995. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.1(c). Based on that review and all the arguments of the parties, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommenda...
Views: 0
ORDER Based on the factual findings, legal conclusions and Recommendations by United States Magistrate Judge John M. Mason dated May 5, 1995, all files and records, and no objections having been filed to said Recommendations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The arrest of the vessels herein is hereby vacated; and 2. The above matter may be, and hereby is, dismissed with pr...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court denies plaintiffs motion and grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Richard T. Heise (“Heise”) was employe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The issue before this Court is whether a National Parks Service Regulation banning the sale of message bearing T-Shirts on the Mall and other parks in the National Capital area violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. Plaintiffs are a number of nonprofit groups, who engage in the sale of message-bearing T-Shirts on the National Mall. 1. Backgroun...
Views: 1
ORDER This bankruptcy appeal is before the Court to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service or the Missouri Department of Revenue has a superior right to proceeds resulting from the March, 1991 sale of a convenience store formerly owned and operated by Pronto Convenience Stores, Inc. (“Pronto”), and sold pursuant to Pronto’s bankruptcy. Norman Rouse, trustee of Pronto Enterpris...
Views: 0
OPINION This case arose out of a tragic chain of events (that ultimately began at Tjuana Barney’s birth) and culminated with her suicide in a jail cell on her fourteenth birthday. The plaintiff, mother of the deceased and administratrix of the estate, alleges causes of action against Greenville, Mississippi, and M.E. Waldrop, Greenville’s former police *375 chief, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiffs are purchasers of defendant MTC Electronic Technologies Co., Ltd. (“MTC”) stock. They have brought this putative class action 1 against MTC, several of its officers and directors, its accountant and its underwriters, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Two of the individual defendants are also charged with violating the Racket...
Views: 40
OPINION AND ORDER I. FACTS Defendant Project Strategies Corporation (“P.S.C.”) sells a pet grooming device that it advertises through various media including television. The product is the “pet mitt” that enables pets to be groomed by a glove that pulls off loose hair from the pet. It packages this product with a label that reads “As Seen On TV.” P.S.C. is incorporated in and...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THIS MATTER comes before the court on plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State of Alaska from authorizing directed marine chinook salmon fisheries or authorizing the retention of chi-nook salmon in marine fisheries south of Cape Suckling for the remainder of the accounting year which ends September ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff James Calvello, a former manager of the Fort Randall Casino operated by the defendant Yankton Sioux Tribe, has filed an application for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitrator’s award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9. The Yankton Sioux Tribe moves to dismiss the application on the ground that the Tribe enjoys sovereign immu...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all defendants. Defendants move for summary judgment on all four Counts contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988. Plaintiffs allege that defendants terminated their employment with the Town of West Warwick in the position...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Yankton School District brings this civil action challenging the state hearing examiner’s decision that high school student Tracy Schramm is eligible for special education, related services, and transition services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction of this suit under 20 ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This ease came before the Court on September 8, 1995, for an emergency hearing to show cause why defendants the District of Columbia, Dr. Franklin L. Smith, the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”), and Dr. B. Garnett Pink-ney, Director of Special Education for DCPS, should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with this Court’s...
Views: 1
ORDER ON THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS SCHREINER, JOHNSTON, MOORE, PRIOUR, BARKER AND SMITH Pending for resolution before the Court are the following motions: 1. Second Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Charles Schreiner, III, filed on December 16, 1994; 2. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Raymond F. Barker, filed on December 16, 1994; 8....
Views: 1
900 F.Supp. 67 (1995) FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant. Nos. 1:94CV434, 1:94CV580. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. September 1, 1995. *68 *69 *70 Bruce J. Terris, Carolyn Smith Pravlik and Steven J. Santarsiero, of Terris, Pravlik and Wagner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. James E. Smith of Beirner, Maynard & Parsons, L...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on February 5, 1993. On August 6, 1993, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On August 23, 1993, the court converted Defendants’ m...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 655 (1995) Ronnie HOGG and Wife Joyce Hogg, Plaintiffs, v. RUST INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. 1:95CV395. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. September 11, 1995. Richard Glenn Lewis of Boneau & Lewis, Port Arthur, TX, for plaintiffs. F. Lee Butler, of Adams & Reese, Houston, TX, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING P...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Hallie Baker moves for an order granting its untimely request for a jury trial in this personal injury action against defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) (incorrectly sued as Amtrak Corporation). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is granted. Plaintiff filed this action in New York state court on June 22, 1993 for injuries alle...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SIXTH THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION Plaintiffs, who are retail service station dealers, have raised various federal and state law claims against defendants BP America, BP Oil Company, BP Marketing Corporation, and BP Exploration & Oil Incorporated (defendants collectively referred to as “BP” or “defendants”). In September 1994, defendants...
Views: 0
*540 ORDER REVERSING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER FINDING DEBTOR’S TAX LIABILITY DIS-CHARGEABLE The appellant, Internal Revenue Service, appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Finding Debtor’s Tax Liability Dischargea-ble. The court heard oral argument on the merits, April 6, 1995, and has carefully considered the briefs filed, the argument of counsel, the entire record an...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action, which seeks to stay an arbitration brought pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, originally was commenced in New York State Court. Respondent removed to this Court, and petitioner now moves to remand, claiming that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, petitioner renews a prior motion for a preliminary stay of the arbitration, which h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment. The Court shall deny the Motion to Stay because the Defendants have not met the necessary standards used to justify such action. The Court, however, will modify certain provisions of the remedial Order of December 13, 1994, 877 F.Supp. 634, as amended (“the...
Views: 2
ORDER Plaintiffs Title VII complaint alleging race discrimination in employment was properly filed after he exhausted administrative procedures. Depositions of all key witnesses have been taken; the court has read them. Defendant now contends that it is entitled to entry of summary judgment in its favor on plaintiffs claims against her. After carefully considering the arguments of counsel, the r...
Views: 0
ORDER REVERSING IN PART AND AFFIRMING IN PART THE BANKRUPTCY COURT’S ORDER SUSTAINING GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTION Fred Paul Solomon appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Sustaining Guardian Life Insurance Company’s Objection to Exemption. See In re Solomon, 166 B.R. 998 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1994). This court heard oral argument on the merits January 10, 1995. Fa...
Views: 0
BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Intermed Laboratories, Inc. (In-termed), is a Texas corporation. Defendant, Perbadanan Geta Felda (Felda), is a Malaysian corporation. Felda does not have offices in Texas, nor does Felda maintain an agent in Texas for the service of process. Felda employs as its marketing agents MRY corporation (MRY) 1 MRYs general director, Mo-han Ramalingam (Mohan) ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND In 1991 and 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) directed Petrofina Pipeline Company (Fina) to remove and relocate its Hillebrant Bayou pipeline to accommodate the construction of the Taylors Bayou Flood Control Project. Fina refused. Fina maintained that it would comply only if the Corps or the local sponsor of the project (Jefferson County Drainage D...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 960 (1995) Alvy McQUEEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. No. 1:91-CV 0329. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. May 4, 1995. *961 John A. Townsend, Townsend & Jones, Houston, TX, for plaintiff. Stuart D. Gibson, Washington, DC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER COBB, District Judge. BACKGROUND In 1988, Alvy McQueen (Pl...
Views: 0
Preliminary Statement Plaintiffs Filomena Prisco and Thomas Prisco, who has since passed away, instituted this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages for certain alleged violations of federal and state environmental statutes and state common law by a *380 number of private defendants in relation to a landfill plaintiffs owned in the town of Patt...
Views: 2
896 F.Supp. 645 (1995) METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. Gary MURPHY and Brandi Bills. No. 4:94cv95. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division. March 2, 1995. *646 Russell J. Bowman, Cozen and O'Connor, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff. Mark A. Ticer, Dallas, TX, for defendants. ORDER PAUL N. BROWN, District Judge. This is a suit by Metropolitan Property and Casualty Compan...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Clarence Walker brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Salvador Godinez, Warden of Stateville Correctional Center, and correctional officers Walter Laseter, Ron Fleming, and Curtis Mode. Walker alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indif...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Ledester Lumpkin (“Lumpkin”), Loma Barker (“Barker”), Janet Blazek (“Blazek”), Patricia Brenner (“Brenner”), Ruth Bush (“Bush”), Joane Hawkins (“Hawkins”), Var-nell Owens (“Owens”) and Alice Sedlak (“Sedlak”) charge Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown (“Secretary”) — purely in his official capacity, not personally — with age discrimination in the fed...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an appeal from an order in the bankruptcy ease of debtor Cary Grant. The procedural history is as follows. In August 1989, a state court suit was filed against Cary Grant. The named plaintiff in that lawsuit was R.H. Seward, Inc. However, no entity with that precise name existed. The suit apparently was filed by R.H. Seward Corpo*661ration, a Delaware corpor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs have filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant Hodge on their claim for an accounting. Plaintiffs allege that Hodge failed to account for the property and profit obtained by him as their agent. Plaintiffs object to Hodge’s accounting because the supporting documentation consists of merely Hodge’s own, unsubstantiated records of all debts and pro...
Views: 0
*432 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff Yankton Area Adjustment Training Center, Inc., (YAATC), filed its Complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of the State of South Dakota, seeking review under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 of a state administrative decision in favor of defendants. Defendants timely re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James Crawford and Glenda Crawford, husband and wife, bring this action against Credit Collection Services alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692o. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff James Crawford’s ...
Views: 0
ORDER Sitting by Designation. Eighteen people — 13 men and 5 women— were indicted in this case in 1990 for, among other things, allegedly being members of a conspiracy to possess large amounts of cocaine with intent to distribute. One of the major players in the conspiracy was a fellow named Milton Sims, Jr. The case, while pending in the district court, was often referred to as the “Milton Sims...
Views: 0
ORDER On May 5, 1993, Gregory D. Stanford, a columnist for what was then the Milwaukee Journal, wrote a complimentary column 1 after the death of a fellow journalist, who was also, apparently, a friend. Judging from the column, I’d say that Carole Malone was quite a woman. However, in revealing to the reader the flavor of Carole Malone’s personality, Mr. Stanford used plaintiff James W. Mil...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Taylor and Cameron are charged in a thirty-three count superseding indictment with the violation of various federal statutes relating to the possession and sale of firearms, conspiracy to violate federal law, and giving false statements to agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. On August 7 Defendant Cameron filed a motion to dism...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION Cross-motions for summary judgment as to whether defendant Allstate Ins. Co. had a duty to defend plaintiffs Jon-Marc Dobrin and Jon-Marc Dobrin, A Professional Corporation came on for hearing before the Court, the Honorable William J. Rea, Judge, presiding, on April 24, 1995. After reviewing the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motions, the file ...
Views: 0
ORDER OF REMAND The State of Nevada sued defendants in State court pursuant to NRS 283.440 (# IB). Defendants removed to this court, citing 28 *935U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443 as bases for removal (# 1). The State moved to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (# 1). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The State’s complaint is styled a “complaint for removal from office pursuant to the procedure set forth in Nevada R...
Views: 0
RULING ON “MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER” This matter is before the court on two “Motions to Reconsider” filed on behalf of the defendants. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition. There is no need for oral argument. The action for which reconsideration is sought, is a ruling dated June 28, 1995, 892 F.Supp. 145 (M.D.La.1995) which granted a motion by plaintiffs to remand these proceedings to th...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE AGGREGATE LIMITS; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THIS MATTER comes before the court on Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judg *487 ment Regarding Aggregate Limits, and Defendants’ Motion to Strike a Portion of Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment re Aggregate Limits. The court has co...
Views: 0
RULING Before this court are plaintiffs’ motion in limine and supplemental motion in limine requesting a ruling on the admissibility of evidence relating to polygraph tests administered to them by Brad Cook, a polygraphist with the Louisiana Department of Public Safety, at the request of and under the supervision of Mike Neck, an investigator with the Office of the Louisiana State Fir...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which requires the Court to consider delicate choice of law issues. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for Defendant’s wrongful termination of its dealership agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ claims consist of the following: (1) breach of contract, (2) vio *1201 la...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case, involving a claim of employment discrimination because of age, was tried to an advisory jury. 1 FACTUAL FINDINGS The following facts are undisputed. 2 Plaintiff, Richard F. Felker, was an employee within the meaning of the Age Discrimination Employment Act, ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630(f). Defendants, Pepsi-C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For two weeks in January 1995 this Court conducted a jury trial involving claims brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After prevailing at trial, defendants submitted a bill of costs totaling $10,282.00 to the Clerk ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Leonid Gozenpud, has filed a motion to compel which requires this court to interpret the new Illinois law on “product liability,” part of the tort “reform” legislation which became law in Illinois this year. Mr. Gozenpud alleges that he was standing next to a piece of industrial equipment called a walkie pallet truck 1 while perf...
Views: 0
OPINION I. As of October 25,1991, Clinton Hardnett, a Maryland resident, was a student in the sophomore class at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On that date, he was injured while attending a rock concert at the University’s A.J. Palumbo Arena. Hard-nett has sued Duquesne in Maryland federal court, contending that his injury was the result of the university’s neg...
Views: 2
*130 OPINION This matter comes before the Court on appellants’ appeal from a Bankruptcy Court Order dated April 4, 1995 and a subsequent denial of appellants’ motion for reconsideration dated April 18, 1995. Also before the Court is the appellee’s motion to supplement the record on appeal to include three Chapter 11 plans of reorganization not before the Bankruptcy Court at the t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Enesco Corporation’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiff Noah et al.’s motion for summary judgment as to Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs complaint. In Counts III and IV of his complaint, Noah alleges unjust enrichment and seeks injunc-tive relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’...
Views: 0
897 F.Supp. 968 (1995) Julio OLIN v. TIDEWATER INC., Tidewater Crewing Limited, and Zapata Gulf Crews, Inc. Civ. A. No. G-95-174. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. September 11, 1995. *969 Lawrence Michael Tylka and Richard Lee Melancon, Schechter & Associates, Galveston, TX, for plaintiff. Chris Andrew Lorenzen, Crain Caton & James, Houston, TX, for defendants...
Views: 0
*1067 OPINION Parking summonses issued by officials' of the City of New York (the “City”) serve the primary purpose of enforcing parking regulations, thereby alleviating congestion in the traffic-clogged streets of the City. They also raise revenue. Plaintiffs, a group of small businesses that park their commercial vehicles on City streets, claim that the City and the other defen...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Background This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Jeffrey Westra and Karen Westra, through their respective employers had a policy of medical insurance covering themselves and their family. Substantial medical bills were incurred as a result of their son Matthew’s illness. Matthew was treated at plaintiff Regents of University of Mic...
Views: 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.140 II.MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.143 III. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(b)(6).143 IV. REALTY ONE’S ANTITRUST ALLEGATIONS.144 V. ANTITRUST INJURY AND STANDING TO SUE UNDER § 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT .145 A. Antitrust Injury: A Proper Claim.145 B. Antitrust Standing: A P...
Views: 1
DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, William J. Ward, brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (1988), to review a decision by the defendant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”). Plaintiff, a registered nurse at a Veterans Administration (“VA”) hospital, had been discharged for verbally abusing a patient. Plaintiff alleged that both the f...
Views: 2
DECISION AND ORDER This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio on April 6, 1994, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On December 1, 1994, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed an Order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff appealed the Order on December 27, 1994. Defendant filed a response on January 5,1995. The Court heard argument on July...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (D-ll & D-16). Plaintiff, Brandon Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, Inc. (“Brandon”) moves for partial summary judgment (D-ll) asserting that Defendant Chrysler Corporation’s (“Chrysler”) warranty reimbursement practices for automobile parts are contrary to Florida law. In opposition, Chrysler moves for summary judgment (D-1...
Views: 0
Lucas Aerospace, Ltd. (“Lucas”) commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of four United States Patents held by Unison Industries Limited Partnership (“Unison”), as well as asserting claims sounding in antitrust and unfair competition. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 63 (Amended Complaint). Unison’s patents cover a class of devices known as igni...
Views: 0
Plaintiff has moved by order to show cause for an order preventing defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) from evicting proposed intervening plaintiffs, the Franklins, and for an order that would, among other relief sought, compel defendants Freddie Mac and the City to abate the lead paint currently in the Franklin home. In addition, the Franklins have moved to interve...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court are Defendant American Home Assurance Company’s (“American Home”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 45), the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#62), and Defendants American Home'and Her *854 bert L. Jamison & Company’s (“Jamison”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 121). Having reviewed the motions, the submissions ...
Views: 0
OPINION Debtor Maxwell Communication Corporation pic (“MCC” or the “Debtor”) and Examiner Richard A. Gitlin (the “Examiner”) appeal from final judgments of the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York, Tina L. Brozman, J., dismissing Adversary Complaints filed by MCC and the Examiner against defendants/appellees Barclays Bank pie (“Barclays”), National Westminster Bank p...
Views: 3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE SIXTH AND SEVENTH CLAIMS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (PHASE I OF TRIAL) I. Introduction and Background Plaintiff Ronald D. Johnson is a former employee of defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) who was laid-off from his position at one of IBM’s San Jose divisions in late 1993 and early 1994. He asserts federal ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is Defendant The Kroger Company’s (“Kroger”) Motion for Summary Judgment (#28). Kroger seeks summary judgment on Lee’s claims of retaliation. Kroger also contends that Lee’s claims of racial discrimination and racial harassment are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and Lee’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. ...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ appeal of Magistrate Judge Erickson’s Order of July 18, 1995. Defendants seeks reversal of the portions of Magistrate Judge Erickson’s Order granting Plaintiffs motion to compel the non-expert testimony of Peter Skoog. *406 The Court must modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order found to be clearly...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter is before the Court on the appeal of appellant The Plan Committee from the final order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri holding that a lack of concurrence or power of attorney in the mileage guide was fatal to all of Ware’s tariffs, thus, the Plan Committee could not proceed with a cause of action against defendant Eveready Batter...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a lawsuit, filed on June 22,1995, for de novo judicial review of an administrative determination of the Food and Consumer Service Division (“FCS”) of the United States Department of Agriculture. On August 10, 1995, this Court held a de novo bench trial in this matter. Immediately pri- or to trial the defendant voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim. Followin...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Court considered the motion for summary judgment filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), plaintiffs’ response and defendant’s reply. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Motions for summary judgment are authorized by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Enesco Corporation’s (“Enesco”) motions for summary judgment on Counts I and II of Plaintiff Todd Noah’s et al. (“Noah”) complaint. Noah filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to all counts. In Counts I and II of his complaint, Noah sues Enesco for fraud and misappropriation of a trade secret under the Illinois Trade...
Views: 0
OPINION The matter before the court is the motion of the plaintiffs, Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., Inc. and Keith Sales Co. (collectively Foster), for contempt (# 582-1) and for an injunction (#582-2) against the defendants, Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Olof A. Hallstrom (collectively Hallco). BACKGROUND In November of 1992, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Foster and against Ha...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on motion of plaintiff for the issuance of a “temporary injunction,” and on separate motions of defendants Brenda Smith and Robert Gay-nor, and defendant Deborah T. Poritz for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Objections have been filed by the parties opposing the motions. For the reasons stated, the motion of defendants to dismiss is grante...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the court on cross and counter motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”), defendant Sanfatex, Inc. (“Sanfatex”), and defendants Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (“Hartford Underwriters”) and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (“Hartford Accident”) jointly. The underlying action upon which these motions are pre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION At the conclusion of plaintiffs case, defendant moved for entry of judgment and plaintiff moved to amend the complaint. Upon request of the parties, the continuation of the trial, if necessary, has been adjourned sine die. This case involves a license agreement between Pickwick Communications, Inc. (“Communications”) and Pickwick Entertainment, Inc. (“Entertainment”) t...
Views: 0
ORDER Presently before the Court are: 1) Defendant Casa View Baptist Church’s (“Casa View’s”) Motion For Summary Judgment On Shelby Baucum’s Cross-Claims filed on April 28, 1995, Baucum’s Response filed on June 2, 1995, and Casa View’s Reply filed on June 22, 1995; 2) Defendant Casa View’s Motion For Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’ Claims filed on May 1, 1995, Plaintiffs’ Response filed o...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss an Unconstitutional Penal Statute (Doc. No. 117). Upon review of the record and for the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Motion. I. BACKGROUND Defendant, Robert L. Bell, Jr., seeks a dismissal of Count Three of his indictment for convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Def...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1347 (1995) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Diana L. WHITE, Defendant/Appellant. No. 94-40045-01-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. June 19, 1995. *1348 *1349 Timothy J. Henry, Office of Federal Public Defender, Wichita, KS, for defendant Diana White. Daniel A. Nastoff, James H. Robinette, Office of Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Riley, KS, for U.S. MEMORANDU...
Views: 0
*513 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 28, 1994, the court commenced jury selection for the trial of Jessie Ailsworth, Jr., Undra P. Mock, George Stewart, Jr., Calvin Conway, Terrance J. Douglas and Kenneth Torain. Arnett Rice, the seventh codefendant, had previously been severed from the other codefendants. See United States v. Ailsworth, 873 F.Supp. 1450 (D.Kan.1994) ...
Views: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Plaintiff, an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary (“ISP”) in Fort Madison, Iowa, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4 (1988). The Court has jurisdiction by reason of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). The matter came on for trial on Dece...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff brings this action seeking to hold forty-nine individuals and corporations jointly and severally liable for an arbitration award of approximately $11 million. Plaintiff now moves for a prejudgment order attaching certain real property held by Defendants 126 Greenwich Avenue, Inc., Robin Hill Farm Inc., Intermobil Realty & Development Corp., Smokey Hill Fa...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The following is an amended Memorandum and Order intended to clarify this Court’s March 15, 1995 Memorandum and Order. INTRODUCTION Claimant, Anthony Viola, moves for reconsideration of this Court’s October 27, 1993 order granting the United States partial summary judgment of civil forfeiture as to the defendants in rem, and denying claimant’s motion for partial summary judg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause comes before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs request for oral argument. The Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”) contends that Eugene Ingram’s ERISA claim is barred by the applicable limitations period. The parties’ briefs have aided the court sufficiently in its determination of the summary judgment moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause comes before the court on Patricia Inks’ motion to reconsider denial of front pay and petition for attorney’s fees and costs, and the defendants’ motion for remitti-tur of damages or in the alternative for a new trial. For the following reasons the court denies Mrs. Inks’ motion to reconsider the front pay issue, denies the defendants’ motion for remitt...
Views: 0
OPINION The motion to be addressed is plaintiff Howard Herrmann’s motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement of Herrmann’s pending suit against defendant Meridian Mortgage Corporation. I. A. The Pleadings The pending suit is a proposed class action brought by Herrmann, a Pennsylvania resident, against Meridian, a company which deals in home mortg...
Views: 0
DECISION and ORDER I. Background Defendant1 Peter V. Fried (“defendant” or “Fried”) was apparently issued an appearance ticket which directed the defendant to appear in the Town Court of Stephentown on May 31, 1995 to answer a charge of criminal trespass. See attachment to docket no. 1. This action was removed to this District by Notice of Removal filed by the defendant on July 26, 1995. In ad...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER A six-day nonjury trial was held in this patent case beginning March 21,1995. After a careful review of the evidence presented at trial and the applicable law, the Court finds that there was no infringement of the United States Patent No. 4,614,101. The Court also finds the United States Patent No. 4,614,101 is invalid. BASIS OF SUIT Plaintiff, Herr-Voss Corporati...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE comes on for consideration of the Motion of Sheridan Transportation Company for Joinder as Co-Party Cross-claimant (Dkt. Ill) and the responses (Dkts. 115, 117, and 118).1 The above-entitled action concerns various claims, cross-claims and a third party complaint arising from a casualty which occurred when the ITB Philadelphia struck a seawall while maneuvering out of drydoek. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER Defendant Norman Duncan was detained by order of Magistrate Judge Smith after a pre-trial detention hearing held on June 29, 1995. Duncan now comes before the Court seeking review of Judge Smith’s detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145. I. Background Defendant Duncan was charged in the indictment with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with the In...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Ralph Fuller (“Fuller”) brings this, action under sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of. the Social Security Act, as amended (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), challenging a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that Fuller is not entitled to disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Act. Fuller see...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is an appeal from an award of summary judgment to New York National Bank (the “Bank”) in an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court. CEPA Consulting, Ltd. (“CEPA”) appeals from the bankruptcy court’s determination on two grounds. First, appellant contends that a payment made in satisfaction of bank loans several days before the filing of the debt...
Views: 0
ENTRY This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ BILL OF COSTS, PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ BILL OF COSTS, and DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR BILL OF COSTS AND IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION. The Court, having reviewed the Bill of Costs and considered Plaintiffs’ objections, and being duly advised, now finds that several of Plaintiffs’ objections are well taken, an...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Today we resolve a series of motions filed by both Plaintiff, Patricia O’Brien, and Defendants, Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit Authority. Plaintiffs lawsuit alleges that unhealthy conditions at her workplace, the Amtrak Ticket Office within the Trenton Train Station, caused her serious medical problems. Some of these unhealthy conditions included rodent infestation, pesticide sprayi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint, which challenges the constitutionality of § 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1154(e). 1 *1377 That statutory provision bars approval of any immigrant visa petition filed on behalf of an alien who previously has been accorded or has sought to be accorded “immediate relat...
Views: 0
*73 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff James E. Williams, acting pro se, brought this diversity action against defendant Cynthia R. Nathan, claiming damages for defamation of character. Defendant Nathan, also appearing pro se, has moved to dismiss the claims, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause comes before the court on plaintiff George Macri, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss Verified Petition or Motion to Remand to State Court (filed November 22, 1994 (#4)). Defendants M & M Contractors, Inc., Thomas B. Markley, and Robert T. Moncek (hereinafter “M & M”) oppose this motion, and in addition have a Petition for Transfer of Venue (filed November 21, 1994...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Before the court are two post-trial motions in the above-captioned matter. Defendant Orkin Exterminating asks the Court to set aside the verdict of the jury under Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(b) and renews their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). Plaintiff Carol Dewing moves under Fed.R.CivJP. 59(a) for a new trial. I. BACKGROUND ...
Views: 0
OPINION On February 10, 1995, following a six-day trial in this employment case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Antonio Marfia (“plaintiff’ or “Marfia”) against defendant T.C. Ziraat Bankasi (the “Bank”), New York Branch, on his national origin discrimination, breach of contract and fraud claims. The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 in back pay, $200,000 in front pay, an...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Atlantic States Legal Foundation (hereinafter “ASLF”) commenced this lawsuit against the defendants Onondaga County Department of Drainage and Sanitation and Onondaga County (hereinafter “County”) on January 19, 1988, pursuant to § 505 of the Clean Water Act for illegal discharges of inadequately treated and raw sewage from t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM On July 7, 1995, for reasons some of which were stated from the bench, defendant was sentenced to a term of fifteen months. This Memorandum is submitted in further exposition of that ruling. As will be more fully developed below, defendant faced a guideline sentence of sixty months. She moved for a downward departure on the authority of guidelines §§ 5K2.13, 5K2.0, and 5C1.2. I. ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER This is a § 1983 action alleging violation of plaintiffs First Amendment rights. Plaintiff Marie Cirelli is an art teacher at Johnston High School (“JHS”) and a member of the Johnston Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Local 1702 (“AFT”). Defendants are the Johnston school district, the Superintendent, the Principal and the Administrative Assist...
Views: 0
ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a joint power agency responsible for managing the wastewater for several East Bay cities and areas. Between 1978 and 1979, plaintiff designed and had constructed a wastewater export pipeline. The pipeline was constructed according to bid and contract documents, including a Request for Proposals drafted by plaintiff. These documents established d...
Views: 1
RULING ON DEFENDANT CAFAREL-LA’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Introduction In this trademark action, the parties each claim the right to use the trademark “Mad Murphy” or “Mad Murphy’s,” in connection with their Hartford business ventures. Plaintiffs David McKay and Robert McKay have a partnership which operates the Municipal Cafe, a Hartford ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On February 16, 1995, Alejandra Nunez commenced this action against IBP, Inc. Nunez’ complaint appears to have attempted to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Title VII, as well as supplemental discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. Simultaneous with its answer, IBP filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed...
Views: 1
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S and DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS I. Factual and Procedural History This case poses the question of whether the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut (“Town”) may enforce state building code requirements and require payment of building permit fees relating to the construction of a new post office (the ‘Wes...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the motion of the defendant San Con, Inc. (San Con) to disqualify Daniel A. Ruley, Jr. and the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson as counsel for the plaintiffs Roberts & Schaefer Company (Roberts & Schaefer) and Mingo Logan Coal Company (Mingo Logan). The Court finds that Mr. Ruley’s continued representation of the plaintiffs presents a ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On March 13, 1995, James William Fowler entered a plea of guilty to count 2 of the indictment. In exchange for his plea, the government agreed, inter alia, to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment. On July 7,1995, the court orally pronounced sentence on the defendant. Unfortunately, the court repeatedly erred during the pronouncement of sentence. Throughout the senten...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On September 17, 1990, Jose Ramon Rivera and Elizabeth Yvonne Rivera filed a petition under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code. On November 27,1990, the Riveras’ plan was confirmed. This case comes before the court upon Jose Rivera’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 and Bankruptcy Rule 5011 to withdraw reference of the adversary proceeding from th...
Views: 0
OPINION This class action challenges certain conditions of confinement at the Southeast Correctional Center (“SECC”), located in Bridgewa-ter, Massachusetts. Specifically, the plaintiffs, present and past inmates at SECC, claim that unsanitary toilet facilities, a fire hazard, contaminated drinking water and exposed asbestos exist at SECC, and that the existence of these conditions violat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Edward A. Cotugno, Jr. instituted this action after being terminated from his position as Executive Director of the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (“RIE-MA”). He alleges that his layoff was motivated by discrimination on the basis of political affiliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The instant action was stayed pending ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1356 (1995) FIRST SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC. and First Bank, fsb, Defendants. No. 95-4020-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 5, 1995. *1357 Thomas H. Van Hoozer, William A. Rudy, Robert D. Hovey, John M. Collins, Hovey, Williams, Timmons & Collins, Kansas City, MO, for First Savings Bank. Brett C. Coonrod, Edward W. Mullen, Thomas ...
Views: 0
*730 MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs Michael and Erna Lake have filed this motion seeking the Court’s approval of the settlement in this class action, final certification of the class, attorneys’ fees, and class representative fees. Having preliminarily approved the certification of the class and the settlement, the Court is now called upon to issue final findings. For the reasons set fort...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This race discrimination case is before the Court today on motion of the defendant, which asks us to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted, *895 though we will grant the plaintiff leave to submit an amended complaint. I. B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying the claim of William Serody (“Serody”) for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) provided under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment which ...
Views: 0
OPINION This case comes before me on a motion to enjoin the United States and numerous third party plaintiffs from prosecuting certain environmental claims against Reading Company. The claims are rooted in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq, and arise out of a civil action captioned United States ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an interpleader action initiated by the stakeholder, Blackmon Auctions, with regard to certain auction proceeds in its possession. Two claimants, Jim W. Hale and Mary Jean Hale, have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Another claimant, the United States of America, has filed a response in opposition. The motion to dismiss shal...
Views: 0
*387 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the motions of the Ameast defendants1 (“Amcast”) for leave to file a second amended counterclaim and cross-claim and for oral argument, and on Detrex’s motion to alter or amend under Fed.R.CivJP. 59(e). Because the parties’ thorough memoranda sufficiently aid the court, oral argument is unnecessary. The court presumes familiarity with t...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs Rodney and Cathy Bracy filed this securities fraud action seeking to recover losses they allegedly sustained as a result of certain investments. This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of their First Amended Complaint. The Court heard oral arguments on plaintiffs’ motion on April 27, 1995. At the hearing, the Cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court are several motions related to discovery in these consolidated class action proceedings. Defendant Premdor Corporation (“Premdor”) has filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e), which Defendants Steves & Sons, Inc. (“Steves”) and Ledco, Inc. (“Ledco”) have joined, requesting a protective order staying certain discovery proceedings. Defendants se...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court are the following motions: First — Defendant Dr. Gustavo Stern’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Second — Defendant Cameron County’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Factual Background On March 3,1994, Plaint...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 1995, upon consideration of plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and following a hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED. Defendants Daniel Schafer and Robert...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM We are considering the Plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify Defendants’ counsel. I. INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs are shareholders of Keystone Heritage Group, Inc. (“Keystone”). They instituted this action by filing a writ of summons on January 6,1994, in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, against Keystone, Lebanon Valley National Bank (“LVNB”), and the b...
Views: 1
Plaintiff MTS, Inc. (“Tower”) has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.CivJP. to compel the arbitration sought in the third claim of its complaint and to dismiss the first counterclaim of defendant 200 East 87th Street Associates, Inc. (“Associates”) seeking attorneys’ fees. Associated has moved under the same Rule to dismiss Tower’s first claim for rent reimbursement and for an o...
Views: 0
*102 OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES I. INTRODUCTION On March 2, 1994, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Paul D. McClellan (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint for Tax Refund, seeking refund of $200, plus interest, costs and attorney fees for employment taxes 1 erroneously assessed and collected. The Defendant/Coun...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is a civil rights action in which a female police officer and a female police sergeant allege sexual harassment and retaliation by members of the Philadelphia Police Department (“the Department”). Plaintiffs have sued the City of Philadelphia, the Police Commissioner, and twelve other police officers of various ranks. At an early status conference, plaintiffs’ counsel ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER By his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Dana Thibault seeks an order vacating his conviction and sentence on the claim that the conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he was previously punished by forfeiture of his property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The defendant pleaded...
Views: 0
*516MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On June 13, 1995, the Tenth Circuit entered an order finding that this court erred in enhancing Armando Nelson Pelliere’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. The court of appeals also concluded that this court failed to make adequate findings of fact with respect to enhancement under § 3Bl.l(b) based on Pelliere’s role in the offense. The Tenth Circ...
Views: 0
This is a patent case. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. (“Atochem”), the owner of United States Patents 4,590,096 (“the ’096 patent”) and 4,696,837 (“the ’837 patent”), directed towards methods for producing energy efficient glass, alleges Libbey-OwensFord Co., Inc. (“LOF”) is willfully infringing certain claims of its patents. LOF denies liability and has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgme...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The case comes before the court on the defendant’s motion to reveal identity of confidential informant (Dk. 18) and motion to suppress (Dk. 20). On August 17, 1995, the parties presented argument and evidence on the defendant’s motions. Having read the briefs, heard the evidence and researched the controlling law, the court is ready to rule. INDICTMENT The i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover continuation coverage health insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-68. The court has before it for review the administrative record that the parties have stipulated...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1383 (1995) Wanda A. PLAKIO, Plaintiff, v. The CONGREGATIONAL HOME, INC., d/b/a Brewster Place, Defendant. No. 93-4222-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 20, 1995. *1384 *1385 Donald R. Hoffman, Mindy B. Rogovin, Tilton & Hoffman, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff. J. Franklin Hummer, Davis, Unrein, Hummer, McCallister & Buck, Topeka, KS, for The Congregational Home, ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1366 (1995) FIRST SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC. and First Bank, fsb, Defendants. No. 95-4020-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 11, 1995. *1367 *1368 *1369 Thomas H. Van Hoozer, William A. Rudy, Robert D. Hovey, John M. Collins, Hovey, Williams, Timmons & Collins, Kansas City, MO, for plaintiff. Brett C. Coonrod, Edward W. Mullen, Tho...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This declaratory judgment action was filed by Union Insurance Company to determine whether it has a duty to defend its insured, The Knife Company, from a suit filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, styled Tennessee River Valley Knife Association, Inc. v. A.G. Russell, Inc., Case No. 1:94-CV-230. In that suit, the plaintiff, Tennessee River Valley Kni...
Views: 1
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S JURY CLAIM Plaintiff, James F. Mullins, a former employee of defendant Pfizer, Inc., claims that in reliance on Pfizer’s misrepresentations that no future severance packages were forthcoming, plaintiff took early retirement on April 1, 1990. Six weeks later, Pfizer announced a severance pay-based early retirement incent...
Views: 0
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff brings this action against six of his fellow police officers in Enfield, Connecticut, claiming violations (1) of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights resulting from the loss of his moonlighting privilege; (2) of his procedural due process rights resulting from his three day suspension; (3) of his substantive due process...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the court are the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local Union No. 19’s (“Plaintiff’) and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“Defendant”) cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion will be granted and Defendant’s motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND The material facts of t...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 966 (1995) William FERRIS, Plaintiff, v. VECO INCORPORATED, Defendant. No. A94-387 CV (JKS). United States District Court, D. Alaska. August 18, 1995. William Ferris, in pro. per., Anchorage, AK. John M. Miller, Eide & Miller, Anchorage, AK, for Veco, Inc. ORDER SINGLETON, District Judge. William Ferris ("Ferris") brings this action in admiralty seeking damages from Veco Inc., hi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Medical Industries Management, Inc. (Doc. # 73), Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Med-mark, Inc. (Doe. # 75), Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Edgar Ellyson (Doe. # 77), Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Mary Sue Shalbe...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action comes before the Court on Defendant Mary Sue Shalberg’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #95) filed June 23, 1995, and Plaintiffs Motion for Stay of Proceedings as to Defendant Mary Sue Shal-berg and Suggestions in Support Thereof (Doc. # 134) filed August 7, 1995. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver of The Merchants Bank (the ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1394 (1995) Norman LAW, Andrew Greer, Peter Herrmann, Michael Jarvis, Jr., and Charles M. Rieb, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant. No. 94-2053-KHV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. August 2, 1995. *1395 *1396 *1397 Lori R. Schultz, W. Dennis Cross, Morrison & Hecker, Kansas City, ...
Views: 0
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff, the Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe, seeks to force the State of Maine to negotiate a Tribal-State compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (“Gaming Act”). Defendants, the State of Maine and Governor Angus S. King, Jr. (“Defendants,” or “the State”), contend that the Gaming Act does not apply in this case because of an exempti...
Views: 0
896 F.Supp. 220 (1995) Lori A. THOMPSON and Ryan Allen, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Civ. No. 95-158-B. United States District Court, D. Maine. August 28, 1995. Wayne R. Foote, Bangor, ME, for plaintiff. William R. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Augusta, ME, for State of Maine. ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS BRODY, District Judge. Petitioner...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the final decision of the Secretary of Health Human Services [42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ] denying the plaintiff Rex D. Richter’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The case is ripe for decision on the plaintiff’s motion for summary reversal or...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action to review the final decision of the Secretary of Health Human Services [42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ] denying disability insurance benefits to the plaintiff, Mary L. Robertson. The case is ripe for decision on the plaintiffs motion for summary reversal or remand (Dk. 9) and on the Secretary’s motion for an order affirming the Secretary’s decision (Dk. 10). ...
Views: 0
Memorandum Opinion and Order At the invitation of the Court, respondent, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has moved for sanctions against petitioner Vincent Bowler’s attorney, Paul I. Freedman (“Freedman”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). Freedman, in turn, moves for Rule 11 sanctions based on respondent’s filing of...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION The indictment in this case charges the defendant with two counts of making false statements under oath in a petition for naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a), and two counts of procuring naturalization contrary to law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). Defendant now moves, on the eve of trial, to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that (1) the fals...
Views: 1
902 F. Supp. 1103 (1995) CHIRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. No. C-93-4380 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 14, 1995. *1104 *1105 *1106 Harold J. McElhinny, Michael A. Jacobs, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, CA, for Chiron Corp. Curtis E.A. Karnow, Stephen C. Lewis, Landels Ripley & Diamond, San Francisco, CA, for Abbott Labor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order entering summary judgment for the Debtor on the Appellants’ Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debt (“Complaint”). The Court has reviewed this matter and the briefs filed de novo. For the reasons below, the Court will reverse the bankruptcy court’s order. Background The Appellan...
Views: 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of disgruntled investors who purchased Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) stock between August 19, 1991 and April 14,1992. The plaintiffs allege that Cypress and its officers and directors artificially inflated the price of Cypress’ stock by issuing misleading public statements in...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION This employment discrimination case is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. At issue is whether the Plaintiffs have shown commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a)(2-3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also at issue is whether an earlier Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge not filed by one of the named Plaintiffs opens the clas...
Views: 3
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by Defendant, Patrick Greer: Motion to Invalidate the Clerk’s Methodology for Selecting Jurors in the Northern District of Illinois, forwarded to this Court on May 31, 1995, and Motion to Appoint an Expert to Examine for Racial Bias in the Clerk’s Methodology for Selecting Jurors in the Northern District of Illinois,...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff Gruntal & Co., Inc. (“Gruntal”) brings this suit against San Diego Bancorp (“SDBC”) and other corporate and individual defendants alleging both federal and common law claims. Gruntal asserts the following claims against all defendants: Violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (hereinafter the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5, 1...
Views: 3
ORDER Plaintiffs, state prisoners who suffer from serious mental disorders, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the mental health care provided at most institutions within the California Department of Corrections is so inadequate that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated. Plaintiffs also raised a claim und...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Richard W. Martz, in his capacity as Trustee of the Budding Trades Health and Welfare Fund, filed this action pursuant to § 502(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). Presently before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In its motion, Plaintiff contends that, ...
Views: 0
903 F. Supp. 1135 (1995) SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Howard S. HOOVER, Jr., Defendant. Civ. A. No. H-94-CV-0081. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 11, 1995. *1136 *1137 Michael R. Klein, Arthur F. Mathews, Andrew B. Weissman, Robert F. Hoyt, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, Scott J. Atlas, N. Scott Fletcher, Vinson & El...
Views: 2
ORDER This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Compel Physical and Mental Examinations of Plaintiff (Doc. #21), filed March 22, 1995. Plaintiffs Response and Memorandum in Opposition to Motion To Compel Physical and Mental Examina*167tions of Plaintiff (Doc. # 29) was filed April 3, 1995. On April 18,1995 the Court heard oral argument on the motion. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges he...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiffs’ claimed damages on account of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 26(a)(1)(C). Defendants complain that plaintiffs’ anomalous description of damages violates the recently enacted mandatory disclosure requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the...
Views: 0
*1528 ORDER Before' the court is plaintiffs’ motion to amend complaint and add parties. In this court’s considered judgment, defendants have failed to advance a substantial reason for denying leave to amend to plaintiffs. Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. v. Southeast Bank, 39 F.3d 292, 297 (11th Cir.1994) (citing Shipner v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir.1989)). In making th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 30, 1993, the debtors, Donna and James Roberson, filed separate Chapter 13 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. The bankruptcy court consolidated these cases on July 26, 1993. The court set a bar date for filing proof of claims by creditors of August 2, 1993, in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c). This is an app...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE came before the court upon defendant Dale Mallory’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The broad constitutional question raised by the motion is whether Congress may federalize random street crimes, already regulated by specific state laws, on the basis of the Commerce Clause, where the offenses occurred entirely intrastate. More narrowly, as alleg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION These actions were removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, in 1991, ostensibly on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs all are citizens of New York. The defendants named in the complaint were Plaza Hotel Management Company, Atlantic City Seashore 3, Inc. (“Atlantic”), and Otis Elevator Company (“Otis”). Prior to the incident giving...
Views: 0
DECISION Linda St. Denis, (“St. Denis”) brought this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 to recover the cost of repairing the roof of a duplex that she purchased from the United States. This Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a). St. Denis claims that the government had inspected the roof prior to the sale and either discovered or should have di...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE Before the Court is defendant JORGE WHITEMAN GUTIERREZ’S Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence (docket No. 74, filed on January 30,1995), which, for reasons set forth below, we hereby DENY. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 19, 1984, defendant was charged along with four other codefendants in Count One of a two-count indictment in Criminal case No. 8...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court are the motions of the defendants, Interstate Hotels Corporation No. 16 (“No. 16” or “the hotel”), Vincent Dell’Olio, Collin Foran, Interstate Hotels Corporation No. 1007 (“No. 1007”), and Marriott Hotel Corporation, now known as Marriott International Inc. (“Marriott Inc.”), for summary judgment on the sixteen count complaint filed by the pl...
Views: 0
*302 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ motions for Summary Judgment and to Certify Class, together with Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, came on for hearing on July 17, 1995. On July 19, 1995, this cour...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER Before the Court are (1) defendants Korea Exchange Bank (“KEB”) and Industrial Bank of Korea’s (“Industrial Bank”) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and (2) defendants Hanil Bank, KEB, Cho Hung Bank, Commercial Bank of Korea, Ltd., and Industrial Bank’s (collectively referred to hereinafter as “the Korean banks”) M...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Nita Reiter (“Reiter”) commenced this action against Defendant Zimmer Incorporated (“Zimmer”) alleging that the premature hardening of Zimmer bone cement during hip replacement surgery caused her debilitating personal injuries. Zimmer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Reiter’s tort claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Gregory A. Clay (“Clay”) sues defendant Interstate National Corporation (“Interstate”) for race discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Clay alleges that Interstate discriminated against him' by giving him an unfavorable performance appraisal in Sep...
Views: 0
*234MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 7) and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will be denied and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted. I. Factual Background This is an action by plaintiff, Alon International, Inc. (“Alon...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SO ORDERED. This action, brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), alleges that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race, ethnic origin, age and because he had previously filed several complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the U.S. Postal ...
Views: 1
OPINION Before this Court is plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a dismissal order dated March 15, 1995, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). I. Background Plaintiff Samuel Rheault was employed by Lufthansa German Airlines, and was terminated according to defendants, as part of a work force reduction in 1993. On July 25, 1994, plaintiffs filed suit before this Court alleging that...
Views: 0
*921 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON THE DEBTOR DOW CORNING’S MOTION TO TRANSFER I. INTRODUCTION/FACTS: This matter is before the Court on the Debtor Dow Corning Corporation’s motion to transfer certain breast implant cases to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5). Responses were filed and a hearing was held on the matter. At ...
Views: 0
*1017 OPINION AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the objections of the claimant Asociación Los Amigos Hogar Mi Casa (“Asociación” or “claimant”) to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge A. Simon Chrein dated May 13, 1994 (“Report”). Judge Chrein’s Report recommends striking the Asociacion’s claim to certain b...
Views: 0
*935 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON THE NON-DEBTORS’ MOTIONS TO TRANSFER I. INTRODUCTION/FACTS: This matter is before the Court on the non-debtors Medical Engineering Corporation/Bristol-Myers Squibb (“MEC Defendants”), Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) and Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Baxter International, Inc.’s (“Baxter Defendants”) motions to transfer breast implant ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a memorandum of April 7, 1994, we found that plaintiff, a Jamaican national, had been awarded lawful permanent resident status in 1980 and accordingly ordered defendant to process her INS Form 1-551, more popularly known as a “green card.” Plaintiff now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter “the EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs Media Ranch, A1 Goldstein, Kee-Byrd Productions, Robin Byrd, Gay Cable Network, and Lou Malleta produce programs designed to be televised over cable television systems. Defendant Time Warner Cable of New York City transmits cable television programming pursuant to a franchise granted in 1990 to its predecessor in interest, Manhattan Cable Television, by Defendant The City of New York...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the defendant, United States of America’s, alternative motion to dismiss, or for summary *130 judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion. No oral hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6, D.Md. The motion of the United States of America to dismiss will be granted, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as well as Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for the s...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SWITAL-SKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff Schorn filed this action against defendant Judge Mark Switalski and John Doe and/or Jane Roe alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.1 Before the court is Judge Switalski’s motion for summar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Ali Freeman is seeking damages and other relief under Michigan law from defendant Unisys Corporation for race discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, breach of implied contract, and false-light invasion of privacy. This action was originally filed in Wayne County Circuit...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is a Motion by Plaintiff North-brook Indemnity Insurance Company (“Northbrook”) for Summary Judgment (Document No. 16). After considering the motion, response, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED. I. Background Northbrook filed this action against Defendant Water District M...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, Larry McNeil and Erica McNeil Ainsworth (Ainsworth), bring suit in this court pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The suit arises out of injuries sustained by Ainsworth and her 29 month old son, Tyler Chase McNeil (McNeil), when a fire destroyed their home; McNeil died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the fire. The Defendant now moves fo...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM The United States on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), moves this court for leave to participate as amicus curiae and to file an amicus memorandum in excess of page limits. (Dkt.Entry 44.) For the reasons discussed below, EPA’s motion will be granted. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case is a contribution action under the Comprehensive Environmental Respon...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Samuel H. Tanner (Tanner) suffers from hearing loss allegedly due to repeated exposure to loud noises while working as a merchant mariner. Defendant General Electric (GE) filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Tanner’s personal injury claim is barred by the applicable three year statute of limitations for maritime torts.1 GE maintains that Tanner had a *4...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, an indigent1 inmate presently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (S.C.I. Graterford), has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against two correctional officers, alleging that he was placed in administrative confinement against his wishes based on false information that threats had been made against his life. Plaintiff asserts tha...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Steven Fickes brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jefferson County, Texas, Jefferson County Sheriff Carl Griffith, Jr., and Corrections Officers Steven *86 A. Square, Larry Frank, and Thomas Picou seeking monetary compensation for deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment interests in bodily i...
Views: 0
*350 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. For the following reasons the court finds the motion well taken and hereby granted. Background This is a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Carthage, Texas. It is alleged that Plaintiff Valerie Wright Blair was driving her veh...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff filed this civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his former employers. The court heretofore ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Before this court are Plaintiffs “Motion to Remand” and “Supplemental Motion to Remand” filed on April 5, 1995, and April 18, 1995, respectively. In response, Defendants, The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”) and Henpil, Inc. (“Henpil”), filed “Kroger’s Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Brief in Support of Kro...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This products liability action was tried before a jury between November 10 and November 22, 1994. The action is now before the court upon plaintiffs motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 on the issue of compensatory damages and upon defendant’s cross motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs punitive damages cla...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Ronald J. Sommers, Liquidating Trustee for the First Mortgage Investment Association Liquidating Trust (Trustee), and the Advisory Committee to the First Mortgage Investment Association Liquidating Trust (Advisory Committee) filed a motion to remand the above styled and numbered cause to the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, contending ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Nancy Cooper (Cooper) filed this lawsuit against the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. section 1346(b), to recover damages for the costs and the injuries that she sustained when a United States Postal Jeep collided with her 1992 Toyota. After a bench trial on the merits, this court enters the following findings of fact and c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Facts Plaintiffs First City Bank and Tennessee Bankers Administration have brought suit against Defendants National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”), AEDC Federal Credit Union (“AEDC”), Tennessee Credit Union League and Credit Union National Association, Inc., claiming NCUA incorrectly interpreted the “common bond” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act (“FC...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes to this Court on appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. The Plaintiffs appeal Bankruptcy Judge Stocks’ April 28, 1995 order (Adversary Proceeding Number 93-2087) in which he ordered that the United States’ motion to dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs’ complaint be granted, that the United States’ motion for summary judgment on Count III of Plaintiffs’ complaint be gran...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner filed this habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds that they violated the Doubled Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. BACKGROUND On June 27,1991, a search was executed in Silverton, Oregon where a large number of marijuana plants, $1,700 in currency, and a Harley ...
Views: 0
NUNC PRO TUNC MEMORANDUM RE: 6/2/95 RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER A hearing on the application of plaintiff for a Temporary Restraining Order was held on June 2, 1995, at which time oral argument was presented. Plaintiff was represented by Andrew C. Hruska and H. Thomas Stevenson. Defendants were represented by John E.S. Robson and James F. Wood. Counsel had...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1220 (1995) Edmund M. ABORDO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants. No. 94-00514 ACK/BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. August 25, 1995. *1221 *1222 Edmund M. Abordo, Aiea, HI, pro se. Michael S. Vincent, Office of the Attorney General — State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for defendants. Karen A. Essene, Honolulu, HI, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Uni...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Motion to Modify Order Restraining Suits (Doc. # 14; hereinafter Motion), filed on January 9, 1995, by Claimant Thomas J. Stephens. In his Motion, Claimant asks the Court to “lift its stay to allow [him] to pursue his pending State Court action.”1 Id. at 1. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (hereinafter Great Lakes), however, argues the requirements f...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff, a resident of Wiesbaden, Germany, brings this action pro se and in forma pauperis. He challenges defendant’s administrative denial of claims related to the im-poundment and destruction of his automobile and alleges violations of his rights to due process and equal protection. Now before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgm...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This is an action by a real estate brokerage firm to recover a commission in connection with the sale of Wonder Plaza, a property located at 2301 Georgia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., to Howard University on August 30,1993. Plaintiff advances four theories of recovery: breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. Now before the Co...
Views: 0
OPINION The government seeks to recover from defendant Peter D. Vanoosterhout monies paid out under Small Business Administration guaranties when River Capital Corporation, a small business investment company funded by SBA-backed debentures, defaulted on its obligations. Vanoosterhout, who was president and a director of River Capital, is alleged to have been personally responsible fo...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The issue in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that the plaintiff, Jose Luis DeJesus, is not entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”) because he is not disabled within the meaning of that program. After listening to t...
Views: 0
900 F.Supp. 60 (1995) In the Matter of the Search and Seizure of Billy Ray SHIVERS. No. 1:92-M-148. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. August 31, 1995. *61 Claude Welch, Lufkin, TX, for movant. Thomas Kiehnhoff, Asst. U.S. Atty., Beaumont, TX, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTIONS FOR "NEW TRIAL" JOE J. FISHER, District Judge. Pending are Billy Ray Shivers's mot...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Plaintiff Jim Richards operates a helicopter and does business as Dynamic Aviation. He seeks relief for what he claims has been his defacto debarment from government contracts in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He appears to seek review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Before the Court is the motion of the government defendants...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM This matter came before me sitting as Motions Judge. After an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction held on July 21, 1995, the case was transferred to me for all purposes. Plaintiff Walter Gilmore alleges inter alia that he was hired as a lobby guard at the Washington, D.C. headquarters building of defendant International Union ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff alleges claims for sex discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, retaliation in violation of Title VII, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery. Plaintiff was employed by defe...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court are two applications for attorney’s fees and costs associated *827 with plaintiffs opposition to defendant Red Clay Consolidated School District’s (“Red Clay”) motion for open enrollment (the “Open Enrollment Motion”). (D.I. 1802; 1811) (the “fee applications”) The attorneys originally applied for fees without...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Rulemaking Clause of the Constitution confers power upon both chambers of Congress to make the rules by which they conduct business. 1 On January 4, 1995, the first day of the first session of the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives (“House”) added the following new paragraphs to its House Rule XXI(5) and adopted the Rule as amended by a vote of 279 to 152:...
Views: 0
OPINION Defendant Martin Emil Unger petitions to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds of double jeopardy. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, I conclude that the petition must be denied. FACTS On January 15, 1992, Unger was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas for conspiracy to possess...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Lewis Edward Franklin moves to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that his conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I have considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties and conclude that the motion must be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT On March 15, 1989, Franklin was indicted on t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), defendant Jose Fernando Car-dona (“Cardona”), pro se, originally moved this Court on June 28, 1993 to compel the return of various items of personal property allegedly seized by the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) during a search of his apartment on April 7,1989. In response to a letter from this Court dated June 6,1995,...
Views: 0
Defendant Dirk Holst petitions to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds of double jeopardy. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties I conclude that the petition must be denied. FACTS On March 13, 1992, Holst made his initial appearance on a complaint charging him with aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine. On ...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Richard Hans Norland petitions to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that the conviction violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied. FACTS In May 1993 Norland became one of the subje...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiffs, Health Plans, Inc. (“Health Plans”) and Freedom Care, Inc. (“Freedom Care”), bring this action against the defendant, New York Life Insurance Company (“New York”), claiming breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of fair dealing, fraud and violations of M.G.L. c. 93A. New York has counterclaimed against Health Plans for breach of contract, viol...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1444 (1995) Tom SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation, and H. Craig Hall, City Attorney for Murray City Corporation, Defendants. No. 94-CV-667 G. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. September 13, 1995. *1445 *1446 *1447 Brian M. Barnard, John Pace and Joro Walker, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff. Allan L. Larson and Richard A. Van W...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS This matter is before the court on separate motions to dismiss by Defendant Richard Torgerson and by the remaining defendants, and on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Submit a Supplemental Pleading. Plaintiff is represented by Ross Anderson,1 Andrew C. Hrus-ka, and Lisa H. Thurau. Defendant Richard Torgerson is represented by Mar...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 882 (1995) Harvey L. KUNZMAN, Plaintiff, v. ENRON CORPORATION; Enron Energy Companies, and Northern Natural Gas Company, Defendants. No. C 94-3044. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division. September 13, 1995. *883 *884 *885 *886 *887 *888 Lawrence Marcucci, Shearer, Templer, Pingel and Kaplan, West Des Moines, Iowa, for Plaintiff. Neven J. Mulholland, Johnson, Erb, ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON EXTRADITED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT Introduction Defendant Vincent Marconi has been indicted on eighteen counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The Defendant was arrested in the United Kingdom and extradited pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. He now moves to dismiss the indictment on ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Mac-Rae (“LeBoeuf’) moves to disqualify counsel for plaintiff Richard Matthews. Plaintiffs attorneys Frederick R. Dettmer and Karen M. Streisfeld worked formerly as a partner and an associate, respectively, at LeBoeuf. For the reasons discussed below and on the *28 record of oral argument held on June 23, 1995, I deny de...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to N.Y.Ins.L. § 1213 (“§ 1213”) to strike the Answer of defendant Global Insurance Company, S.A. (“Global”) and enter a default judgment for Global’s failure to comply with § 1213, or, in the alternative, to require the posting of a bond by Global. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to secure a bond is GRANTED. Bac...
Views: 1
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Cook Wholesale of Medina, Inc. (“Cook”) and its corporate officer and plan trustee, Janis R. Smith brought suit in state court against defendants Cigna Securities, Inc. (“Cigna”), Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“Connecticut General”) and their authorized agent and representative, Charles K. Sauberan, based upon the defendants’ alleged failure to prov...
Views: 0
ORDER At a hearing held June 1, 1995, the Court denied defendants Julio Ramos-Oseguera, Roberto Ramirez, and Samuel Robles-Lopez’ motions to dismiss the Superseding Indictment on the. grounds of double jeopardy. That same day, defendants filed notices of appeal of the Court’s Order. Julio Ramos-Oseguera contended that the Court’s denial of his double jeopardy motion was immediately appeal...
Views: 0
*446 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to a roadway which provides access to their property in Yuba County, California. They also seek related damages. The parties are before the court on defendants’ several motions for summary judgment, the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations, and plaintiffs cross-mo...
Views: 0
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Knox County Hospital, d/b/a Good Samaritan Hospital and the Board of Trustees of Knox County Hospital (collectively the “Hospital”). The Hospital claims it is entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff Lisa A. Sink (“Sink”) on the grounds that the conduct ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Lone Thanning (“plaintiff” or “Thanning”) brought the above-captioned civil rights action against defendants Thomas S. Gulotta (“Gulotta”), in his official capacity as County Executive for Nassau County (the “County”), and Leslie Lukash (“Lukash”), in both his individual capacity and official capacity as the County’s medical examiner (collectively, “defend...
Views: 0
ORDER A hearing was held on November 30, 1994 on defendant and cross-complainant’s motion for reconsideration and partial summary judgment. Kathleen E. Hegen appeared for plaintiff and cross-defendant American Economy Insurance Company (“American States”) and Kenneth M. Seeger appeared for defendant and cross-complainant Re-boans, Inc. (“Reboans”). For the reasons stated below, defendant ...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS MATTER came before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on the 30th of January, 1995 for a hearing on plaintiffs motion to compel testimony and production of documents regarding defendant Intermedies’ interpretation and understanding of a 1988 settlement agreement. I. The Parties’ Positions Plaintiff Medtronic (“Medtronic”) asserts that defendant Intermedies (“Intermedies”) has, through its...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Rouse & Associates (the “Owners”) have moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62 for a stay of execution pending appeal of the judgment order entered in favor of HCB in the amount .of $35 million dollars without posting a bond. They also move for an expedited hearing on the remaining counts of the Second Amended Complaint (“unarbitrated claims”). For the following reasons, I will (1) conditi...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 931 (1995) Debbie BRODERSEN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kendall E. Brodersen, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Frank Allender, D.C.; Stephen Veit, M.D.; Stephen Veit, M.D., P.C.; Thomas Gary, M.D. and T.M. Gary, M.D., P.C., Defendants. No. C 93-4011. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. September 19, 1995. *932 *933 Roxanne B. Co...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this case this court is asked to determine the effect of a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision on the subsequent actions of a state agency. As discussed below, the court will not reach this issue because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I. FACTS A. History of the Present Case In August 1989, the North Carolina Department of Human Resources (“NCDHR”), through ...
Views: 1
This ease presents the question whether the Flood Control Act’s immunity provision in 33 U.S.C. § 702e, which provides that “[n]o liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place,” bars recovery where the Federal Government is arguably hable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., for pers...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1240 (1995) John DOE I; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Carol M. BROWNER, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant. No. CV-S-94-795-PMP (RLH). United States District Court, D. Nevada. August 30, 1995. *1241 *1242 Jonathan Turley, Environmental Crimes Project, National Law Center, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Kathryn E. Landreth, U.S. Attorney, J. Gregor...
Views: 0
OPINION-ORDER The following Motions bring this matter to the Court’s attention: 1. Renewed Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Gerald Grimo, in his personal capacity and as the special administrator of Diana Grimo’s estate; 2. Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont’s (“Blue Cross”) Motion to Retain Jurisdiction; and 3. Blue Cross’s Motion to Strike. Defend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER N.T.I., a division of Colorado Springs Circuits, a Colorado corporation, moves to dismiss the ease brought against it by Paul Edward Johnson II. Johnson seeks relief against N.T.I., his former employer, arising out of his discharge on March 31, 1994. Johnson filed a complaint in the Colorado District Court, County of El Paso on December 14,1994. N.T.I. re...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case, brought under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, requires the court to consider, in addition to the liability of a municipality for the alleged torts of its police officers, questions of the qualified immunity of the individual officers in the context of the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. After careful review, Defendants’ motions will be gran...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON RULE 35(a) MOTION The instant case, based on alleged employment discrimination, is presently before the *227court because defendant has moved for an order pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Fed. R.Civ.P. directing plaintiff to submit to a psychiatric examination. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff O’Quinn alleges that while employed by the...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc. (“Vol-in ar”) and Interboro Distributors, Inc. (“In-terboro”) bring this action against The New York Post Co., Inc. (the “Post”), Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The Daily News, (the “News”), and El Diario Assoc. (“El Diario”), (collectively the “Publisher Defendants”); Pelham News Co. Inc. (“Pel- *1189 ham”) and American Peri...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER The plaintiff-appellant, Douglas Partrick (“appellant” or “Partrick”), in this adversary proceeding, appeals from several decisions of Bankruptcy Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, granting the motions of the Defendant-Inter-venor, Midlantic National Bank (“Midlantic”), to intervene and for summary judgment in its favor, and denying Partrick’s motion to amend or alt...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ashok Shah, a Michigan resident, brought this action against Defendant Nu-Kote International, Inc. (“Nu-Kote”) on December 30, 1994. Nu-Kote is a Delaware corporation which, during the relevant time period, maintained its principal place of busine...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROCEEDINGS On April 21,1995, defendant United States filed a motion for a protective order authorizing it to withhold from production to plaintiffs a memorandum prepared by Special Agent John Rabatin. On April 24, 1995, defendant Davis filed a similar motion for a protective order, based upon separate grounds. Plaintiffs fil...
Views: 2
FINDINGS AND FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW INTRODUCTION By complaint dated March 10, 1988, plaintiffs commenced a diversity action against the corporate defendants for monies allegedly due under a contract dated February 10, 1986. In its answer, defendant Willets Point Contracting Corporation (‘Willets”), inter alia, counterclaimed for $75,000 it paid to plaintiffs...
Views: 0
900 F.Supp. 118 (1995) Abdullah Seifuddin SHABAZZ, Terrence X. Silver, Mario X. Holliday, and Edward Carter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gary GABRY, et al., Defendants. No. 93-CV-73316-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 20, 1995. *119 *120 Paul D. Reingold, Nicholas J. Rine, Mark D. Reingold, Ann Arbor, MI, f...
Views: 0
OPINION This is a civil forfeiture action in which the government alleges that a certain partially assembled drag racer (the “Property”) is for-feitable as proceeds of criminal activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The case is before the Court on the motion of claimant Mac Arthur Crudup (1) for return of the Property, (2) for release of a $5,000 bond...
Views: 0
ORDER On this date came on to be considered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on August 25, 1995, and Jesse Nelson, Jr.’s objections thereto filed on September 7, 1995. For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s recommendation, I am of the opinion that a “mailbox rule” should not apply to the filing of an action by a co...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS The court heard the parties’ motions on September 18, 1995. John S. Edmunds, Esq., Ronald J. Verga, Esq., Joy S. Omona-ka, Esq., and Wesley D. Shimazu, Esq., appeared ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 21, 1995 Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), a California non-profit corporation, filed a verified complaint against Lawrence Wollersheim, Robert Penny and F.A.C.T.NET, Inc. (“FACTNET”) for injunc-tive relief and damages for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501) and trade secrets misappropriation (Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-74-102 to -110 (1986)). J...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the court on: (1) Defendant Wang’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 10, 1995; (2) Defendant Cui’s Motion to Dismiss, filed May 9,1995; and (3) Defendant Wang’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, filed July 13, 1995. The court has reviewed the motions, the Fourth Superseding Indictment, the Government’s responses filed February 27, 1995 and Jul...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER 1 In this case, Plaintiff, a tenured professor, who previously had additional administrative duties, alleges that the Defendants violated her rights under the United States Constitution and state law when they removed her administrative duties. The Court has before it the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and the Pl...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On May 2,1995, this Court issued an order to show cause pursuant to the First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Congress Credit Corp. v. AJC Int'l, Inc., 42 F.3d 686 (1st Cir.1994). This Court ordered the Trustee of the United Western of Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Trustee”) estate and all other interested parties to show good cause why the adversary proceedings pending in the ba...
Views: 0
ORDER DISSOLVING INJUNCTION On January 12, 1995, this court issued its Order Granting Injunctive Relief in this matter. Based upon unambiguous Ninth Circuit precedent, this court found that the failure of the National Forest Service to timely complete formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service compelled the order enjoining all ongoing as well as proposed construction, timb...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by plaintiff, Leader National Insurance Company (“Leader National”), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Defendants, Group Health Service of Oklahoma 1 , Elia Herren, Ana Herren 2 and James Kearby, responded in opposition to the motion. Defendants Seely did not respond in opposition to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the Defendant. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the response, the briefs of the parties and the authorities cited and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds as follows, to wit: FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about February 13, 1986, the Plaintiff, M...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Patricia S. Mikes brings this action on behalf of the United States and herself against her former employers under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (the “FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730, for alleged improper billing of medical procedures to the United States and for retaliatory discharge, and under New York Labor Law § 191 for unpaid wages ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Allen and Barbara Livingston are seeking medical benefits from defendant Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”), administered pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). Three motions are currently before this court: (1) plaintiffs’ motion for sum...
Views: 0
The court adopts Magistrate Judge Pall-meyer’s Report & Recommendation. The court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #292) on Counts II and III but denies the motion on Count I. Defendants’ objections (Doc. # 331) and Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. #335) are overruled. Plaintiffs’ fraud claims under Illinois common law in Count III are dismissed without prejudice so that Plainti...
Views: 2
Defendants Kittrell Bernard Decator (“De-cator”) and Craig Lamont Scott (“Scott”) have been indicted for one count of bank robbery, one count of attempted bank robbery, one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and two counts of using and carrying a firearm in the course of a violent crime.1 Defendants have noticed appeal from this Court’s denial of their motions to dismiss, and they contend...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On this day, the Court considered El Paso Independent School District’s complaint for declaratory relief under the authority of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA” or “the Act”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., in the above-captioned cause. This action is an appeal for review from an adverse decision of an administrative hearing officer. STANDAR...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This an action alleging employment discrimination based on race, color and national origin. Plaintiff is an Asian-Ameriean female employed as a Public Health Nutritionist by the Department of Elderly Affairs (the “DEA”). Plaintiff alleges that the State, through the DEA, and its Director and Associate Director, have deprived her of rights guaranteed by the Constitutio...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before this Court is The Niles Home for Children’s Motion to Quash Notice of Carmen P. Moody’s Deposition, filed August 25,1995. The Niles Home for Children (“Niles Home”), defendant in this action, moves to quash Ms. Moody’s deposition because Ms. Moody is acting as one of Niles Home’s counsel. For the reasons set out below, we deny the motion to quash, but limit the scope of the...
Views: 0
Pending before this Court are three motions concerning the status of Defendant Todey: 1) Plaintiff Brackett’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice [Count II of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition against Defendant Paul Todey], of July 19,1995; 2) Defendant Todey’s Motion to Dismiss Paul Todey from Count II of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, of May 30, 1995; and 3) Paul Todey’s Suggestions in Oppo...
Views: 0
RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand this suit to state court. For the reasons which follow, the plaintiffs motion is denied. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiff, William G. Weigle, Jr., filed this lawsuit to recover disability benefits under the Voluntary Group Accident Insurance Plan (‘VGA Plan”), a policy of group disability insurance issued by AIG Lif...
Views: 0
RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND This case requires the court to determine whether parties have been fraudulently joined to defeat subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bahram Charkhian originally filed this suit on December 30, 1994, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, seeking damages from ...
Views: 0
RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to remand. For the reasons given below, the plaintiffs motion is denied. BACKGROUND Ronald and Gladys Brady (“plaintiffs”) originally brought this suit in the Twenty-first Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, to recover damages sustained in an accident wh...
Views: 0
ORDER This case arises from travel agent commission revisions instituted during February, 1995. This change in commissions for domestic air travel tickets was imposed by seven major American commercial airlines. 1 These class actions, now consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation (“M.D.L. Panel”), were commenced by various travel agencies and t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff, the United States of America, brought this action against defendants, Michael W. Lancaster and Patricia Lancaster Edwards seeking a deficiency judgment following defendants’ default on loans procured from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). Defendant Michael Lancaster failed to answer, and on January 20, 1995 default judgment was entered against him in the ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 909 (1995) Yvonne B. ALVERIO, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security,[1] Defendant. No. C 94-3002. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division. September 15, 1995. *910 *911 *912 Ronald J. Wagenaar of Legal Services Corporation of Iowa, Mason City, Iowa, for Plaintiff. Ana M. Martel of the United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of I...
Views: 0
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.'.1319 II. FINDINGS OF FACT.1320 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. r — < 03 CO t-1 A. The Vehicle Stop. tH 03 CO t-H B. Search of the Defendants . 03 CO r-H 1. Search of Defendant Walker. 03 03 CO r — f 2. Search of Defendant Menard. CO 03 CO r — 1 a. “Automatic companion” r...
Views: 0
The matters before the court are 1) the motion of Stephen Hanson and Frances Hanson and Gulf/Seahorse Insurance Company to strike the jury demand of third-party defendant Jantzen Beach Chevron, Inc. (# 209); and 2) the motion of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Unigard Insurance Group, and United Services Automobile Association to strike the jury demand of third-party defendant Jantz...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The matter before the court is the motion of the defendant, Hazel R. O’Leary, for summary judgment (#24). BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Peter 0. Castner, filed this action for employment discrimination alleging that he was subjected to age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and sex discrimination in violat...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Claims which was filed on March 24, 1995. After having carefully considered the motion, response, reply, amicus curiae brief, the summary judgment evidence, and the applicable authorities, the Court is of the opinion that said moti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on the motion of Continental Securities Corp. (Continental) for a stay pending appeal of an order of the bankruptcy court confirming Shenandoah Nursing Home Partnership’s (Shenandoah) Second Amended Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied. I. On Dece...
Views: 2
OPINION Plaintiff Philip Pavia (“Pavia”), an artist and sculptor, brought this action alleging, inter alia, that Defendants, holders of one of his sculptures, improperly displayed and mutilated his artwork in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106A and Section 14.03 of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. Defendants 1120 Avenue of the Americas Associates, The Hippodrome Garage...
Views: 0
ORDER Robert Fredette (Fredette) brings this action against BVP Management Associates (BVP) for hostile work environment and quid *1036 pro quo discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (1992) (Count I), and the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, (F...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In late 1994, BOSP Investments and BO-MÁT Investments (collectively “BOSP”) filed a request for the payment of certain administrative expenses by the bankruptcy estate of Robert Sheridan. These expenses included: (1) attorneys fees and costs awarded to BOSP and against various entities controlled by Sheridan in a lawsuit brought by Sheridan entities agains...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiff George W. Moore filed his original complaint on February 13, 1992, against defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) alleging that Ford: (1) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the “ADEA”) (Count I); and, (2) breached an oral contract to give plaintiff financial assistance to purchase a Ford...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Kanematsu Corporation and Ka-nematsu U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Kanemat-*1315su”), filed this admiralty action in rem and in personam on November 12, 1993, against defendants, the MTV Gretchen W, Black Stallion Ltd., Gretchen W. Ltd., Pacific Carriers Ltd., Denholm Ship Management (Oversees) Ltd., and Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Ltd. Kanematsu alleges that it...
Views: 1
OPINION A “whistleblower” ease. After nine days of trial by jury, and at the close of Plaintiffs ease, judgment must be entered for Defendant as a matter of law. Facts Air Methods provides helicopter air ambulance services to a consortium of hospitals in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and Greyson Morrow was employed as a helicopter pilot. Morrow was apparently an intelligent, able and competen...
Views: 0
The matters before the court are the motions of the plaintiff, Interstate Fire & Casualty Company (Interstate), for summary judgment (# 175) and to strike the affidavit of Barry M. Maletsky, M.D. (# 192). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1985, Fred Grgich sued the Archdiocese of Portland alleging that he had been sexually abused over a period of years by a priest employed by the A...
Views: 1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERFECT SECURITY INTEREST On March 14, 1995, Bryan Jon Efimov (“Efimov”) filed a “Motion to Perfect Security Interest in Judgment.” By this motion, Efimov asks this court to: (1) file the documents supporting his claimed security interest in the judgment in favor of Plaintiff *453Christopher Gerald Glyn;1 (2) declare that Efimov has a valid and enforceable security intere...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Transport Auditing, Inc. originally filed this action to collect monies in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part on January 31, 1994. 1 Transport Auditing is an agent of Thermo King de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Thermo King”). Transport Auditing alleges that Defendant Sea-Land Service, Inc. (“Sea-Land”), a maritime shipping company, overcharged T...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The matters before the court are (1) the plaintiffs motion in limine regarding evi- *484 denee offered to prove any alleged victim’s sexual predisposition (#27); (2) the plaintiffs motion in limine regarding criminal conviction of plaintiff (# 35); (3) the defendants’ motion for order permitting introduction of evidence pursuant to Evidence Rule 412(c)(1) (#38); and (4) the ...
Views: 2
OPINION The plaintiffs, Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds (hereinafter “Lloyds”), filed this declaratory judgment action against the Tupelo School District (hereinafter “Tu-pelo”) seeking a determination of their liability as reinsurers of an excess loss policy between Tupelo and Gulf National Insurance Company (hereinafter “Gulf’). In response, Tupelo filed a third party comp...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs Motion to Remand; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Surreply Memorandum; and (3) Plaintiffs Application for Review and Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. Having considered the Motions, Responses, all attachments to each and supporting a...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, pro se petitioner Richard Mamarella brings the above-captioned action against Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office (collectively “defendants”). In his peti *237 tion, Mamarella seeks certain documents relating to his plea bargain and sentence under the Freedom of In...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION This is a civil action brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The complaint alleges violations of Section 1962(c) (conducting affairs of enterprise affecting interstate commerce through pattern of racketeering activity), Section 1962(d) (conspiracy to violate Section 1962(c)), and common law...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff John Stone-El brings this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Michael Sheahan, the Sheriff of Cook County; James Fairman, the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections (DOC); and James Carey, the Division VI Superintendent at the Cook County Jail (CCJ), in their individual and official capacities. The plaintiff...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (doc. 29), and the Defendants’ Response (doc. 32). The Plaintiff has also filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of a joint motion to extend discovery (doc. 33), which is now MOOT. At the conference on June 7, 1995, we extended the discovery deadline to August 1, 1995. BACKGROUND Plai...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs Congressman Jerrold Na-dler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association have sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994), seeking to compel defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to disclose information withheld by the FDIC from its responses to plaintiffs’ FOIA ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Francis Mungiovi, acting pro se, brings this eight-count complaint against the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”) and two of its employees, Essie Smith and William Bradley. On August 2, 1995, we denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but directed the parties to file supplemental memoran-da on the issue of ...
Views: 0
*1307 MEMORANDUM OPINION This ease comes before this court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), respectively. For the reasons stated below, this court grants the motion without prejudice. We grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint if he can plead facts that enable him to...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Secretary’s Motion to Alter or Amend (doc. 12), this Court’s prior Order (doc. 10), affirming the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant the Plaintiff disability insurance (doc. 7). The Defendant Secretary makes this Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to which the Plaintif...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are two motions to dismiss — one filed in each case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred all pretrial matters for both cases to the magistrate. Magistrate Rosemond signed his eleven page report and recommendation on August 1, 1995, addressing both motions. The court finds the report and recommendation to be thorough and accurate, and was...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Presently before the court is third-party defendants Pope, Ballard, Shepard & Fowle, Ltd. (“Pope Ballard”) and Timothy M. Sullivan’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaints of Paul and Michael Carelli. For the reasons set forth below, third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. I. Background Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) brou...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter came before the Court for trial on March 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1995 on plaintiff, Henry Whitmore’s claim for a refund of penalties and interest assessed and collected by the United States, through the Internal Revenue Service, for underpayment of taxes. A jury trial was conducted on plaintiffs claim for refund under 26 U.S.C. § 6653 (the civil fraud penalty section) covering underpa...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This application is before the court in its capacity as the “rate court” under the Amended Consent Judgment (“Consent Decree”) entered in United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publish *414 ers, 1940-43 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 56,104 (S.D.N.Y.1941), as amended by 1950-51 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 62,595 (S.D.N.Y.1950). The...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 46), to which the Defendants responded (doc. 50), and the Plaintiffs replied (doc. 54). The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 48), to which the Plaintiffs responded (doc. 51), and the Defendants replied (doc. 53). This Court h...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF This case concerns the ditches of Madison County, Indiana. It pits the interests of farmers who need to drain their land against the interests of a pipeline company whose underground pipelines run through the needed drainage ditch. Plaintiff Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (“Panhandle”) brought ...
Views: 0
OPINION Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and General Motors Company (“GM”) appeal an order of the bankruptcy court compelling GM and Ford to accept assignment of Debtors’ franchise agreements to Worthington Dodge, Inc. (“Worthington Dodge”) which is owned by Cal Worthington (‘Worthington”). The questions presented by these appeals are: (1) whether the bankruptcy court erred in applying California Ve...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs in these two related actions seek an order pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) that defendants New York Telephone Company (“NYT”) and NYNEX Corporation (“NYNEX”) provide to them the name, last known address, and other identifying information for potential class members, and to authorize notice to such persons for the purpose of obtaining written consents. For the reasons ...
Views: 2
OPINION-ORDER Cross motions for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss bring this matter to the Court’s attention. On October 31, 1994, Defendant United States of America moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On December 9,1994, Plaintiff Elbert Crosby, Administrator of the Estate of Goodwin E. Crosby (“the Estate”), filed hi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This civil rights action arose out of the defendant Landmark Community Publications’ termination of the plaintiffs employment. The plaintiff Mr. Harrison alleged that his employment was terminated because of pressure applied by the defendant Gary Humphreys, the Chief of the City of Kingston (Tennessee) Police Department. The plaintiff pleaded causes of action under 42 U.S.C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently pending before the Court, in the above-captioned so-called repetitive stress injury (“RSI”) case, is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Canon U.S.A., Incorporated (“Canon”) 1 on the ground that the claims of Plaintiff Judith Claveloux (“Claveloux”) are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, Canon’s moti...
Views: 0
901 F. Supp. 1321 (1995) Merrilou KEDZIORA, Plaintiff, v. CITICORP NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. 91 C 3428. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 25, 1995. *1322 *1323 *1324 Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman & Combs, Chicago, IL, Francine Schwartz, Law Offices of Francine Schwartz, Arlington Heights, IL, Lawrence Walner, Carol Jill Copl...
Views: 1
*448 OPINION AND ORDER This action is brought by six former employees of New York Telephone Company (“NYT”) claiming discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), and the New York Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290 et seq. (the “HRL”), and unlawful interference with pension rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. ...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs appeal from the December 16,1994 order of United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Kressel. In its Order, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for compensation and reimbursement of expenses incurred in preparing its Second Interim and Final Fee Applications. The Plaintiff, McDermott, Will & Emery (“MW & E”), claims the Bank...
Views: 0
*1457ORDER RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF SHELLFISH PROVISO Sitting by Assignment. The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing to assist it in implementing its December 20, 1994, Memorandum Decision and Order1 interpreting the Shellfish Proviso of the Stevens Treaties; having read and considered all of the papers filed in this matter and argument of counsel, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS as follows: I. ...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER On March 9, 1995, the court granted summary judgment to the following defendants: (1) the City of Portland (“City”); (2) the Portland Development Commission (“PDC”); (3) the Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission (“MERC”); (4) the Portland Trail Blazers, Inc. (“TBI”); and (5) the Oregon Arena Corporation (“OAC”).1 On March 31, 1995, final judgment was entered. Thereafter,...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs Sigmund Fried and Sam Wurst bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated. Fried and Wurst allege that they and the other mem *761 bers of the purported class were exposed to asbestos during the course of renovations that Defendants performed at 401 North Broad Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendants are Sungard Recov...
Views: 0
The instant motion to strike presents the question whether the damages cap of 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b) applies to compensatory and punitive damages in the aggregate, or severally to each type of damage. The court holds that the cap imposes a single limitation on both types of damages, so that the total of compensatory and punitive damages awarded *416 may not exceed the applicable cap amount. The c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Gregory Gergans, M.D., brings this one-count complaint for declaratory judgment against defendant Jessie Brown, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“the Department”), alleging that the Department failed to provide him with the proper procedures in appealing his discharge from employment. Presently before this court are the parties’ c...
Views: 0
ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS 6 & U OF THE FOX PATENT, FINDING NO INFRINGEMENT, AND DISMISSING CASE This matter is before the Court for the purpose of construing the language of Claims 6 and 24 of United States Reissue Patent Number Re. 34, 519 (the “Fox Reissue Patent”). HISTORY OF THE LAWSUIT Ethicon Endo-Surgery (“Ethicon”) filed this lawsuit claiming that the Defendant United States Surgical (“U....
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), has moved to confirm this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Chase’s third-party action against the third-party defendants Richard J. Kuh, KBS International Corporation, and KBS Brokerage Corporation (“Kuh/KBS”). Kuh takes the equivocal position in response to this motion that “Kuh and KBS do not advocate...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CLAIMANTS DANIEL S. GAHAGAN AND MICHAEL J. GAHAGAN I. Introduction Now pending before the court is Claimant Daniel S. Gahagan’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 5, 1994, in which Claimant Michael J. Gahagan con *990 curs. (D.559). The motion argues, inter alia, that this civil forfeiture action is barred by the Double Jeop...
Views: 0
ORDER This case is before the court on Defendant City of Winter Springs’ (Winter Springs’) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs second amended complaint (Doc. 16). Plaintiff Sullivan Prop *590 erties, Inc. (Sullivan) removed this case from state court, and alleges that Winter Springs violated Sullivan’s constitutionally protected rights by denying Sullivan a permit to dig a “borrow pit” within Winter...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This action arises from an initial public offering of 2.3 million shares of In-Store Advertising Co. (“In-Store”) common stock from July 19, 1990 through November 5, 1990 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs are representatives of the class of all who purchased In-Store common stock during the Class Period. Defendants are the Director Defendants, see Affidavit of Robert C. Finkel,...
Views: 1
OPINION Introduction This matter comes before the court on the motion of plaintiff, Host Marriott Corp., to disqualify William Ward, Esq. and the firm of Waters, McPherson, McNeill, P.C., as counsel for defendant Fast Food Operators, Inc. Defendant, Fast Food Operators, Inc., cross-moves to have Robert B. Kroner, Esq. disqualified as counsel for plaintiff in this litigation. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction. Pending before the court is Defendant Joseph A. McDermott, Ill’s (“McDermott”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 14). McDermott seeks summary judgment on Plaintiffs Serenus G. Manders, David W. Manders, and Dennis P. Manders’ (collectively “the Manders”) claims of slander of title and interference with business relations. Having reviewe...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER These eases are brought by two plaintiff groups (the Krueger plaintiffs and the Carroll plaintiffs) claiming age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”) and the New York Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290 et seq. (the “HRL”). Additionally, the Krueger plaintiffs assert claims for unlawful interference with pension righ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER After the March 21, 1995 entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict in plaintiffs’ favor in this 42 U.S.C. § 19831 action against a number of Stateville Correctional Center personnel, followed by this Court’s May 1 ruling on defendants’ post-trial motions, plaintiffs’ appointed counsel filed a petition for the award of fees and expenses under Section 19...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently pending before the Court, in the above-captioned so-called repetitive stress injury (“RSI”) case, is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Canon U.S.A., Incorporated (“Canon”) 1 a Motion for Summary Judgment by Compaq Computer Corporation (“Compaq”), and a Motion to Dismiss by Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”). 2 The ground for each of t...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff *631Thomas Besbeas brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3) (1994), for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)1. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff received an overpayment of $...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a recovering alcoholic who has worked at Metropolitan Hospital Center (“Metropolitan” or “the hospital”) for approximately 40 years, has brought claims against the hospital and the other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and under § 296 of New York’s Executive Law. His claims arise from the refusal of the hospital ...
Views: 3
OPINION AND ORDER This case arises out of a loan made to the plaintiffs by Rols Capital Co. (“Rols partnership”), a New Jersey partnership that, following the plaintiffs’ repayment of the loan, filed for bankruptcy in June 1991. Alleging that the Rols partnership charged them a usurious rate of interest, the plaintiffs have sued various individual defendants along with J.K. Funding, which...
Views: 1
*2MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF DETENTION I. INTRODUCTION Defendants Gregory Alston, Calvin Sum-ler, Aaron Chris Rodgers, Antonio Avery, Kahron Sarter, Gerald Smith, Vernon Washington, Larry Walker and George Townsend are charged by a sixty-one count criminal indictment with conspiracy to participate in racketeer influenced corrupt organization, con...
Views: 0
OPINION 1. INTRODUCTION Under consideration is a motion filed by defendants 1 seeking a declaration of “unitary status.” 2 (D.I.1542) Having reviewed the materials submitted by the parties during the evidentiary hearing held in this matter, 3 in light of the history of school desegregation litigation in this country, the court is satisfied that the defendants at bar have carried their b...
Views: 0
900 F.Supp. 500 (1995) Peter C. and Sharon M. LABOVITZ, Plaintiffs, v. The WASHINGTON TIMES CORPORATION and News World Communications, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 95-138 SSH. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 28, 1995. *501 Michael Nussbaum, Alan B. Croft, Stacy A. Feuer, Nussbaum & Wald, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Stanley Samorajczyk, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Haue...
Views: 1
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION The court, having considered the parties’ dispositive motions, having granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the Equal Protection Clause claim, and having granted certain of defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to standing, intervention and immunity, grants plaintiffs Dutson, Eisner, Willows Residential Care Facility, and Maryv...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the federal correctional facility at Morgan-town, West Virginia, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to hold a prompt deportation hearing, or, in the alternative, to remove the detainer pl...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER I.INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Clinton C. Howard, Jr., is an inmate at USP-Lompoc and Plaintiff Sherry Webster is presently an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Dublin, California (“FCI-Dublin”); however, at the time this action was filed, Plaintiff Webster was an inmate at FMC-Lexington, prior to its conversion to an all-male facility. Plaintiffs, allegedly form...
Views: 1
OPINION This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitral award, petitioner’s motion for default judgment, respondent’s counter-motion to set aside entry of default, petitioner’s renewed motion to confirm arbitral award, and respondent’s motion to dismiss. Upon consideration of the entire record, the Court grants respondent’s motion to set aside entry of...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before this Court is a review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”), denying the plaintiff, Kathleen LaPlante (“La-Plante”), Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3) (“Act”). On January 2,1990, LaPlante fi...
Views: 0
OPINION The court must decide the status of parties to assert or defend claims in this action. Plaintiffs are two physicians, four terminally 111 or potentially terminally ill patients, a residential care facility, and individual operators of residential care facilities. Defendants include the state of Oregon, the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, a district attorney, members of t...
Views: 0
ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Cecil Lucas does not deserve much sympathy. His attorney knew this when he decid *1050 ed to represent him and the Defendants knew that when they were notified of his claim. Cecil Lucas broke into the home of an elderly couple late at night, killed them both and burglarized their home. His attorney knew when this he filed his Complaint, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This ancillary proceeding stems from a civil action styled Blanton v. Inco Alloys International, Inc., Case No. 94-106, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In that case, defendant, Inco Alloys served a subpoena issued in this district on the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (“Commission”) requesting the production of documents p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This matter arises out of an automobile accident involving Plaintiff Vickie Klimstra (“Klimstra”) wherein an unidentified motor vehicle allegedly forced Klimstra off the road, causing severe injury. The unidentified vehicle did not physically contact Klims-tra’s automobile. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) has refuse...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Steiner and Saffer’s appeal from the March 10, 1995 order of United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Kressel. The Bankruptcy Court denied Appellant’s objection to the debtor’s claimed homestead exemption. Appellant argues the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining the debtor did not lose his *669 homestead exemption when he failed to occupy his ...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter previously came before the Court on defendant’s objections to the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein granting plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. At that time, the Court sustained defendant’s objection, declined to follow the Magistrate’s Recommendation and denied plaintiffs request for an injunction. The matter now comes befor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Patricia Lopkoff (“Lopkoff’) and Vincent C. Todd (“Todd”) bring an action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged violations of their constitutional rights against four individual police officers Gregg Slater (“Slater”), Patrick Wilson (“Wilson”), Mary Sutton (“Sutton”), and Steve Evans (“Evans”) (“the individual Defendants”) and their employer, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM RULING This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s complaint seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant, the United States of America. Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court enjoining enforcement of portions of § 102(a) of P.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993), and § 302(d), 107 Stat. 1545. Both provisions were enacted as part of the Brady Hand...
Views: 2
902 F. Supp. 1274 (1995) Wilfred KEYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Defendants, and The State of Colorado ex rel. Gale A. Norton, Defendant-Intervenor. Civ. A. No. C-1499 (69-M-1499). United States District Court, D. Colorado. September 12, 1995. *1275 Gordon G. Greiner, Holland & Har...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner was convicted of First Degree Murder and condemned to death in 1988 by the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. 1 On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and death sentence. Williamson v. State, 812 P.2d 384 (Okla.Crim.App.1991), ce rt. denied, 503...
Views: 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS Facts..........................................................................250 The Redacted Superseding Indictment.......................................250 A. Background...........................................................250 *247 B. The Defendants.......................................................251 1. Giampa.....................
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF. Philip Falkowski, moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction for various drug offenses on the ground that contemporaneous civil forfeitures, stemming from the same criminal conduct, resulted in double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Docket Nos. 1047, 1107, and 1129. The motion...
Views: 0
OPINION In these consolidated actions Plaintiff Joe D. Crawford (Crawford) sues former and current members of the Maryland State Board of Medical Examiners (BME), its successor agency, the Board of Physician Quality Assurance (BPQA), and the Board of Review of the Department of Mental Health and Hygiene (BRE), alleging violations of his Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process u...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1168 (1995) AT & T MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN, an employee pension benefit plan; and AT & T CORP., a New York corporation; Plaintiffs, v. Sandra TUCKER, an individual, Morris Tucker, an individual, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. No. CV 95-2263 ABC. United States District Court, C.D. California. August 14, 1995. *1169 Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Mi...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. The Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss, but grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. I. Plaintiff Paul Fusco (Fusco) filed a state law breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, seeking severance pay allegedly due from h...
Views: 0
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. Defendant filed its response to Plaintiffs motion on July 24, 1995. In his motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Notice of Removal is deficient in several respects. In short, Plaintiff argues, first, that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the present dispute. Plaintiff next argues that ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. In this employment discrimination suit, pro se Plaintiff Sherman L. Roberson sues his former employer, Bowie State University, and several of its officers or employees (collectively “Defendants”)- 1 Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for, among other reasons, failure to state a cause of action. Despite four extensions of time to file a response, Plaintiff has filed n...
Views: 0
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the following motions: (1) Defendant D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A.’s (“Agustini”) motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (D.E. #71); (2) Defendants Stellar Cruise Services, Ltd. (“Stellar”) and Hallmark Cruise Services, Inc.’s (“Hallmark”) motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (D.E. #63); (3...
Views: 0
AMENDED ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Ramon Rodriguez’ appeal from a Magistrate Judge’s order of pre-trial detention. Having reviewed the record of the proceedings below, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth as follows. 1. Factual Background Defendant Ramon Rodriguez was indicted June 2,1995 for harboring a fugitive, a viol...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Presently before the court is City of Philadelphia (“City”) and Richard Scott’s (“Scott”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Portions of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND The parties generally agree...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT I This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff United States of America’s (“United States”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed February 15,1995 (DE # 98), and Defendants cross-motion to strike and for partial summary judgment, filed March 16, 1995 (DE # 102). BACKGROUND On July 7, 1991, Defendant M/V Jacquelyn L, operated by Defendants Jose...
Views: 0
OPINION In this action, the complaint of plaintiff Kidder Peabody & Co., Inc. (“Kidder”), seeks damages for breach of contract, and Defendant Unigestion International, Ltd. (“Unigestion”) has counterclaimed for: (i) fraud; and (ii) violations of § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”); (iii) Section 15(c)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Decertify or, Alternatively, to Redefine the Class.1 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the motion without prejudice on the issue of inadequate representation arising from the presence of class members who sold shares during the class period. We deny the motion with prejudice as to all other grounds. I. T...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On August 23,1995 this Court granted the Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 56 motion of Packaging Corporation of America (“Packaging”) for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action brought against Packaging by Alice Jansen (“Jansen”). Packaging has since moved for the taxation of costs pursuant to Rule 54(b) and this District Court’s General Rules (“GR...
Views: 1
902 F. Supp. 1555 (1995) LABORATORIOS ROLDAN, C. POR A., a Dominican Republic Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Backhome International Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Roldan Corporation, a New York Corporation, Zuri International Inc., a New York Corporation, Homeboy's Discount, Inc., a New York Corporation, A.B.C.E. Wholesale Inc., a Dissolved New Yor...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on Carlos Remo Manrique Carreno’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, held on September 15,1995. At the conclusion of the *626 hearing, the Court denied Manrique Carre-no’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, as well as his request for stay of extradition. Immediately thereafter, the Court issued a written or...
Views: 2
902 F. Supp. 234 (1995) UNITED STATES of America v. Augusto G. FALCON and Salvador MAGLUTA. No. 91-6060-CR. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. September 14, 1995. *235 Christopher Clark, Assistant United States Attorney Michael Patrick Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office, Miami Florida, for U.S. Martin G. Weinberg, Boston, MA, Roy Black, Miami, Flor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This memorandum will follow up on the proceedings held in open court in South Bend, Indiana, on September 15, 1995, and deal with the issues that were there presented. This ease, or more accurately, these cases have now been on file in this district for well over a year. Some of the cases were on file in a United States district court in Michigan for well ont...
Views: 0
OPINION This action is one by a legal malpractice insurer, The Home Insurance Company (“Home”), a New Hampshire corporation with its principal place of business in New York, seeking a declaratory judgment that, pursuant to the terms of a malpractice policy entered into as of June 22, 1988, it need not indemnify or defend its insureds — Norman Perlberger, Esq.; his present law firm (Pe...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiffs’ Opposition (docket Nos. 46 and 51). During August 1991, the Puerto Rico Legislature passed Law 55 which dissolved the Housing and Urban Renewal Corporation, or Corpo-ración de Renovación Urbana y Vivienda (“CRUV”) and guaranteed the CRUV employees who would be displaced by the dissolution...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This is an action brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. *42 Plaintiff, Sigfrido Torres Lazarini, is a veteran who has received medical attention from the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, (“Hospital”) for injuries to his left hand on different occasions during the past forty years, and h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13). I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Roger Murphy (“Murphy”), is a resident of the state of Kansas engaged in the cattle feeding business. The defendant; SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“SmithKline”), is a Pennsylvania corporation, and is the successor-in-interest t...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The Court has before it codefendant Puer-to Rico Development Fund’s Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs opposition, and their respective supplements (docket Nos. 22, 31, 41, and 61). On November 4, 1977, Puerto Rico Development Fund (“PRDF”), sent plaintiff, Caribbean Mushroom Co., Inc., (“Caribbean”), a commitment letter through which it agreed to extend a loan of $100,00...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Patricia McDonnell (McDonnell), brought the instant action against her former employer, Certified Engineering & Testing Co., Inc. (Certified) alleging that Certified dismissed her in November of 1991 immediately after she informed her supervisor that she was pregnant. This dismissal, McDonnell alleges, violated state and federal laws prohibiting discrimina...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12); plaintiffs Motion for Stay of Ruling on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond Pending Completion of Discovery (Doc. 19); and defendant United States of America’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 22). H...
Views: 0
ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the following motions: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or for Summary Judgment and for Sanctions, filed January 17, 1995 (D.E. #43); Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed January 23, 1995 (D.E. #46); Defendants’ Motion in Limine and for Partial Summary Judgment on the Grounds of the Statute of Limitations and...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER On January 14, 1994, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule 72.1.3. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, filed on February 13, 1995, recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket # 12), which ha...
Views: 0
OPINION Limitation Plaintiff, Nautilus Motortanker, Ltd. (“Nautilus”) and Limitation Claimant, Coastal Oil New York, Inc. (“Coastal”) cross-move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. To resolve these motions, the Court must determine whether Nautilus is hable for purely economic losses incurred by Coastal as a result of the June 7, 1990 grounding of the ...
Views: 1
ORDER THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion to Ater or Amend This Court’s Order, Dated April 12, 1995, Dismissing Counts I, II and III of Plaintiffs Complaint as to Defendant, City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, filed on April 25, 1995. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Plaintiff has also requested oral argument on this motion. Finally, sti...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION These related diversity actions arise from the sale of allegedly defective coin-operated telephones (“COTs”) manufactured by defendant Seiscor Technologies, Inc. (“Seiscor”), a subsidiary of Switeheraft, Inc. (“Switch-craft”), which is a subsidiary of defendant Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”). The cases were consolidated for discovery, and before the Court are defendants’ rene...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff L.P. Cavett Company’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 9), Defendant United States Department of Labor’s motion for summary judgment (Doe. 10), the parties’ responsive memoranda and joint statement of stipulated facts (Docs. 11,12,18, 20, 22), amicus curiae Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO’s memorandum in support of the Depar...
Views: 1
900 F.Supp. 706 (1995) Aaron FRITH, Plaintiff, v. GALETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. No. 3:CV-92-1877. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. September 20, 1995. *707 Stephen L. Axelrod, Susan B. Bolno, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Robert F. Cox, Cox & Cox, Wellsboro, PA, Allan D. Goulding, Rosemary E. Mullaly, Curtin & Heefner, Doylestown, PA, for defendants ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On July 27,1993 inmate Lorenzo L. Stone-Bey, imprisoned for life for murder, (hereinafter “Stone-Bey”) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various members of the Indiana State Prison violated his rights in regards to a Conduct Adjustment Board (hereinafter “CAB”) hearing. On November 11,1993 this court dismissed portions of ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Before the court are Plaintiffs motions in limine, which were filed on August 4 and August 10, 1995. Plaintiff seeks an order precluding Defendants from introducing into evidence his criminal convictions and those of Donald Leonard, an inmate whom he intends to call as a witness at the trial of this matter. The motions became ripe for disposition upon the filing of Pla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Presently before this Court are defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III, and IV of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) and to Strike Certain Paragraphs of that Complaint, and plaintiffs response thereto. For the reasons that follow, this Court shall grant the motion in part and deny the motion in part. I. Background P...
Views: 0
*1484 AMENDED * ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES This motion for summary judgment requires the Court to decide whether: (1) a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant is an “operator” liable under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and the California Hazardous Substance ...
Views: 0
OPINION I. Introduction Plaintiffs Pier Connection, Inc. and Pier Sales Corporation (together, “Pier Connection”) filed suit against the Defendants in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County in June 1994. Pier Connection filed an amended complaint (the “Complaint”) on April 12, 1995, alleging two violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S....
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants scattered and destroyed his personal property, including legal papers, during a search of his cell at Sing Sing Correctional Facility on August 26, 1994. Defendants, Sing Sing correctional officers, move to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce...
Views: 1
OPINION AND ORDER The above-captioned case is one of twenty-two related securities actions filed following the collapse of JWP Inc. (“JWP”). This action was filed on September 30, 1993, by thirteen insurance companies who had invested in JWP’s debt securities between December 1988 and March 1992. Generally speaking, the complaint alleges that JWP’s financial statements contained mater...
Views: 1
*427 OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Raymond Lee, currently incarcerated in Coxsackie Correctional Facility, brings this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, James Mahoney, as the hearing officer who presided at plaintiffs administrative prison hearing on assault charges, deprived him of due process by denying him as employee assistan...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs motion filed July 13, 1995 to remand this action to the Circuit of Montgomery County, Alabama, whence it was removed. The defendant responded in opposition on July 31, 1995. In the original two-count complaint, the plaintiff avers that in connection with the execution of a note and mortgage, defendant Household Finan...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff is before the court pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the Act), for review of the decision of the Social Security Administration (SSA) denying her claim for disability benefits. Plaintiff contends the following: first, that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) submitted a hypothetical question to the Vocational Expert that did not encompa...
Views: 0
900 F.Supp. 1567 (1995) Robin CROUCH, Plaintiff, v. Larry WHATLEY, in his individual capacity, and the City of Dadeville, Alabama, Defendants. No. 94-D-1551-E. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division. September 22, 1995. *1568 Allen R. Stoner, Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff. Alex L. Holtsford, Jr., Steven A. Higgins, Montgomery, AL, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDE...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, to dismiss the state law claims as being preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case arises out of the seizure of a vehicle owned by Plaintiff Rixson Merle Perry by Defendant Village of Arlington Heights and its code enforcement officer Daniel C. Tarry. 1 Perry challenges the constitutionality of the Village ordinance authorizing the seizure of abandoned vehicles and seeks compensatory damages against the Village. Plaintiff filed this ...
Views: 3
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint *443 (docket no. 2), filed on July 17, 1995, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (docket no. 7), filed on August 10, 1995. THE COURT has considered the motion, responses, the pertinent portions of the r...
Views: 0
DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on motions filed by both defendants to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Defendants, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and Allan M. Shine (“Shine”), seek to dismiss the claims brought by the United States on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to recover a capital gains tax generated by the sale of...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiff, Keith Maydak, brings this action on behalf of himself and Confidential Services of America, Inc. (“CSA”), a Nevada corporation in which plaintiff maintains an ownership interest. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that neither he nor CSA is liable to defendant Bonded Credit Company (“Bonded”), a collection agency, for any amount of money allegedly owed...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER The matters before the court are (1) intervenor’s request for reconsideration of Magis*603trate’s opinion and order regarding intervention (doe. #27), and (2) plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate’s order (doe. #28). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On May 5,1994, plaintiff the United States of America (“United States”) filed this action against defendants James Patrick Brooks and Paul H. C...
Views: 0
898 F.Supp. 691 (1995) In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Gregory J. SUTTON. No. 95-0080 M. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. September 14, 1995. *692 David Rosen, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff. Arthur Margulis, St. Louis, MO, for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Gregory J. Sutton...
Views: 0
ORDER For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, having thoroughly reviewed the record and the objections filed by the parties and concurring with the Magistrate Judge’s findings under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION PAYNE, United States Ma...
Views: 0
ORDER The following Motions bring this matter to the Court’s attention: 1. Defendant Brian Brophil’s Motion for New Trial and Hearing and Reconsideration dated August 16, 1995; and 2. Defendant Brian Brophil’s Motion to Supplement the Record dated August 16, 1995. The United States has filed opposition to both the Motion for Reconsideration 1 and the Motion t...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiff, Clare Davidson Schachter (“Schachter”), originally commenced this action in the District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, individually and on behalf of Jack Davidson and Jill Davidson Rooney, surviving children of Barbara Jean Davidson, and as personal representative of the estate of Barbara Jean Davidson. The defendant, PacifiCare of Oklahoma, Inc. (“Paci...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This action was presented for trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on July 10, 1995. Ruby Nell Myrick (“Ms. Myrick” or the “Plaintiff’) claimed that the United States Postal Service (the “Defendant” or the “United States”) discriminated against her by failing to promote her to one or more Postmaster positions. Plaintiff claims that the ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1994 The appellant, Community Bank of Homestead, appeals from the portion of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order, dated February 23, 1994, 1994 WL 162404, which allowed the claim of Joseph A. Torcise, Jr., the debtor, for surcharge to reduce the Bank’s secured claim. Torcise cross-appealed the...
Views: 0
185 B.R. 341 (1995) D. Parker STOKES, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. George J. and Barbara D. VIERRA, Defendants/Appellees. Nos. C 95-00228, 93-12183. United States District Court, N.D. California. July 27, 1995. *342 Steven M. Olson, Geary, Shea, O'Donnell & Grattan, Santa Rosa, CA, for D. Parker Stokes, M.D. Douglas B. Provencher, O'Brien, Watters, Davis & McCullough, Santa Rosa, CA, for...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM DECISION This Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COG-SA”) case concerns a shipment of several thousand reels of paper from New Orleans, Louisiana to Alexandria, Egypt. Plaintiff Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (“Nippon”), a Japanese company, was the insurer of the cargo. Nippon has a wholly owned subsidiary located in New York, New York. Defendant Egypt Azov Shipping C...
Views: 0
*890 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION BY DEFENDANT AILEMEN TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY * INTRODUCTION Given the holding by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. $^05,089.23 U.S. Currency (referred to hereafter as Arlt, the surname of the lead defendant), 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), and the findings of fact made in the next section, I need addr...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff Glenn Jones (“Jones”) brings this action under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that Jones is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under the Act. The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the p...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the court is defendant Alabama Power Company’s motion for summary judgment filed March 31, 1995. The plaintiff responded in opposition on June 15, 1995, to which the defendant replied on June 26,1995. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law and the *1540 record as a whole, the court finds that the defendant’...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is plaintiff Mercury Finance Corporation of Alabama’s motion to remand filed March 24, 1995, the numerous replies and surreplies thereto. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law and the record as a whole, the court finds that the plaintiffs motion is due to be denied. *391PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FINDINGS OF FACT...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM On April 21, 1995, upon the consent and certain undertakings of defendants United Communications, Parker, Palmarez, Vargas, U.E.G., UCL-CC, and Omnivision of Dayton, I issued an order for permanent injunction and other equitable relief in this complex SEC enforcement action. That order provided, inter alia, that defendants United Communications, Parker and Palmar...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on the Motion For Stay filed by the United States pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) & (e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1355(c). The United States seeks an order staying the order entered on June 19,1995 (the “June 19 Order”) dismissing the civil forfeiture action brought by the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) seeking forfeiture of fourteen firearms ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Zenith Laboratories’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses. I. BACKGROUND A. FACTS Plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Plaintiff’), in Count I of its Complaint dated June 5, 1995 (“Complaint”), has broug...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Claimant Carl Gibbs (“Gibbs”) has moved for alternative relief in this civil forfeiture action brought against $62,600 that was originally seized by Chicago police in a March 23, 1995 search of Gibbs’ residence pursuant to a warrant. Gibbs seeks either: 1. dismissal of this action or 2. return to Gibbs of certain documentary evidence seized with ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 1489 (1995) Ulysses LIGHTNER, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF ARITON, ALABAMA; Billy Clyde Herring, individually and in his capacity as Mayor for the City of Ariton; Randy O. Laney, individually and in his capacity as Mayor for the city of Ariton, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-D-1198-S. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division. August 17, 1995. *1490 *1491 *1492 *1493 Kenneth...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion filed June 14, 1995 to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, from which the defendants removed this action. Defendants TranSouth Financial Corporation and Associates Financial life Insurance Company filed briefs on June 30, 1995, opposing the motion to remand. Also before the cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is now before the court on the defendants’ Alabama Department of Community and Economic Affairs (hereafter “ADE-CA”) et al.s’ motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for partial summary judgment, filed August 26, 1994. The plaintiff, Norma Jean Robertson (hereafter “Robertson”), responded to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Sept...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff Jose E. Infante, by his mother Sheila Marquez, brings this action under Sections 1383(c)(3) and 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3) and 405(g) (1988), challenging a final determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that Infante is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-styled case was tried on July 14, 1995 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The United States of America (hereafter “United States”) filed this civil forfeiture action on June 27, 1994, to which the claimant Robert L. Franklin (hereafter “Mr. Franklin”) responded in opposition on August 14, 1995. The United State...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) moves for an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b) dismissing, as against it, plaintiffs’ Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). 1 For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This litigation arose out of the March, 1994 bankruptc...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The court referred this case to the Honorable B. Waugh Crigler, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to a standing order, for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. The Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation on July 25, 1995, recommending that the court deny the defendant’s May 19, 1995 renewed motion for summary judgment. The def...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 492 (1995) The PRESBYTERY OF NEW JERSEY OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Wildwood, and Rev. David B. Cummings, Plaintiffs, v. James FLORIO, Robert Del Tufo, Marilyn Flanzbaum, Roman Angel, Betty Carson, Olga L. Vasquez-Clough, Felton Lingo, Sr., Reinhold W. Smyczek, Casey Tam, C. Gregory Stewart, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), Defendants. Ci...
Views: 0
OPINION Plaintiffs Lawrence Pascale and Kenneth Flaherty are former supervisors at defendant Carolina Freight Carrier Corporation’s (“Carolina”) Pine Brook, N.J. terminal. Plaintiffs Tracy Pascale and Afsaneh Flaherty are their wives. Individual defendant D.R. Smith is a Carolina manager. Both parties move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the reasons set fo...
Views: 2
OPINION AND ORDER This is an appeal from an order issued on February 8, 1995, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Gallet, J.), ruling, in substance, that Plaintiff-Appellee’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations contained in 11 U.S.C. § 546(a) (1988).1 Plaintiff-Ap-*804pellee is Harold Young, the trustee in bankruptcy of Wingspread Corpor...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A creditor who did not get paid for goods sold by it when the buyer’s bank discontinued a line of credit to the buyer sued the bank for fraud. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. The bank, Harris Bank Roselle (“Harris” or “the Bank”), has moved for summary judgment against Athey Products Corporation (“Athey”). For the reasons discussed below, the Bank...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Ronald D. Dawson’s (“Dawson”) motion to compel from defendants New York Life Insurance Company and NYLIFE Securities, Inc. (collectively “New York Life”) answers to certain deposition questions and discovery of certain documents. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted. BACKGROUND In this d...
Views: 1
This is an appeal from two Bankruptcy Court Orders in Bankruptcy Case No. 94-00473-BKC-6B3. Appellant United States of America contests the Honorable Arthur B. Briskman’s October 4, 1994, Order denying its motion for summary judgment, and the September 23, 1994, Order sustaining Debt- or’s objection to “Claim No. 5,” filed by the Internal Revenue Service. Upon motion by Appellant, the appeals w...
Views: 0
ORDER This is an appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants Ronald Cianeioso (“Ronald”) and Carole Cianeioso (“Carole”) from an Order of United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert John Hall, which dismissed their complaint in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding No. 894-8195-20, and imposed sanctions on Ronald and Carole and their attorney, Jan 0. Blau, Esq., jointly and severally in the amount of $1,...
Views: 0
ORDER The plaintiff, Joyce Frechette, has brought this diversity action against the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging state law claims of wrongful termination (count I), breach of contract (count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (count III). Before the court are the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (document no. 23) on the wrongful termination and ...
Views: 0
This matter is before the court on the appeal from the Opinion and Decision (“Opinion”) of the Special Master dated May 22, 1995. Based upon a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated below, the court affirms the decision of the Special Master. BACKGROUND On May 10, 1995, Class Counsel and the National Football League Players’ Association (“NFLPA”)...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Robert R. Reich, the Secretary of Labor of the United States Department of Labor (“plaintiff’), brings this action against the Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation and the Southern New England Telephone Company (collectively “SNET”) seeking to enjoin SNET from its alleged violation of sections 7, 11, 15(a)(2) and 15(a)(5), the overtime and record-keep...
Views: 0
ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by plaintiff, Vastar Resources, Inc. (“Vastar”) and a memorandum in opposition filed by defendant, Popich Brothers Water Transport, Inc. (“Popich Brothers”). The motion was taken under submission for decision on the briefs *695without oral argument. Having reviewed the motion, the memoranda of the parti...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Before the court are the objections of third-party defendants, David D. Duncan, Sr., Michael J. Catanzaro, Robert M. Sullivan, and Charles V. DeGeorge’s (“Duncan Defendants”) to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Thomas Porter, while confined at the Eastern Correctional Facility, was charged with assaulting two fellow inmates on September 12, 1991. Porter was immediately confined to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) pending determination of the charges. Porter originally requested that defendant J. Novak, a prison correction counselor, aid in his prepa...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund (“Board of Trustees”) originally commenced this action November 30,1993, in the District of New Jersey, but venue was transferred to the Northern District of New York on motion. In an order dated February 11, 1995, the Court dismissed plaintiffs original compla...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the Court on the PlaintiffiCounter-Defendants’ (“Buchbinder’s”)1 motion to dismiss Count II of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs (“UBS”’) Amended Counterclaim. In support of the motion, Buchbinder argues that UBS failed to allege the elements of a civil RICO claim. Buchbinder offers three grounds in support of the motion to dismiss. First, Buchbinder claims...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER Appellant Skillman E. Siewert appeals two orders of the Honorable Prudence B. Abram of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, 88 B 10377 (PBA). First, Siewert appeals an order dated August 19, 1994 (the “Disallowance Order”) which granted summary j...
Views: 0
881 F. Supp. 557 (1995) Joseph M. BERITIECH, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Joey Abston, Defendants. Glover ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Frederick D. Byrd, Sr., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. 94-0934-BH-S, 94-0820-BH-C. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. April 12, 1995. *558 Wyman O. Gilmore, Jr., Grove Hill, AL, Sidne...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action brought under ERISA and the Labor Management Relations Act by plaintiff employee benefit funds for the recovery of employee benefit contributions due for work performed by members of Local 46 on two construction projects. Plaintiff moves now for summary judgment against defendant Faraday, the employer. For the reasons that follow, we grant the motion as to ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs who were students objecting to a particular allocation of their student activity monies by their university, seek attorney’s fees from that university, State University of New York, and the student activity NYPIRG (an acronym for the New York Public Interest Research Group) to which a fraction of their fees was allocated by the university. This applicat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Shelley Zorn (“Zorn”) brings this action against the defendants, Helene Curtis, Inc. (“Helene Curtis”), and William C. Decker (“Decker”), alleging sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a) (1983 & Supp.1995) (Counts I and I...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs filed their five-count amended complaint on April 21, 1994 against the City of Chicago (hereafter “City”), Superintendent of Police, Matthew Rodriguez (hereafter “Rodriguez”) and Chief Surgeon, James Bransfield (hereafter “Bransfield”). Counts I and II are brought by plaintiff Lawrence Dertz (hereafter “Dertz”) alleging that the defendants violated the American...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this, the most recent skirmish in an ongoing battle between Zip Dee, Inc. (“Zip Dee”) and The Dometie Corporation (“Dom-etic”) over patent and trademark rights in slatted awning covers for recreational vehicles, Zip Dee has renewed its Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 12(f) motion to strike Dometic’s Twelfth Affirmative Defense (“AD 12”). Specifically Zip Dee argu...
Views: 1
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [16-1] and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17-1]. The parties agree that the principal facts are not in dispute and that their Motions present questions of law. After reviewing the record and hearing oral argument from counsel for the parties, the Court finds as follows. I. FACT...
Views: 0
OPINION and ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the appeal of Associates Financial Services Corporation (“Associates”) of the United States Bankruptcy Court’s order overruling Associates’ objection to confirmation of Debtor Purdue’s Chapter 13 plan. This appeal presents one issue: Did the Bankruptcy Court err in ruling, notwithstanding the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) 1 , th...
Views: 0
OPINION Crown Sterling Management, Inc. (“Crown”), a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in California which owns, manages, licenses, and franchises hotel chains, entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) with Lazard Fréres & Co. (“Lazard”), a partnership with no partners residing in either Texas or California. Pursuant to the Agreement, Lazard was to serve as “ex...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before me on plaintiffs and cross-defendant’s motions for summary judg *204 ment. 1 The parties have briefed the issues contained in these motions and the Court has heard oral argument. The motions are, therefore, ripe for disposition. 2 For the reasons stated below, I will grant both motions on the ground that the gove...
Views: 2
OPINION Defendants Oper der Standt Bonn (the “Bonn Opera Company”) and Gian-Carlo del Monaco have moved to dismiss the amended complaint in this action for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction and pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff Luretta Bybee has filed a cross-motion for leave to re-serve the amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the ...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants have submitted objections to the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) prepared by the Honorable Theodore H. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the referral of this Court. The Court has reviewed Judge Katz’s Report, and made a de novo determination, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), that Judge Katz’s exhaustive, well-reasone...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to equal protection. I hold that plaintiffs’ case is in essence a disguised appeal from state court and therefore dismiss it in accordance with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are former City of Philadelphia police officers who...
Views: 0
ORDER AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 1995, upon careful and independent consideration of the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, and after reviewing United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter’s Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this Title VII employment discrimination action, defendant, Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, (Postmaster) moves for partial summary judgment on plaintiff Terrance P. O’Neill’s (O’Neill) claim for front pay or reinstatement under the doctrine of after-acquired evidence of misconduct. The Postmaster also moves for partial summary judgment on Runyon’s claim ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This habeas corpus petition came before me for hearing on September 19,1995. Petitioner Ljubisa Filimonovic, an ethnic Serb from a town near Belgrade in former Yugoslavia, faces immediate deportation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The INS defines the FRY as the Serbia-Montenegro region of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Belgrade is i...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This dispute arises from the shipment of 1,575 cartons containing nearly 19,000 one-half gallon tins of olive oil from Cádiz, Spain, to San Juan, Puerto Rico. Upon delivery, much of the shipment was found to be ruined by rust. For this damage, the Cigna Insurance Company of Puerto Rico paid $21,414.15 to its insured, the A. Cordero Badillo company, the Puerto Rican importer ...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant M & D International Corporation and Defendants and counterclaimants Kevin Chan and King Lum, Inc. having appeared before this Court in the above-entitled action, this Court having considered the arguments, evidence and testimony presented, the Court issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION In this multi-defendant criminal RICO and narcotics conspiracy case, defendant Paulie Davilla moves for dismissal of certain enumerated racketeering predicate acts and indictment counts on the grounds of duplicity, for severance, for a bill of particulars, and for certain discovery. Defendant Jimmy Davilla moves to sever the cocaine-related charges from the heroin-r...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Tyrone Walker’s motion for a new trial. On June 1, 1995, a jury found Defendant Walker guilty of one count of unlawful possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base and aiding and abetting. Defendant Walker now moves for a new trial, asserting three grounds in support of his motion. Defendant alleges (1...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter came before the Court on defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A hearing was held on September 7, 1995, at which James A. Gorry, III, Esquire, and Richard W. Zahn, Jr., Esquire appeared for defendant; and Michael J. Gardner, Esquire appeared on behalf of plaintiff. The proceedings were reported by Sharon Borden, Official Court Reporter. On September 1,...
Views: 0
ORDER In a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) dated July 25, 1995, Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended that class certification be granted in each of the above-captioned actions, and that counsel be appointed as indicated in the Report. In conformity with Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15,16 (2d Cir.1989), the Report explicitly cautioned that failure to file timel...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is counterdefendant William Weber’s (‘Weber”) motion to dismiss Count VI of defendants/counterclaimants William W. Schmidt’s and Servpro of Arlington Heights/Naperrille, Inc.’s (collectively, “Schmidt”), third amended counterclaim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As set forth fully below, the court denies Weber’s motion to dismiss. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This dispute regarding Defendant A. David Silver’s alleged mismanagement of two venture capital funds came before the Court for bench trial on August 16-20, 23-27, and September 30, 1993. The Court heard closing arguments on October 22,1993. The parties have each submitted a memorandum of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of la...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Andrew Wilson brings this action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against Jon Burge, Patrick O’Hara and John Yucaitis (the “Officers”), alleging that they tortured him to force him to confess to the murder of two Chicago police officers. In his Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff added the City of Chicago (the “City”), alleging that t...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM This is an action by plaintiffs John Hancock Distributors, Inc., and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (“John Hancock”) to permanently enjoin an arbitration demanded by defendants Michelle and Nicole Saponaro (“Saponaros”), under the National Association of Security Dealers Code of Arbitration Procedure (“NASD Code”), on the basis that the six claims asserted by the Saponaros ...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER On May 20, 1992, New York City police officers and a federal agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“BATF”) forcibly entered and searched a Manhattan apartment. Plaintiffs Frances Howard and her thirteen year-old daughter Sameerah Joyner resided in the apartment and were on the premises when the search was executed. Plaintiffs contend that the search...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Roberts & Schaefer Company (“R & S”), filed a complaint against defendant, Merit Contracting, Inc. (“Merit”), in the Circuit Court of Cook County on December 28, 1994. On January 12, 1995, Merit removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity of citizenship. R & S is a contractor incorporated in Delaw...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter came before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 20,1995. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William T. Prince by order dated June 12, 1995, for hearing and recommendation for the disposition of the motion. A hearing was held...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel from further participation in this action for violation of Rule 4.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and for production of all notes and memoranda relating to the contact giving rise to the alleged violation. Defendants’ motion arises from a telephone conversation between Defendant Gre...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS Ira Fontenot, plaintiff, sues Leslie Wages, Kevin Swift, and Stephen Lawrence, officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division, Stiles Unit, where plaintiff is incarcerated. Suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and plaintiff alleges defendants have harassed him. The...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of Defendant Azcon Corporation (“Azcon”) for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND 1 Plaintiffs Delester Pollard (“Pollard”), Joshua Davis (“Davis”) and James Turner (“Turner”) filed suit in federal court alleging that Azcon wrongfully terminated them due to their race and ag...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court upon the Government’s complaint seeking the extradition of Mehmet Semih Sidali for the rape and murder of a fifteen-year-old girl. Among other arguments, Mr. Sidali claims that in view of two acquittals in the lower courts in the Republic of Turkey, his extradition would constitute a great injustice. The Court conducted an extradition ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.443 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.445 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.446 A Undisputed Facts.446 B. Disputed Facts.447 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.448 A Disclosures Pursuant T...
Views: 0
OPINION This cause is presently before the court upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has charged that defendant discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it terminated his employment. FACTS Kenneth Rakestraw was employed as a truck driver for Carpenter Company for six years. Carpenter manufactures urethane fo...
Views: 3
ORDER Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs complaint alleges employment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634, along with a pendent state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant claims that one of three grounds entitles it to judgment under the Rule 56 standard, and that two oth...
Views: 0
OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Movant Craig Wines Oliver’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence that was imposed upon him by this Court on June 5, 1992. Oliver contends he should be resen-tenced using the principles established by recent decisions. I. On February 12, 1992, Oliver entered a plea of guilty to one count of manufacturing marijuana ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the court is defendant’s motion for entry of directed verdict. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant caselaw, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order. This matter was tried to a jury of twelve on April 25-26, 1995 in Macon, Georgia. Plaintiff claimed that defendant failed to promote her because of her sex, in violation of Title...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs Robert M. Bogan (“Bogan”) and Scott M. Bogan bring this suit against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (“NML”) and Austin E. Hodgkins, Jr. (“Hodgkins”) for state and federal antitrust violations, breach of contract, violating New York General Business Law § 349, defamation, conversion, tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations, fraud, and breach ...
Views: 0
902 F. Supp. 554 (1995) Elizabeth A. LEACH and Medical Benefits Management Services, Inc. v. QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., LifeQuest, Inc., OccuMed Resources, American Health Resources Systems, Inc. and Roger B. Hiser and LIFEQUEST, INC. v. Robert M. SCHERZER. Civ. A. No. 94-4346. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 3, 1995. *555 *556 Reginald A. Krasney, Wayne, PA, for Eliz...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff brings this action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Data Transfer, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). He alleges that, on repeated occasions, Data Transfer sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile machine in violation of the statute. Plaintiff moves for class certification. That motion is o...
Views: 2
*806 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is an action brought by the owners of a tract of land located in Sedgwick County, Kansas against Williams Natural Gas Company. Plaintiffs assert defendant laid pipeline on their property in violation of defendant’s easement, thereby trespassing upon and taking plaintiffs’ property. The matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.1 ...
Views: 0
ORDER Before the Court in both of the above-captioned matters are Motions by the Plaintiffs for Class Certification and Motions by the Defendants for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Motions to Dismiss. Upon consideration of the briefs presented by opposing counsel and arguments heard before this Court on July 19, 1995, Motions by the Plaintiffs for Class Certification in both cases are h...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion to suppress, Doe. 24-25. The court held a hearing on September 12, 1995. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion shall be denied. Trial is scheduled for September 26, 1995. The defendant is charged in a six count indictment with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Criminal Complaint filed August 30, 1995. Plaintiff filed its Response on September 15, 1995. No reply brief was filed. Factual Background Defendant Mark J. Hopper is charged in a Criminal Complaint with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228, referred to as the Child Support Recovery Act of 1...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law following this Court’s entry of judg *347 ment for the plaintiff after trial on August 21-22, 1995, at which time the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Also before the Court are plaintiffs Motion for Equitable Relief and Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Examini...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. 1 Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants’ motion; Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ motion and Plaintiffs have replied. The time for further filings has lapsed and this matter is ripe for adjudication. 2 Plaintiffs fil...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are Plaintiffs motions to amend the complaint and to extend the Time Frame Order and Defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. After careful consideration, the Court hereby (1) DENIES Plaintiffs motions; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motions; and (3) REINSTATES its June 7, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order. I. FACTUAL BACKG...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING HUHTAMÁKA OY, LEIR-AS OY, DOW CORNING FRANCE, AND WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND GRANTING LEIR-AS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER Before this court is the motion of Defendants Huhtamáki Oy, Leiras Oy, Leiras Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dow Corning France, and Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) to...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER Before this court is the motion of Defendant Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc. (“Defendant”) to reconsider this court’s earlier denial of this Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs did not file a response. Upon consideration of the motion and attached memo-randa of law, the court is of the opinion th...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendants are charged in a three count indictment with: conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. This matter is before the court on a variety of pretrial motions filed by the defendants. The court held a hearing on September 8, 1995 and announced several of i...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff seeks an injunction and declaratory judgment in this action against the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”). Plaintiff claims that the CCC wrongfully turned over funds which the CCC owed him to the Internal Revenue Service in partial payment of plaintiff’s tax liability, which the plaintiff has not disputed in this case. In essence, the plaintiff invokes this c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTIES Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Additional Parties, filed on May 25, 1995. A response, filed by defendants American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (“Defendants”), was timely filed on June 9, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, response, and attached memoranda of law, the cou...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed on May 24, 1995. Defendant timely filed its opposition on June 7, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, response, and memoranda of law, the court is of the opinion that the motion s...
Views: 0
ORDER The court now rules on Defendant David Scholz’ Motion to Supplement Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 363). Defendant argues (1) that the federal prosecution on narcotics charges violates his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy for the same offense, and (2) that the United States breached its agreement not to prosecute him in exchange for information...
Views: 0
ORDER Pending before the Court is defendant Norfolk and Western Railway Company’s *281(“N & W”) Motion for Partial Summary-Judgment on the Application of the Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. § 23. Because no material facts are in dispute regarding this issue, the Court finds that the Act is not applicable to this case and that N & W is entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law. I. B...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff submitted a request for records to the Department of State by letter dated November 14, 1991. Sixty-nine documents were retrieved in response to plaintiffs request and, following inter-agency review of certain documents which originated in...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a bankruptcy appeal. This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding filed by debtor, American Freight System, Inc. against the appellant in this matter, Electro-lert, Inc., to recover freight charges allegedly owed to debtor. Electrolert asserts that the freight charges were the subject of a release agreed to by debtor and Electrolert to settle litigation filed by ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a native of Cuba detained under civil immigration authority at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. Petitioner challenges a final administrative order of exclusion rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Factual Background Petitioner arrived in the...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 8 and May 16, 1994, respectively, the Attorney General denied preclearance for the addition of four judgeships to the Arizona Superior Court in Coconino and Navajo counties. In accordance with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Arizona now seeks *319 a declaratory judgment from this court that the addition of these seats “does not have ...
Views: 1
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE BASED ON FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants Nelson Peltz and Elliot Management Services Company, Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions due to fabrication of evidence, perjury and obstruction of justice by Plaintiff Maria Vargas, and third party Defendant, Gerardo Vargas. A...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is now before the court upon the motions for summary judgment by defendants Frank E. Williams, Jr., Frank Duval and Williams Industries, Inc. Prior to the motions for summary judgment, plaintiff had asserted claims alleging the tort of outrage and breach of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 223. Plaintiff has now withdrawn any claim under the Federal C...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process were violated by the defendants when he was terminated from his position as maintenance supervisor at the Coffey County Hospital in Burlington, Kansas. Plaintiff has also asserted state law claims of breach ...
Views: 0
902 F.Supp. 1029 (1995) Michael S. MILROY, Plaintiff, v. John G. HANSON, John F. Hanson, Jerry D. Hanson, Jay Hanson, Defendants, and Sixth Street Food Stores, Inc., Nominal Defendant. No. 4:CV94-3012. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. September 29, 1995. *1030 David R. Buntain, Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, Lincoln, NE, for plaintiff Milroy. David D. Zwart, Baylor, E...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Before this court is Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion to Remand, filed on August 11, 1995. A response by defendant Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company (“Wyeth”) was timely filed on August 22, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, response, and attached memoranda, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be GRANTED. BAC...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. The defendant has filed a response in opposition. 7. BACKGROUND On or about March 1, 1993, the defendant issued an employee Group Long-Term Disability Income Policy to National Recovery Institute, where plaintiff was employed as a Vice President. In July of 1993, defendant began ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Before this court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, which were filed on July 21, 1995. Defendants timely filed their opposition to these motions on August 4, 1995. P...
Views: 0
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER Before this court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Order Granting Leave to Amend Complaint, filed June 21,1995. No response was filed to this motion. Upon consideration of the motion, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to the extent that it adds as defendants Leiras Oy an...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DOW CORNING FRANCE SA Before this court is the motion of Defendant Dow Coming France SA (“Dow”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, Dow filed the declaration of Ian Thackwray pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 in support of its motion. Plaintiff did not file a response. The pending motion by Dow is similar to the motions fi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND Before this court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, filed on April 19, 1995, and reurged in this court on June 12, 1995. A response by defendant Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company (“Wyeth”) was timely filed on May 2, 1995. Plaintiffs then filed a reply to Wyeth’s response on May 8, 1995. Upon consideration of the motion, response,...
Views: 0
This is an action brought by Jan A. Sig-mon, Esq. (“plaintiff’), against her former employer, the law firm of Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl (“defendant”). In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against, and ultimately terminated by, defendant because she is a woman, became pregnant, and had a child. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s discriminatory practices violated: (...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Third Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, pursuant to.28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion to transfer. I. FACTS Plaintiff, Wen Products, Inc. (“Wen Produc...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.’S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST D. ANDREW KA-SANICKY I. INTRODUCTION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon plaintiffs, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (“PEI”), Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for partial summary judgment of liability for copyright infringement against defendant D. Andrew Kasanicky (“Kasanicky”). PEI’s M...
Views: 0
ORDER GRANTING PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.’S FIRST MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT) I. INTRODUCTION The cause is before this Court on Plaintiffs, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (“PEI”), Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for partial summary judgment of liability for copyright infringement against Defendant Starware Publishing Corp (“Starware”). PEI’s Motion was...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are defendants John Mu-sielak’s 1 (“Musielak”), Jeanette Johnson’s (“Johnson”), and Kenneth R. Briley’s (“Bri-ley”) (collectively, “defendants”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). As set forth fully below, the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Michael Torrence (“Torrenc...
Views: 0
ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. #86; hereinafter Motion), filed on July 7,1994. Affidavits in support of the Motion have also been filed. See Affidavit in Support of Motion to Assess Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. # 87; hereinafter Don-nelly Affidavit), filed on July 7, 1994; Affidavit in Support of Motion to Assess Fee...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff Oakland County brought this action alleging that it lost millions of dollars as a result of a conspiracy engaged in by Vista Disposal, Inc. (‘Vista”) and other individuals and business entities in violation of the Rack *883 eteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Oakland County settled its claims a...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION/FACTS: This matter is now before the Court on the Washtenaw County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses were filed and a hearing held on the matter. Plaintiff alleges a Section 1983 claim against Defendants claiming that Defendants’ policies in handling domestic abuse cases violate the equal protection clause...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court now considers Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment As To Count III, filed October 17,1994 (Doc. # 26). All parties consented to this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). As discussed below, the court finds that, while Plaintiff does have a right of action under the Administrative Procedure Act and does make a sufficient showi...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On June 13,1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a judgment the court had signed on June 24, 1993, in Case No. 4:92-CV-860-A and the judgment the court signed on June 1,1993, in Case No. 4:93-CV-042-A and remanded the action to this court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas a...
Views: 0
CAME ON THIS DAY to be considered Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, and upon careful consideration, the court finds the motion should be granted. Background Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, civil RICO violations, antitrust violations, violations of the Texas Deceptive Tra...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Truck Insurance Exchange brings this diversity action under Illinois law against Defendant Ronald Kafka, alleging that Kafka committed common law fraud by setting fire to his own building, and then claiming the loss as covered by an insurance policy issued to him by Truck Insurance. Presently before this court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary jud...
Views: 0
OPINION This ease is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Stay. Defendants present two arguments: (1) that the Court should abstain because the case involves unsettled issues of state law important to California public policy; and (2) that the Court should dismiss under the Colorado River doctrine of abstention in deference to ongoing litigation between the ...
Views: 0
902 F.Supp. 288 (1995) Thomas S. TAYDUS, Plaintiff, v. Henry CISNEROS, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-10326-RCL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 25, 1995. *289 *290 Norma Roth, Jackman & Roth, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff. Susan M. Poswistilo, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Defendant. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs, Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan (“1992 Plan”), filed the present action seeking to recover unpaid premiums from defendant, Double G Coal Co., Inc. (“Double G”). 1 Plaintiffs allege that section 9712 2 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the “Coal Act...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10). 2 II.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 25, 1992, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that he ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this pro se complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Luis Vargas *98 (“Plaintiff’) claims that his constitutional rights were violated when the New York State law governing the Prisoner Work Release Program (“Program”) was amended so as to exclude individuals convicted of homicide from program e...
Views: 1
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 15,1995. Defendant Webster alleges no personal jurisdiction exists over him. A response by plaintiff Henry Mote was timely filed pursuant to an extension order on April 25, 1995. The motion was referred to a United States ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court heretofore ordered that these matters be referred to the Honorable Earl S. *650 Hines, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Court has received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge filed purs...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Jabez and Hilmer Brown have brought this action against Rochester Super 8 Motel, Kathy Iaculli and Michael Iaculli pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a which prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of race. Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to change venue pursuant to 28 U.S...
Views: 0
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This is an action by plaintiff, Personnel Pool of Ocean County, Inc., a commercial provider of nursing services, seeking ERISA benefits for nursing care provided to the late Mr. Joseph Lebiedz (“the insured”), who was a participant in a non-profit ERISA health and welfare plan administered by defendant Trustees of the Heavy and General Laborers’ Wel...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Of The Case The facts of this case are well-known to the Court and all parties to this case. Therefore, the Court will not recite the facts herein. B. Procedural History In brief, plaintiffs first cause of action alleging due process violations was dismissed by a decision of this Court in June, 1991. The second cause o...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER On September 5, 1995, at Christine and David Cox’s request, this Court issued an order to show cause against the Commissioners of Elections of Delaware County and the Delaware County Board of Elections. The order required them to show cause why the Court should not enter a preliminary injunction against them, or, in the alternative, why this Court should deny plaintif...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant and third-party plaintiff, Marc-Reid Enterprises, Inc., moves for leave to file an amended third-party complaint against third-party defendant Michigan Brake Manufacturing Co. as well as against Servicios Aereos Barsa (“Servicios”), TEBO, and Samuel Bardor. Michigan Brake, on the other hand, has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Richard Christopher (“Christopher”) brings this action against his former employer, Laidlaw Transit Inc. (“Laidlaw”), under The Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Presently before the Court is Laidlaw’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuan...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER This action for fraud is presently before the Court on the motion of defendant Gary Goldberg, Inc. to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is granted. FACTS On December 15, 1994, Eleanor Saunder-son (“Saunderso...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Before this Court is (1) Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston’s (“Liberty Life” or “Plaintiff’) motion to amend its Complaint pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) Charles Geisler and Pamela Geisler’s (the “Geislers”) motion to join in Plaintiffs motion to amend the Complaint; (3) Defendants Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Toys...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Richard G. Williams, has been incarcerated for twenty-one years and is within seven months of parole eligibility. 1 He has been denied admission to the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Work Training Furlough Program. Plaintiff argues that he is eligible for this program under the requirements set forth in Department of Corrections Order ...
Views: 0
Plaintiff Grace Holdings, L.P. (“Grace Holdings”) has filed a complaint against defendant Sunshine Mining and Refining Company (“Sunshine”) alleging breach of an agreement, titled “Certificate of Designation, Rights and Preferences of the $11.94 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock,” under which Grace Holdings retains over 800,000 shares of Sunshine Preferred Stock. Before the Court is Grace H...
Views: 0
Opinion on DeclaratoRy Judgment 1. Introduction. A patron died after two of the bar’s bouncers beat him. The patron’s parents sued the bar for intentional tort, negligent tort, and liquor law violations. The bar’s insurer refuses to defend because liability for battery and liquor are excluded in the poliey. Every claim raised in the suit stems from the bouncers’ intentional act of beating t...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This action, arising out of a ear accident was originally filed in Bronx County Supreme Court. Defendant Alan Vingan removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Plaintiff Ann Bertrand has moved to remand the action. For the reasons stated, Bertrand’s motion is granted. FACTS On April 4, 1995, Bertrand, a New York resident, sent Vin...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This cause is before the court on the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, filed on June 9, 1995. Plaintiff filed this suit in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, on or about April 21, 1995. Plaintiff alleged various causes of action including fraud, fraudulent suppression, and breach of contract against Union National Life Insurance Compan...
Views: 4
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Etoile Le Blanc (“Le Blanc”) and Stephen Ossen (“Ossen”), bring this action in admiralty against Terry Cleveland (“Cleveland”) and Robert Grant, Jr. (“Grant”). Both Le Blanc and Ossen seek damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on the Hudson River when the defendants’ boat struck their kayak. Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to c...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendants in this case, the acting dean of the City University of New York (“CUNY’) School of Law, and three student editors of the school’s newspaper, The Brief, (“paper”) move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the court grants these motions. Background The plaintiff, Jackson Leeds, is an attorney who ...
Views: 2
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FACTS This action for the violation of civil rights, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e et seq., is before this Court on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and on the Pl...
Views: 0
OPINION This case came before the Court on August 21, 1995, for an evidentiary hearing to determine the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in the sentencing of Martin Miller. I. BACKGROUND Martin Miller is a real estate developer and managing partner of several District of Columbia real estate ventures. Beginning in 1986, Mr. Miller entered into a series ...
Views: 0
I. Introduction Since the mid-1980’s, announcements of tender offers were invariably followed by either the suitor or target quickly resorting to litigation. The issues in those cases involved, inter alia, the constitutionality of various state anti-takeover statutes. See, e.g., Nomad Acquisition Corp. v. Damon Corp., 701 F.Supp 10 (D.Mass.1988) (Massachusetts anti-ta...
Views: 0
Plaintiffs Bell Atlantic Corporation and its subsidiary businesses (collectively “Bell Atlantic”) have brought this action against defendants MFS Communications Company, Incorporated, and its subsidiary businesses (collectively “MFS”) pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and § 203(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. See Docket Item (“D.I.”) 33...
Views: 1
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND Defendant, MARY ANN SMITH, ESQ., brings this motion seeking to set aside a default judgment entered against her on January 24, 1994, in the above-entitled action. Plaintiff, DONNA R. BRYAN, opposes defendant Smith, Esq.’s motion, and cross moves for an order of this Court directing a hearing to be held for the assessment of damages pursuant to Fed.R.Civ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION Daniel S. Orci, Jr. (“Orci”) filed this action against his former employer, Insituform East, Inc. (“Insituform” or “Company”) and Robert and George Erikson. Orci alleges wrongful, abusive, retaliatory discharge, breach of employment contract and tortious interference in beneficial employment relations. Pending before the Court is Insitu-form’s motion to dismiss or, ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff brought this civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging in his pro se complaint violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In its December 21, 1990 Memorandum-Decision and Order (“MDO”), the court declined to accept the Magistrate’s Reports Recommendation in the in...
Views: 0
900 F.Supp. 515 (1995) COMSAT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. FINSHIPYARDS S.A.M., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 94-0165 PLF. United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 15, 1995. *516 *517 *518 Andrew N. Vollmer, Marc R. Cohen, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Jack P. Janetatos, Stuart M. Weitz, Washington, DC, for defendants. OPINION PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. COMSAT Corporati...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court is Claimant Robert Jones’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 76], the United States’ Motion for Sum *1034 mary Judgment Pertaining To Robert Lynn Jones [Doc. # 78], and the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment Pertaining to Jeanette Jones [Doc. #80]. BACKGROUND This case involves the U.S. Government’s seizure of property pursuant to...
Views: 1
ORDER Before the Court are summary judgment motions by plaintiffs and defendant which seek first impression interpretation of the Inspector General Act as it applies to the United States Department of Agriculture Inspector General’s authority to conduct an audit of plaintiffs’ farming operations under certain wool and mohair price support programs. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1-12 app. 3 at 222-250 (Supp...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM, DECISION & ORDER The Court returns to this matter upon defendants’ motion for reconsideration in light of Sandin v. Conner, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). In its earlier order, the Court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on behalf of Defendants Selsky and Mantello as to Mr. Delaney’s Fourteenth Amendment due pr...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. Factual and Procedural Background On June 15, 1995, Plaintiff Venus Mitchell (“Mitchell”) filed a complaint against Defendants RJK of Gloucester, Inc. (“RJK”), trading as “McDonald’s Restaurant,” and Kenny Smith, the immediat...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Allen Redlieh, 1 brings this action against the defendant, The Albany Law School of Union University (“Albany Law School”), pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B)), New York Executive Law § 296(1), and state Contract law. ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this strict products liability bench trial, plaintiff, Leoncio Aníbal Del Cid (“Del Cid”), seeks to recover damages for the serious injuries he sustained when he attempted to free a chain hoist which had become entangled on an air filter of a plastic injection molding machine designed and manufactured by defendant, Beloit Corporation (“Beloit”). Del Cid claims ...
Views: 0
OPINION The applications presently before this Court arise out of the filing of two separate complaints requesting certification of a class against Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (“Mercedes”) on January 14, and 15, 1993. On May 24, 1993, an order consolidating Weiss v. Mercedes and Bez v. Mercedes for discovery purposes was entered. On June 14, 1993, both plaintiffs moved to amend t...
Views: 3
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION. The plaintiff has moved for leave to serve and file an amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The proposed additional defendants have opposed the motion, and in the alternative, cross-moved to dismiss the proposed amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) if the motion to amend is granted. The individual defendants have both moved for summ...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM OPINION The instant case, based on alleged violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), and breach of contract arising out the use of the name “The Harlem Gospel Singers,” of which plaintiff alleges ownership, is before the court on an Order to Show Cause signed by the Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr., of this court, the Judge presiding in emergency Par...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiffs move this Court for permission to reargue the motion for summary judgment which the Court heard and granted in favor of the defendants on May 12, 1995. For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiffs’ motion is hereby denied. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Michael J. Affrunti, L. Donald Jaffin, John L. Molloy, Jr., Edward S. Smith and Kathleen W. Forman...
Views: 0
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Carlis Hart (“Hart”) brings a suit against Defendant Riverside Hospital, Ine. (“Riverside”) under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTA-LA”), 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395dd (1993). Presently before the court is a motion by Plaintiff to amend her complaint. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. I. Factual and Procedural Backg...
Views: 0
MEMORANDUM ORDER Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief. He challenges his detention as a pretrial detainee in Otisville, New York, on the grounds that his criminal case is venued in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He wishes to be returned to Pennsylvania in order to be closer to relevant participants in his criminal case. He does not seek rele...
Views: 0