Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
|
|
- Phillip Johnson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MAINE ASSOCIATION OF RETIREES, et al. Plaintiffs, and MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, et al. Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. Civil Action No. 1: DBH BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. Defendants. REPLY IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND DEFENDANTS CONDITIONAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Plaintiff-Intervenors, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby reply to Plaintiffs Opposition (Dkt. 17 and Defendants Conditional Opposition (Dkt to Plaintiff-Intervenors Motion for Leave to Intervene (Dkt. 4. ARGUMENT Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a sets two baseline requirements for permissive intervention. First, the intervenors must have a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Rule 24(b(1(B. Second, the motion to intervene must be timely. Rule 24(b(1. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Plaintiff-Intervenors easily satisfy each of these foundational requirements. Once this threshold showing has been made, the 1 Defendants response is titled Conditional Opposition to Motion to Intervene and Motion for Entry of Stay. However, the thrust of Defendants response is that at this early juncture, it is too early for a final decision on Plaintiff-Intervenors Motion to Intervene, and therefore consideration of the Motion should be stayed. Plaintiff- Intervenors will respond to Defendants Motion for Entry of Stay in accordance with the deadline set by the Court.
2 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 98 decision whether to permit intervention is in the sound discretion of the district court. 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1911, at p. 453 (3d ed Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting intervention to Plaintiff-Intervenors. A. The Proposed Intervention Will Not Unduly Delay The Adjudication of Plaintiffs Claims. Plaintiffs argument that intervention by Plaintiff-Intervenors should be denied because it will serve only to complicate the efficient prosecution of Plaintiffs claims, Opp. at pp. 3-4, fails on several grounds. First, although permitting intervention by additional parties will always require some additional time, delay in and of itself does not mean that intervention should be denied. The rule requires the court to consider whether intervention will unduly delay the adjudication. Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, 1913, at pp (emphasis added. The court must remember that Rule 1 charges it with responsibility for both the just and the speedy determination of the action and it must balance whatever delay may occur against the advantages of the disposition of all the claims or defenses in one action. Id. Here, Plaintiff-Intervenors would substantially advance the development of the underlying factual issues, see Motion at pp. 8-9; Belcher Decl. 6-7 (Dkt. 5, and so would help to ensure a just determination of the important constitutional issues at stake. Plaintiffs do not even mention the Declaration of Tim Belcher or the MSEA s role in the legislative process leading to the enactment of the 1999 legislation at issue here, but instead assert that whatever information Plaintiff-Intervenors have to offer can simply be presented through participation as amici. Opp. at p. 6. However, as discussed below, as amici Plaintiff-Intervenors simply would not have the same rights and opportunities as full-fledged parties. 2
3 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 99 Second, any concerns that intervention will lead to duplicative discovery and unnecessary delay can be alleviated by the Court s exercise of its authority to set discovery deadlines and limit discovery (e.g. number of interrogatories, number of depositions to each side of the litigation, rather than to each party. Furthermore, counsel for Plaintiffs has indicated to the undersigned that Plaintiffs and Defendants do not anticipate the need for any discovery and have agreed that the case will be decided on the papers. Declaration of Jeffrey Neil Young (Young Decl., 2 & Ex. 1 thereto. If Plaintiffs anticipate conducting no discovery in the case, there can be no valid concerns about duplicative discovery or undue delay. 2 Finally, the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs are readily distinguishable. All of the cases relied on by Plaintiffs involve situations in which the would-be intervenors sought to intervene on behalf of a governmental defendant. In each instance, this Court concluded that the government was more than capable of representing the interests of Maine s citizens and defending its own laws. In Daggett v. Webster, 190 F.R.D. 12 (D. Me. 1999, the prospective intervenors, candidates for election, sought to intervene to join the Attorney General s office in defending Maine s campaign finance law. The district court expressly found that the Attorney General is the proper legal representative of the state s interest in defending the validity of its laws and that the representation was completely adequate by any imaginable measure. Id. at Similarly, in Maine v. Norton, 203 F.R.D. 22 (D. Me. 2001, the would-be intervenors, various environmental groups, moved to intervene to join two federal agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service and Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, in defending regulations regarding the Atlantic salmon population. Again, the court expressly concluded that the federal agencies were fully capable of defending the regulations. Id. at 29. Under these circumstances, the 2 At this early stage, Plaintiff-Intervenors cannot be certain that they will not see the need for any discovery in this case. 3
4 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 100 Daggett and Norton courts held that permitting intervention would not enhance the resolution of the case and would only serve to delay and complicate the proceedings. Here, by way of contrast, Plaintiff-Intervenors seek to intervene as plaintiffs in a class action challenging state legislation on constitutional grounds. Unlike in Daggett and Norton, Plaintiff-Intervenors have raised legitimate concerns about whether MAR will adequately represent their interests, as set forth in Plaintiff s Motion to Intervene and discussed in more detail below. Furthermore, again unlike in Daggett and Norton, if intervention is not granted, Plaintiff-Intervenors members can opt out and file their own suit(s, which would lead to delay and potentially duplicative discovery. B. Plaintiff-Intervenors Have Legitimate Concerns About Whether MAR Will Adequately Represent Their Interests. Plaintiffs incorrectly assert that Plaintiff-Intervenors do not question the adequacy of representation. Opp. p. 5. While Plaintiff-Intervenors do not question the adequacy of class counsel, they have raised legitimate concerns about whether MAR will adequately represent the interests of Plaintiff-Intervenors. In their Motion, Plaintiff-Intervenors raised concerns about MAR s ability to finance the litigation. Plaintiff-Intervenors also pointed out that MAR s interests and goals are in some respects at odds with those of Plaintiff-Intervenors, particularly given that the MSEA, MEA and MSTA together represent approximately 7,500 of the prospective class members, most of whom may not be members of MAR, and MAR has expressed hostility toward union involvement. 3 See Mtn. at pp. 7-8; Quint Decl. 2; Walker Decl. 8. Plaintiffs further assert that Plaintiff-Intervenors will have an opportunity to raise the issue of adequacy of representation at the class certification stage. However, there is no indication of when the petition for class certification will be filed. Moreover, adequacy of 3 The Motion to Intervene incorrectly stated that the Plaintiff-Intervenors represent the bulk of the retired employees affected by the 2011 Amendments. The Motion should have stated that Plaintiff-Intervenors represent the bulk of the retired employees affected by the 2011 Amendments who are not members of MAR. 4
5 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 101 representation is an important factor in the permissive intervention analysis, see Canadian Nat. Ry Co. v. Montreal Maine & Atlantic Ry., 2010 WL , at *8 (D. Me. Dec. 14, 2010, and therefore must be addressed when the court decides the Motion to Intervene. 4 Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff-Intervenors are trying to inject additional issues and unnecessarily complicate the case (Opp. at p. 6 misunderstands Plaintiff-Intervenors argument. Plaintiff-Intervenors do not seek to expand the proposed class beyond retirees. However, retirees who were members of the MSEA, MEA and MSTA during their employment have voluntarily elected to pay dues and have their interests protected and advanced by those organizations after their retirement. Although some of Plaintiff-Intervenors retiree members are also members of MAR, most may not be; Plaintiff-Intervenors cannot know the precise numbers without knowing more about MAR s membership. Plaintiff-Intervenors retiree members arguably would prefer to be represented by the organizations to which they are paying dues and with which they have longstanding relationship, not by an organization that has expressed hostility toward unions. Moreover, here again, Plaintiffs fail to address the import of the unions role in the enactment of the legislation. See Belcher Decl., 6-7. Contrary to Plaintiff s assertion (Opp. at p. 6, n.4, collective bargaining may be relevant to this case, to the extent the unions agreed to forego wages, benefits or conditions of employment in return for the enactment of legislation on retiree benefits. Finally, the case law relied upon by Plaintiffs regarding adequacy of representation is clearly distinguishable. In Massachusetts Food Ass'n v. Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 197 F.3d 560, 567 (1 st Cir. 1999, would-be intervenors, several trade organizations, moved for intervention to join the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in defending a statute regarding liquor stores. The court concluded that the Commonwealth was adequately 4 Consideration of the adequacy of representation could be deferred if, as Defendants request, the consideration of the Motion to Intervene were stayed until the court s consideration of the petition for class certification. 5
6 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 102 representing the interests of everyone concerned to defend the statute, noting that courts have been quite ready to presume that a government defendant will adequately represent the interests of all private defenders of the statute or regulation unless there is a showing to the contrary. Id. at 567, 568. Thus, Mass. Food Ass n, like Daggett and Norton, reflects the general presumption that the government, in defending its own laws, will adequately represent the interests of all citizens who support the law. That presumption is wholly inapplicable in this case. 5 C. Plaintiff-Intervenors Interest In This Action Is Not Adequately Addressed By Granting Them Amici Status. Plaintiffs claim that whatever facts the Proposed Intervenors have to offer, that information can be presented through participation as amici or friendly witnesses. Opp. at p.7. However, amici simply do not have the same opportunities or status as a full-fledged party. An amicus is not a party and does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the court. Alliance of Automobile Mfrs. v. Gwadowsky, 297 F.Supp.2d 305, (D. Me (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; see also New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of Colorado, 592 F.2d 1196, 1198 (1 st Cir (defining an amicus as one who, not as parties,... but, just as any stranger might, for the assistance of the court gives information of some matter of law in regard to which the court is doubtful or mistaken (internal quotation marks and citations omitted. An amicus is not afforded many of the basic rights and opportunities that a party enjoys for example, the right to participate in 5 Citing 5 M.R.S.A , Plaintiffs question Plaintiff-Intervenors ability to bring claims on behalf of the proposed class, noting that members of the MEA and MSEA occupy seats on the Board of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement System. Opp. p. 5, n.3. However, once appointed to the Board of Trustees, those trustees have an independent fiduciary obligation to administer MePERS. In other words, their duty is to the plan participants, not to the MSEA or MEA, and it is entirely inaccurate to suggest that the union intervenors would be on both sides of this case. Moreover, MAR seeks to represent a class of all 28,000 retirees receiving retirement benefits as of June 20, 2011, Complaint 30. At least one of the MePERS Board members, George Burgoyne, is a current recipient of retirement benefits and therefore is also a member of the class. Thus, to the extent there is any conflict (which Plaintiff-Intervenors contend there is not, that conflict likewise applies to the existing Plaintiffs. Finally, to alleviate any concerns about an appearance of conflict, George Burgoyne, a MePERS Board member who was also a member of the MSEA Board, and Kenneth Williams, a MePERS Board member who was also a member of the MEA Board, have resigned their memberships on the MSEA and MEA Boards. Young Decl.,
7 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 103 settlement negotiations, the right to participate in oral argument, the right to examine or crossexamine witnesses in deposition or at trial, the right to engage in written discovery, and the right to appeal an adverse decision. and the right on appeal to advance new arguments not made by a party. Weaver s Cove Energy, LLC v. Rhode Island Coastal Resources, 589 F.3d 458, 467 (1 st Cir Permitting Plaintiff-Intervenors to participate as amici is not equivalent to granting them leave to intervene as party plaintiffs. D. Plaintiff-Intervenors Ability To Opt Out Of The Class Further Counsels In Favor Of Granting Intervention. Finally, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Plaintiff-Intervenors can protect their interests by either opting out of the class or raising their concerns at a fairness hearing. Opp. at p.7. This is true, but it is an argument in favor of granting intervention, not against it. This is not a case in which Plaintiff-Intervenors represent just a few individuals, or are public policy organizations that seek to join governmental defendants in defending a state law or regulation. Compare Daggett, 190 F.R.D. 12; Norton, 203 F.R.D. 22. Rather, in this case, Plaintiff-Intervenor organizations represent approximately 7,500 individual retirees, or about one-fourth of the prospective class. If the MEA, MSEA and MTA were denied permissive intervention, then their 7,500 retiree members could opt out of this action and file their own action(s. Multiple separate and duplicative actions clearly would not serve the interests of judicial economy, nor would they promote a just adjudication of the constitutional questions at issue in this case. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in their Motion to Intervene, Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Intervene. 7
8 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 104 Dated: May 9, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey Neil Young Jeffrey Neil Young McTEAGUE HIGBEE Four Union Park P.O. Box 5000 Topsham, ME Telephone: ( jyoung@mcteaguehigbee.com Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Maine State Employees Association, Rona Backstrom, Kathleen Kadi, and Robert Ruhlin; Maine Education Association, Robert Walker, and Philip Gonyar; and Maine State Troopers Association, Craig Poulin, and Timothy Culbert /s/ Carol J. Garvan Carol J. Garvan McTEAGUE HIGBEE Four Union Park P.O. Box 5000 Topsham, ME Telephone: ( cgarvan@mcteaguehigbee.com Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Maine State Employees Association, Rona Backstrom, Kathleen Kadi, and Robert Ruhlin; Maine Education Association, Robert Walker, and Philip Gonyar; and Maine State Troopers Association, Craig Poulin, and Timothy Culbert 8
9 Case 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeffrey Neil Young, hereby certify that on May 9, 2012, I electronically filed Plaintiff- Intervenors Reply In Response To Plaintiffs Opposition And Defendants Conditional Opposition To Plaintiff-Intervenors Motion For Leave To Intervene and Declaration of Jeffrey Neil Young in support thereof with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filings to the following counsel of record: James T. Kilbreth, Esq. Drummond Woodsum 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 Portland, ME jkilbreth@dwmlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Timothy C. Woodcock, Esq. Eaton Peabody P. O. Box 1210 Bangor, ME twoodcock@eatonpeabody.com Attorney for Defendants /s/ Jeffrey Neil Young Jeffrey Neil Young McTEAGUE HIGBEE Four Union Park, P.O. Box 5000 Topsham, ME ( jyoung@mcteaguehigbee.com 9
Case 2:15-cv JAW Document 116 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 2:15-cv-00054-JAW Document 116 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 2:15-cv-00054-JAW
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:14-cv-09281-PSG-SH Document 34 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:422 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for
More information8:13-cv JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:13-cv-00215-JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ACTIVISION TV, INC., Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE BANCORP, INC.,
More informationCase: 1:18-cv TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 64 Filed: 08/16/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 675
Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 64 Filed: 08/16/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 675 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00731-ALM Document 98 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4746 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 217 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Defendants.
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. :-cv--mjp DEFENDANTS
More informationCase 1:17-cv JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00406-JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN S ASSOCIATION; et al., v. Plaintiffs, WILBUR J.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division NICOLE P. ERAMO, v. Plaintiff, ROLLING STONE, LLC, SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY, and WENNER MEDIA, LLC, Defendants.
More informationCase: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 53 Filed: 09/14/15 1 of 7. PageID #: 1082 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 514-cv-02331-JRA Doc # 53 Filed 09/14/15 1 of 7. PageID # 1082 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ELLORA S CAVE PUBLISHING, INC., et al. v. Plaintiffs, DEAR AUTHOR MEDIA NETWORK,
More informationCase 4:18-cv O Document 74 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 879
Case 4:18-cv-00167-O Document 74 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 879 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
More informationCase 8:14-cv DKC Document 47 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:14-cv-00550-DKC Document 47 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, et al. : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-0550
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No.
Case: 17-10135 Document: 00513935913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS E. PRICE, Secretary
More informationCase 2:07-cv MJP Document 22 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-0-MJP Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of Hon. Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 ROSHANAK ROSHANDEL; VAFA GHAZI-MOGHADDAM; HAWO AHMED; and
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901
Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case
More informationCase 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALITY
More informationCase CAC/2:12-cv Document 11 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 8 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case CAC/2:12-cv-11017 Document 11 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 8 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION In re BRANDYWINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC PATENT LITIGATION MDL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:15-cv-02573-PSG-JPR Document 31 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:258 #19 (7/13 HRG OFF) Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No Plaintiffs-Appellees,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEVADA, et al., No. 16-41606 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants. APPELLEES OPPOSITION
More informationCase 1:07-cv RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-00146-RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
More informationCase 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) BUSH-CHENEY 04, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 04:CV-01612 (EGS) v. ) ) FEDERAL
More informationCase 1:17-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00827-EGS Document 19 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-cv-00827 (EGS U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-CBS Document 24 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-CV-00644-WDM-CBS EDWARD J. KERBER, et al., vs.
More informationCase 1:17-cv ERK-RLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageid>
Case 1:17-cv-04843-ERK-RLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
United States of America v. Hargrove et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION HUGH JARRATT and JARRATT INDUSTRIES, LLC PLAINTIFFS v. No. 5:16-CV-05302 AMAZON.COM, INC. DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER
More informationCase 2:10-cv HGD Document 31 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-02990-HGD Document 31 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 10 FILED 2011 Jun-27 PM 02:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE ATTACHMENT
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Location: Portland CONTI ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Docket No. BCD-CV-15-49 / THERMOGEN I, LLC CA TE STREET CAPITAL, INC. and GNP WEST,
More informationCase 1:08-cv WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. 08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION
Case 4:14-cv-00139-HLM Document 34 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., and DAVID JAMES, Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )
More informationCase 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:16-cv-00315-NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9 JOHN R. GREEN Acting United States Attorney NICHOLAS VASSALLO (WY Bar #5-2443 Assistant United States Attorney P.O. Box 668 Cheyenne, WY 82003-0668
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gary J. Smith (SBN BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0- Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 gsmith@bdlaw.com Peter J.
More informationCase 2:09-sp RSM Document 285 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-sp-0000-RSM Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Civil No. C0-
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-5205 Document #1358116 Filed: 02/13/2012 Page 1 of 16 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No. 11-5205 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, Plaintiff, C.A. No. 1:04CV01032 (JDB v. JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRYAN'S ALE HOUSE & GRILL et al Doc. 45 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationUnited States District Court
0 0 JOHN DOE, et al., v. KAMALA HARRIS, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendants. NO. C- TEH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE This case
More informationCase 1:16-cv EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01008-EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:16-cv-01008-EGS S. M.
More information3:18-cv JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 8 Page 1 of 6
3:18-cv-01795-JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 8 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ) ENVIRONMENT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case Number: 03-4217-CV-C-NKL ) MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Administrator
More informationCase 4:18-cv JSW Document 18 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 0 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHAWN A. WILLIAMS ( Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: /- /- (fax shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ALAN M. DOWNES, On behalf of himself and on behalf of All others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-C-0637-LA v. WISCONSIN ENERGY CORP.
More informationCase 1:16-cv RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:16-cv-02410-RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DYLAN TOKAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-2410 (RC) ) UNITED STATES
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-ckj Document Filed // Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00-0..000 0 Brett W. Johnson (# ) Eric H. Spencer (# 00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670218 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Murray Energy Corporation,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., and DAVID JAMES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. v. 4:14-CV-139-HLM U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
More informationCase 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:13-cv-00185-S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ) DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 13-185
More informationCase 2:15-cv WHW-CLW Document 22 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 175
SCOTT WEBB, EXECUTOR OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT V. 1 4. Defendant claims that the alleged debt due on the Note has been satisfied with Cheryl s Dan Krudys and Cheryl Krudys
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0..000 0 0 Brett W. Johnson (#0) Sara J. Agne (#00) Joy L. Isaacs (#00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,
USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-000-tor ECF No. filed 0// PageID. Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, U.S. Secretary of Labor, v. Plaintiff, JAMES DEWALT; ROBERT G. BAKIE;
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER
Remington v. Newbridge Securities Corp. Doc. 143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-60384-CIV-COHN/SELTZER URSULA FINKEL, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
More informationHonorable James J. Wechler v. San Juan River Adjudication. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Claims of Navajo Nation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SAN JUAN ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. STATE ENGINEER, D-1116-CV-75-184 Plaintiff, Honorable James J. Wechler v. San Juan River Adjudication THE UNITED
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR ORDER LIFTING STAY INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Chapter 9 Case no. 13-53846 Debtor. Hon. Steven W. Rhodes BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:06-cv-01891-JTC Document 8 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM
More informationCase 2:15-cv DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00828-DN-BCW Document 111 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 8 JOHN W. HUBER, United States Attorney (#7226) JOHN K. MANGUM, Assistant United States Attorney (#2072) 185 South State Street, Suite 300
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Plaintiffs, Defendants, Defendant-Intervenors
David J. Cummings, OSB #92269 - dic@nez~erce.org Office of Legal Counsel P. 0. Box 305 Lapwai, ID 83540 Telephone (208) 843.73 5 5 Facsimile 208) 843.7377 Geoffrey Whiting, OSB #95454 gwhitin~@,oregonvos.net
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-bas-jma Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 Charles S. LiMandri, SBN 0 Paul M. Jonna, SBN Teresa L. Mendoza, SBN 0 Jeffrey M. Trissell, SBN 0 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND P.O. Box
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 ROBERT G. DREHER Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice F. PATRICK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Donna Lloyd s ( Plaintiff ) second request
LLOYD v. AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Doc. 31 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONNA LLOYD, Civil Action No. 11-4071 (JAP) Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM ORDER AUGME TECHNOLOGIES,
More informationCase 3:17-cv L Document 25 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID 171
Case 3:17-cv-03300-L Document 25 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID 171 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as Sponsor and Administrator
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
More informationCase: 4:14-cv ERW Doc. #: 74 Filed: 07/13/15 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 523. Case No.: 4:14-cv-00159
Case: 4:14-cv-00159-ERW Doc. #: 74 Filed: 07/13/15 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 523 UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JOHN PRATER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:16-cv-06848-CAS-GJS Document 17 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:268 Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 69 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1796
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 69 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1796 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC. et al.,
More informationCase 2:13-cv LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01999-LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 13-cv-01999
More informationCase 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-000-spl Document Filed 0// Page of William R. Mettler, Esq. S. Price Road Chandler, Arizona Arizona State Bar No. 00 (0 0-0 wrmettler@wrmettlerlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Zenith Financial
More informationCase 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044
Case 2:13-cv-01276-KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- SPEEDFIT LLC and AUREL
More informationCase 2:18-cv KOB Document 20 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:18-cv-00907-KOB Document 20 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2018 Sep-04 PM 04:51 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:17-cv-00515-WO-JEP Document 55 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MICHAEL CROWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-515-WO-JEP
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,
USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:09-md-02089-TCB Document 286 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: DELTA/AIRTRAN BAGGAGE FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No
Case: 10-56971, 04/22/2015, ID: 9504505, DktEntry: 238-1, Page 1 of 21 (1 of 36) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationCase 1:96-cv TFH Document 3846 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:96-cv-01285-TFH Document 3846 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96cv01285(TFH)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al. Defendants. O R D E R 2:06-CV-72-DF Before the Court
More informationCase: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302
Case: 4:15-cv-01361-JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15-cv-01361-JAR
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #13-1108 Document #1670157 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1668276 Filed: 03/28/2017 Page 1 of 12 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1693477 Filed: 09/18/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID
More informationCase 1:17-mc JMS-KSC Document 25 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 255 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:17-mc-00303-JMS-KSC Document 25 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 255 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII IN RE: WHOLE WOMAN S HEALTH, et al. vs. Plaintiffs, KEN PAXTON,
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document130 Filed12/08/14 Page1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-SI Document0 Filed/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, $0,000.00 RES IN LIEU REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED
More informationCase 3:10-cv RRB Document 80 Filed 12/27/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:-cv-00-RRB Document 0 Filed 1// Page 1 of 3 4 Thomas V. Van Flein John Tiemessen Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness LLC 11 H S1., Suite 0 Anchorage, Alaska 01-344 Phone: (0 - Facsimile:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00162 Document 132 Filed in TXSD on 08/22/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Case: 14-16840, 03/25/2015, ID: 9472629, DktEntry: 25-1, Page 1 of 13 14-16840 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFF SILVESTER, BRANDON COMBS, THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., a
More informationCase 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01689-EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE POLAR BEAR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING AND 4(d) RULE LITIGATION Misc. Action
More informationUSDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED~;AUG
Case 1:12-cv-07887-AJN Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( ALE)( AND
More informationCase 1:05-cv PBS Document 467 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:05-cv-11148-PBS Document 467 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:05-cv-11148-PBS Document 467 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 2 of 8 Case 1:05-cv-11148-PBS Document 467 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 3 of 8 Case 1:05-cv-11148-PBS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
Case 2:13-cv-00104-WCO Document 31 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE Plaintiff,
More information2:12-cv MOB-MKM Doc # 107 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1470
2:12-cv-00601-MOB-MKM Doc # 107 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1470 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION CASE
More information