Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
|
|
- Melvyn Augustus Perkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MENG-LIN LIU, 13-CV-0317 (WHP) Plaintiff, ECF CASE - against - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED SIEMENS AG, Defendant. REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SIEMENS AG S MOTION TO DISMISS Eric C. Liebeler (pro hac vice pending) SIEMENS CORPORATION 300 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) eric.liebeler@siemens.com Counsel for Siemens AG Brant W. Bishop, P.C. Ragan Naresh (pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) brant.bishop@kirkland.com ragan.naresh@kirkland.com Counsel for Siemens AG
2 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...1 ARGUMENT...2 I. The Anti-Retaliation Provision Does Not Reach The Extraterritorial Conduct Alleged In The Amended Complaint....2 II. The Amended Complaint Fails To Allege That Mr. Liu Was A Whistleblower Who Engaged In Protected Activity....6 CONCLUSION...10 i
3 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 3 of 16 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, No , 2013 WL (5th Cir. July 17, 2003)... passim Carnero v. Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006)... 2, 9 Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009) In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)... 5 In re Gupta, Case No SOX-54, 2011 WL (Dep t of Labor Jan. 7, 2011) In re Royal Bank of Scotland Grp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)... 6 In re Villanueva, ARB Case No , 2011 WL (Dep t of Labor Dec. 22, 2011)... 9 Morrison v. Nat l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct (2010)... passim Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 12 Civ (JMF), 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)... 7 Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc., 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010)... 3, 6 Souryal v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC, 847 F. Supp. 2d 835 (E.D. Va. 2012)... 4 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. 78aa U.S.C. 78j U.S.C. 78u-6... passim 15 U.S.C ii
4 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 4 of U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C. 1514A U.S.C REGULATIONS 17 C.F.R b C.F.R F C.F.R F C.F.R F iii
5 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 5 of 16 INTRODUCTION Unable to connect this case to the United States and without answers to the precedent squarely foreclosing his arguments, Plaintiff Meng-Lin Liu glosses over the extraterritorial nature of his amended complaint and simply ignores the law requiring dismissal. In fact, Mr. Liu s opposition brief ends up highlighting the many reasons why the amended complaint must be dismissed. First, the opposition identifies nothing in the Dodd-Frank Act s Anti-Retaliation Provision that overcomes the strong presumption against applying that provision to the extraterritorial conduct alleged in the amended complaint. Mr. Liu merely reiterates arguments that courts have repeatedly rejected: that the breadth of the provision means it must apply overseas, that the extraterritorial reach of a different part of the statute carries over to every other part of the law, and that the SEC s regulations on bounty awards evince the necessary congressional intent to extend the Anti- Retaliation Provision beyond the United States. Siemens pointed out the fundamental flaws in each of these arguments in its opening brief. Mr. Liu responded by simply ignoring the controlling cases and by straining to find even a small domestic link in this case. But in so doing, Mr. Liu only underscores the extraterritorial nature of the case: Mr. Liu is a foreign employee who allegedly raised concerns about foreign transactions and was allegedly retaliated against by a foreign company operating in a foreign country. See Opp n at 1 2. Second, Mr. Liu all but concedes that when his contract was terminated he was not a whistleblower whose disclosures were required or protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ( SOX ), a showing he must make to satisfy the requirements of the Anti-Retaliation Provision. As the Fifth Circuit recently held, Dodd-Frank protects only those who blow the whistle to the SEC something Mr. Liu admits he did not do until months after the alleged retaliation. See Am. Compl , ; Opp n at 1 2; Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, No , 2013 WL (5th Cir. July 17, 2003). Moreover, SOX, which Mr. Liu identifies as the only law that 1
6 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 6 of 16 protected his internal disclosures, does not apply at all to foreign employees of foreign companies. See Carnero v. Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 7 9 (1st Cir. 2006). Mr. Liu concedes this point yet fails to cite even a single case to support his theory that SOX could somehow still protect his disclosures for purposes of the Anti-Retaliation Provision. See Opp n at At bottom, the opposition fails to resolve the fatal flaws in Mr. Liu s amended complaint. Further amendment would be futile, and the amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. ARGUMENT I. The Anti-Retaliation Provision Does Not Reach The Extraterritorial Conduct Alleged In The Amended Complaint. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal statutes apply only within the United States unless Congress has clearly extended their reach to foreign activity. See Morrison v. Nat l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2877 (2010). When a provision is silent as to whether it applies extraterritorially, as here, there is a well-established presumption that it does not reach foreign conduct. See id. at 2881 (recognizing the traditional principle that silence means no extraterritorial application ); Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, No. 4:12-cv-345, 2012 WL , at *4 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2012) ( [T]he language of the Dodd-Frank Anti-Retaliation Provision is silent regarding whether it applies extraterritorially. ). Mr. Liu has no meaningful response to this settled law, so he simply ignores the cases Siemens cited in its opening brief and recycles arguments that the courts have routinely rejected. First, Mr. Liu argues that the plain language of the [Anti-Retaliation Provision] contains very broad language that includes all employees, both foreign and domestic. Opp n at 3. This argument, however, has been squarely rejected in cases Siemens previously cited. See Mem. at 8 9. The Anti-Retaliation Provision provides generically that [n]o employer shall retaliate against a whistleblower and creates a cause of action for an[y] individual who suffers such retaliation. 15 2
7 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 7 of 16 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1); see Opp n at 3 4. In Morrison, the Supreme Court considered similarly broad language in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to violate the SEC s fraud rules. 130 S. Ct. at (quoting 15 U.S.C. 78j). The Court held that the mere breadth of the statutory language did not provide the necessary affirmative indication of Congress s intent to rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality. Id. at The Second Circuit has similarly held that the federal RICO statute does not authorize private actions based on extraterritorial conduct even though it provides that [a]ny person injured, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), by racketeering activity may sue in federal court. See Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc., 631 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Morrison, Norex, and other cases establish the rule that generically broad language does not satisfy the requirement of clear congressional intent on the specific question of extraterritorial application. Mr. Liu s opposition brief completely ignores that rule, which squarely forecloses his argument here. See Opp n at 3 4. Second, Mr. Liu argues that by specifically providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction in a related section of the statute, Congress clearly evidenced its intention to protect SEC whistleblowers located abroad. Opp n at 4 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78aa(b)). As the Court knows, however, this argument has been squarely rejected: The express extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction in a different part of the Dodd-Frank Act cuts against Mr. Liu s argument. See Mem. at 7 9; see also Asadi, 2012 WL , at *4 ( The language of Dodd-Frank s Section 929P(b) thus strengthens the conclusion that the Anti-Retaliation Provision does not apply extraterritorially. ). In Morrison, the Supreme Court explained that when a statute provides for some extraterritorial application, the presumption against extraterritoriality operates to limit that provision to its terms. 130 S. Ct. at The opposition does not address this controlling, adverse precedent. See Opp n at 4. Again, Mr. Liu simply pretends it does not exist. 3
8 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 8 of 16 Third, Mr. Liu argues that the Anti-Retaliation Provision must apply extraterritorially because SEC regulations authorize the payment of bounty awards to foreign whistleblowers who provide the agency with information about federal securities violations. See Opp n at 4 5 (citing, for example, 17 C.F.R F-8(c)(2)). In so arguing, however, Mr. Liu confuses two different parts of the Dodd-Frank Act: He improperly tries to borrow the extraterritorial reach of the bounty program provision to supply the express extraterritorial authorization that is missing from the wholly separate Anti-Retaliation Provision. The bounty program rewards whistleblowers, foreign or domestic, who provide information that leads to a successful government enforcement action. See 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(b); 17 C.F.R F-3(a)(3). Whether the SEC has jurisdiction to pursue foreign fraud cases or to award bounties to foreign whistleblowers is not at issue here. Rather, the question is whether the Anti-Retaliation Provision reaches extraterritorial conduct. That part of the law is set out in its own subsection of the Dodd-Frank Act and does not mention any extraterritorial application at all. See 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h). The SEC s anti-retaliation regulations are similarly separated from its rules on the bounty program. See 17 C.F.R F-2. Siemens explained the sharp distinction between the bounty program and the Anti-Retaliation Provision in its opening brief a distinction Mr. Liu again ignores. Mem. at 9 10; Opp n at Once again, the decision to expressly extend other parts of the Dodd-Frank Act to foreign conduct confirms that the Anti- Retaliation Provision which does not contain a similar express statement on its extraterritorial 1 In addition, Mr. Liu still has not cited any authority suggesting that agency regulations promulgated after a statute is enacted can somehow provide the clear indication that Congress intended the law to apply to foreign conduct. See Mem. at 9 (citing Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877). [N]o regulation could supply, on Congress s behalf, the clear legislative intent required to overcome... the presumption against extraterritoriality. Souryal v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC, 847 F. Supp. 2d 835, 843 (E.D. Va. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4
9 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 9 of 16 application was clearly not intended to apply to foreign conduct. If Congress had intended an extraterritorial application, it would have expressly provided for it. Finally, Mr. Liu argues that the Morrison framework is altogether inapplicable because, unlike the defendant in that Section 10(b) case, Siemens has voluntarily subjected itself to the full range of U.S. securities laws in return for the benefits of being listed on a U.S. exchange. Opp n at 7. This argument is badly misdirected. If Siemens voluntarily subjected itself to U.S. securities laws, it only subjected itself to the laws as far as Congress intended them to reach. As noted above, Congress did not intend the Dodd-Frank Anti-Retaliation Provision to reach extraterritorial conduct, and the subjecting itself argument does not change that point. In Morrison itself, just as here, the defendant had voluntarily subjected itself to U.S. securities laws by registering American Depository Receipts ( ADRs ) for trade on the New York Stock Exchange. See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at But that did not alleviate the problem of having to apply the U.S. securities laws to extraterritorial conduct, which the Supreme Court refused to do. Id. at 2883, There is no meaningful distinction between the securities law at issue in Morrison and the one at issue here: The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies only to certain federal statutes. See id. at 2881 ( Rather than guess anew in each case, we apply the presumption in all cases, preserving a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects. ). Nor is the mere listing of Siemens ADRs on the New York Stock Exchange 2 Mr. Liu disingenuously claims that Siemens AG s common shares are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Opp n at 1. This allegation is false, and Mr. Liu appears to know it is false. See id. at 11 (acknowledging that Siemens ADRs, not common shares, are listed on the NYSE). Indeed, it is public knowledge that Siemens ADRs, not common shares, are listed on the NYSE. See Siemens AG Listing, New York Stock Exchange (Aug. 7, 2013, 10:00 PM), see also In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 903 F. Supp. 2d 198, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ( [I]t is well established that courts may take judicial notice of publicly available documents on a motion to dismiss. ). Siemens further confirmed this fact in its Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. See Dkt. No. 9 (June 11, 2013). 5
10 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 10 of 16 enough to make this a case about domestic (rather than foreign) conduct. It is well-established that plaintiffs cannot circumvent the presumption against extraterritoriality simply by identifying some minimal connection between their lawsuit and the United States. See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884; Norex, 631 F.3d at 33; see also In re Royal Bank of Scotland Grp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 327, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ( The idea that a foreign company is subject to U.S. Securities laws everywhere it conducts foreign transactions merely because it has listed some securities in the United States is simply contrary to the spirit of Morrison. ). Mr. Liu s struggle to identify a single meaningful domestic connection only highlights the fact that all the relevant conduct here is foreign. In short, the opposition fails to show that the Anti-Retaliation Provision applies to a foreign employee working for a foreign company in a foreign country. As a result, Mr. Liu s amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. II. The Amended Complaint Fails To Allege That Mr. Liu Was A Whistleblower Who Engaged In Protected Activity. The Anti-Retaliation Provision protects only (1) identified persons ( whistleblowers ) (2) against retaliation for specified conduct (making disclosures that were required or protected by law). 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1)(A). Mr. Liu is unable to satisfy either statutory requirement. First, Mr. Liu was not a protected person i.e., a whistleblower when Siemens China allegedly retaliated against him. As Siemens pointed out in its opening brief, Mem. at 13 14, Dodd- Frank s statutory text confirms that one becomes a whistleblower by providing information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(a)(6) (emphasis added). It then goes on to prohibit retaliation against those whistleblowers for any lawful act done: (i) in providing information to the Commission in accordance with this section; 6
11 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 11 of 16 (ii) in initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the Commission based upon or related to such information; or (iii) in making disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C et seq.), this chapter, including section 78j-1(m) of this title, section 1513(e) of Title 18, and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1)(A). Because Mr. Liu had not contacted the SEC when the alleged retaliation occurred, see Am. Compl , , he did not qualify for any protection under the statute at the time. The opposition offers no meaningful response. Mr. Liu points to several district court opinions concluding that subsection 6(h)(1)(A)(iii) would be superfluous if disclosure to the SEC were necessary to become a protected whistleblower. See Opp n at 8 (citing, for example, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 12 Civ (JMF), 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)). As the Fifth Circuit recently held, however, this confuses the question of who is a protected person under subsection 6(a)(6) with the conduct against which retaliation is prohibited by subsection 6(h)(1)(A). See Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, No , 2013 WL , at *4 5 (5th Cir. July 17, 2013). That recognition, furthermore, eliminates the supposed superfluity on which Mr. Liu relies: Subsection 6(h)(1)(A)(iii) plainly provides protection even if the disclosures to the SEC were not the target of the retaliation. Id. at *5 6. The court used the following example to illustrate the point: A mid-level manager discovers a securities violation and reports it both to the company s CEO and to the SEC. The CEO, not yet aware of the disclosure to the SEC, immediately fires the manager. Subsection 6(h)(1)(A)(iii) alone protects the manager from that retaliation: The mid-level manager, clearly a whistleblower as defined in Dodd-Frank because he provided information to the SEC relating to a securities law violation, would be unable to prove that he was retaliated against because of the report to the SEC. Accordingly, the first and second category of protected activity would not shield this whistleblower from retaliation. The third category of protected activity, however, protects the mid-level manager. In this scenario, the internal disclosure to the CEO, 7
12 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 12 of 16 a person with supervisory authority over the mid-level manager, is protected under... the anti-retaliation provision enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.... Accordingly, even though the CEO was not aware of the report to the SEC at the time he terminated the mid-level manager, the mid-level manager can state a claim under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower-protection provision because he was a whistleblower and suffered retaliation based on his disclosure to the CEO, which was protected under SOX. Id. at *6. This proper understanding of subsection 6(h)(1)(A)(iii) obviates the need or discretion to distort the plain meaning of other parts of the statute. Congress made clear that an employee qualifies as a whistleblower only upon providing information to the SEC. See 15 U.S.C. 78u- 6(a)(6); Asadi, 2013 WL , at *8. That rule forecloses Mr. Liu s entire suit as a matter of law. Rather than grapple with the merits of this argument, Mr. Liu insists that Siemens waived it by supposedly expressly conced[ing] that Mr. Liu is entitled to Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protection if he made disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Opp n at 8. This is patently false: Siemens in fact made clear that it does not acknowledge that Mr. Liu is entitled to Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection if he engaged in conduct that was protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Mem. at 14 n.5 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). 3 From the outset of this case, Siemens has explained that Mr. Liu fell outside the statutory definition of a protected whistleblower while he was working at Siemens China. See Siemens AG s Pre-Motion Letter (June 11, 2013), at 3 n.* ( Under a plain reading of the statute, Mr. Liu did not even qualify for whistleblower protection until he contacted the SEC.... ); Mem. at ( Mr. Liu s claims would also properly be dismissed because he was not a protected whistleblower before he brought his concerns to the SEC, which did not occur until well after his contract expired 3 Elsewhere, Mr. Liu claims that Siemens made repeated concessions throughout its brief that Mr. Liu was entitled to protection if he made internal disclosures that were required or protected under one of the laws enumerated in Section 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii). Opp n at 9 n.2. The opposition cannot point to a single such concession. To the contrary, Siemens has consistently pointed out that establishing a required or protected statement is a necessary (but far from sufficient) condition for the amended complaint to survive the motion to dismiss. 8
13 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 13 of 16 and all of the alleged retaliation had taken place. ). Siemens even filed a notice of supplemental authority citing the Fifth Circuit s decision in Asadi a full week before Mr. Liu filed his opposition. Dkt. No. 16 (July 24, 2013). Mr. Liu has plainly had ample opportunity to address this issue on the merits but failed to do so. 4 Second, the opposition cannot identify protected conduct, specifically how Mr. Liu s internal disclosures were protected under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as the Anti-Retaliation Provision requires. See Opp n at 7. As Siemens previously explained, SOX provides no protection for foreign employees working primarily outside the United States. Mem. at 12 (citing Carnero v. Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006), and In re Villanueva, ARB Case No , 2011 WL (Dep t of Labor Dec. 22, 2011) (en banc)). Against this background, SOX could not have protected the internal disclosures Mr. Liu made while working in China for a Chinese company. Mr. Liu does not contend that SOX applies extraterritorially, arguing instead that employees are covered by the Anti-Retaliation Provision so long as they make disclosures of a type with those actually protected by SOX. See Opp n at But the text of the statute, which plainly prohibits retaliation based on disclosures that are required or protected by SOX, squarely forecloses this claim. 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). Indeed, Mr. Liu is unable to cite any precedent that would support his novel reading of the statute. If the facts that Mr. Liu claims resulted in the alleged retaliation against him were true (which Siemens denies), they could potentially constitute violations of the FCPA. But the opposition is unable to offer a meaningful response to Siemens s argument that SOX does not protect an employee s disclosure of alleged FCPA violations. See Mem. at 13. SOX protects employees only 4 Although Mr. Liu has already had this opportunity, Siemens would not object if he requested leave to file a three-page surreply limited to the Fifth Circuit s decision in Asadi. 9
14 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 14 of 16 to the extent they report violations of (1) 18 U.S.C (mail fraud); (2) 18 U.S.C (wire fraud); (3) 18 U.S.C (bank fraud); (4) 18 U.S.C (securities fraud); (5) any rule or regulation of the SEC; or (6) any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468, (5th Cir. 2008). FCPA violations fall outside those categories. See In re Gupta, Case No SOX-54, 2011 WL , at *5 (Dep t of Labor Jan. 7, 2011); see also Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42, 57 n.15 (1st Cir. 2009). Siemens cited these authorities in its opening brief, but Mr. Liu has provided no meaningful response to them. Compare Mem. at 13, with Opp n at 11 & n.4. 5 Instead, he simply generalizes from this enumerated list of statutes by claiming, without any support, that SOX actually protects employees who report any violation of the securities laws. Opp n at 9. The clear text of the statute says otherwise. See 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a)(1). 6 At bottom, Mr. Liu s failure to allege that he was a whistleblower who made disclosures required or protected by law is an independent ground on which to dismiss the amended complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, the amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief. The flaws Siemens has identified cannot be cured. Accordingly, the amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 5 Mr. Liu claims that Siemens based its argument about the interaction between SOX and the FCPA on Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012). See Opp n at 11. In fact, Siemens cited the case only for the proposition that the FCPA itself did not require or protect his statements. See Mem. at The Court need not consider this argument, as the opposition drops any suggestion that Mr. Liu s alleged internal disclosures were required or protected by any law other than SOX. See Opp n at The opposition also now claims that Mr. Liu reported violations of the SEC s FCPA recordkeeping provision, 17 C.F.R b2-1, even though it is not cited at all in his amended complaint. See Opp n at
15 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 15 of 16 Respectfully Submitted, Dated: August 8, 2013 /s/ Brant W. Bishop, P.C. Eric C. Liebeler (pro hac vice pending) SIEMENS CORPORATION 300 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) Counsel for Siemens AG Brant W. Bishop, P.C. Ragan Naresh (pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C Tel.: (202) Counsel for Siemens AG 11
16 Case 1:13-cv WHP Document 20 Filed 08/08/13 Page 16 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Brant W. Bishop, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Memorandum in Support of Siemens AG s Motion to Dismiss to be served upon all counsel of record registered through the Court s ECF system. On this 8th day of August, /s/ Brant W. Bishop, P.C. Brant W. Bishop, P.C. Counsel for Siemens AG
LIU MENG-LIN V. SIEMENS AG, 763 F.3D 175 (2D CIR. AUG. 14, 2014) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
LIU MENG-LIN V. SIEMENS AG, 763 F.3D 175 (2D CIR. AUG. 14, 2014) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. LIU MENG LIN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SIEMENS AG, Defendant Appellee. Docket No. 13 4385
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-345
Case 4:12-cv-00345 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 05/31/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KHALED ASADI, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-345
More informationX : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiff, Defendant. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Act )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BERMAN, -v - NEO@OGILVY LLC and WPP GROUP USA INC. Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationASADI v. G.E. ENERGY (USA), LLC. Civil Action No. 4: United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. June 28, 2012.
ASADI v. G.E. ENERGY (USA), LLC KHALED ASADI, Plaintiff, v. G.E. ENERGY (USA), LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:12-345. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. June 28, 2012. Khaled
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN NICHOLAS ZILLGES, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-C-1287 KENNEY BANK & TRUST, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Nicholas Zillges has filed this
More informationThe majority and the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) have. altered a federal statute by deleting three words ( to the Commission ) from the
Case 14-4626, Document 140, 09/10/2015, 1594805, Page1 of 13 DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority and the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) have altered a federal statute by
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RAMONA LUM ROCHELEAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-56029 D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01774-CJC-JPR
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of THOMAS J. KARR (D.C. Bar No. 0) Email: KarrT@sec.gov KAREN J. SHIMP (D.C. Bar No. ) Email: ShimpK@sec.gov Attorneys for Amicus Curiae SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
More informationCase 1:08-cv RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00961-RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961
More informationJury Awards Ousted General Counsel Nearly $11 Million in Whistleblower Retaliation Action Key Takeaways
AL E R T M E MOR AN D U M Jury Awards Ousted General Counsel Nearly $11 Million in Whistleblower Retaliation Action Key Takeaways February 21, 2017 Earlier this month, following three hours of deliberation,
More informationSupreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank. Lindsey Catlett *
Supreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank Lindsey Catlett * The Dodd-Frank Act (the Act ), passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, was intended to deter abusive practices
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 02-56256 05/31/2013 ID: 8651138 DktEntry: 382 Page: 1 of 14 Appeal Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390 & 09-56381 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS HOLYWEEK SAREI, ET AL., Plaintiffs
More informationWhistleblowers: Brief Overview of Bio-Rad and Its Implications for. Corporate Counsel and Their Employers
Whistleblowers: Brief Overview of Bio-Rad and Its Implications for Corporate Counsel and Their Employers WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION AND THE BIO-RAD CASE: ETHICS RULES PRE-EMPTION AND OTHER ISSUES American
More informationDo Extraterritorial RICO Claims Still Exist in a Post-Morrison World?
Do Extraterritorial RICO Claims Still Exist in a Post-Morrison World? By Patricia A. Leonard and Gerardo J. Rodriguez-Albizu The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in 2010 that the federal RICO statute does
More informationNo. AMC3-SUP FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE
No. AMC3-SUP 2016-37-02 FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE UNION ALLIED CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KAREN PAGE, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to The Supreme Court of The United States
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re DIGITAL MUSIC ANTITRUST : LITIGATION : x MDL Docket No. 1780 (LAP) ECF Case DEFENDANT TIME WARNER S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW
More informationCase 1:14-cv WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:14-cv-09438-WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------X BENJAMIN GROSS, : Plaintiff, : -against- : GFI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M GENE E.K. PRATTER NOVEMBER 15, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY A. WIEST, et al., : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : v. : : THOMAS J. LYNCH, et al., : : No. 10-3288 Defendant. : M E M
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Cz 00 ALEXANDER LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationBalancing Federal Arbitration Policy with Whistleblower Protection: A Comment on Khazin v. TD Ameritrade
Arbitration Law Review Volume 8 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 13 5-1-2016 Balancing Federal Arbitration Policy with Whistleblower Protection: A Comment on Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Faith
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. WILLIAM VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent,
No. 12-60122 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, CORE LABORATORIES NV Intervenor. On Review from the Final
More informationARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW
WRITTEN BY: J. Wilson Eaton ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW Employers with arbitration agreements
More informationCase 1:10-cv RMU Document 8 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00196-RMU Document 8 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:10-cv-0196-RMU NATIONAL
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
In the Matter of: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD WILLIAM VILLANUEVA, ) ) Complainant, ) ) ARB CASE NO. 09-108 v. ) ) ALJ CASE NO. 2009-SOX-006 ) CORE LABORATORIES NV, ) )
More informationCase 1:16-cv NRB Document 46 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:16-cv-02578-NRB Document 46 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------X RONALD BETHUNE, on behalf of himself and all
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NADRA BANK'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 1:11-cv-02794-KMW Document 83 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK YULIA TYMOSHENKO and JOHN DOES 1 through 50, on behalf of themselves and all of
More informationCase 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:15-cv-04685-JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE:
More informationCase 1:14-cr JEI Document 114 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1312 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 1:14-cr-00263-JEI Document 114 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1312 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 14-00263-1 (JEI) JOSEPH SIGELMAN ORDER
More informationNo IN THE JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC. AND JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS, Respondent.
No. 09-525 IN THE JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC. AND JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, V. Petitioners, FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationCase 1:10-cv AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case 1:10-cv-03864-AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARY K. JONES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ECF
More informationCase 3:16-cv RS Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CRAGO, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-rs ORDER
More informationSOX Whistleblower Protections Are Not Obsolete
SOX Whistleblower Protections Are Not Obsolete Jason Zuckerman and Dallas Hammer In the wake of the Second Circuit s holding in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy 1 that the Dodd- Frank Act's whistleblower provision
More informationCase 1:04-md LAK-HBP Document 1636 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:04-md-01653-LAK-HBP Document 1636 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division - IN RE: BLACKWATER ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION Case No. 1:09-cv-615 Case No. 1:09-cv-616 Case No. 1:09-cv-617
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-307 In the Supreme Court of the United States MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. Petitioner, APOTEX INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationCase 3:10-cv L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0546-L
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06. Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0701n.06 Case No. 14-6269 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RON NOLLNER and BEVERLY NOLLNER, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SOUTHERN
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER
More informationCase 1:14-cv DLI-CLP Document 75 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 741. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Case 1:14-cv-06601-DLI-CLP Document 75 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 741 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLOTTE FREEMAN, et al. v. Plaintiffs, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, et
More informationAndrew Walzer v. Muriel Siebert Co
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-6-2011 Andrew Walzer v. Muriel Siebert Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-4526 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Civil Action No. 6:09-CV LED
Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al Doc. 1098 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Alvarado v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC Doc. United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JAZMIN ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/2013 INDEX NO. 653787/2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE TRUST SERIES
More informationCase 2:08-cv DWA Document 97 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:08-cv-00299-DWA Document 97 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALUMINUM BAHRAIN B.S.C., Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 8-299
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Clemons v. Google, Inc. Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RICHARD CLEMONS, v. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB
More informationCase: Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO: SPENCER DUKE
Case: 16-15426 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO: 16-15426 SPENCER DUKE Plaintiff/Appellant, V PRESTIGE CRUISES INTERNATIONAL,
More informationCase 1:12-cv JSR Document 34 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:12-cv-04222-JSR Document 34 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HERBERT HANSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
More informationCase: 2:17-cv WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500
Case: 2:17-cv-00045-WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-45 (WOB-CJS)
More informationCase 1:11-cv KBF Document 392 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:11-cv-02598-KBF Document 392 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE PUDA COAL SECURITIES INC. et al. LITIGATION CASE NO: 1:11-CV-2598 (KBF)
More informationUnder the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), no company or company representative
Sarbanes-Oxley and Whistleblowers: What Happens When Employees Bring Retaliation Claims? Patricia A. Kinaga Companies facing whistleblower lawsuits under Sarbanes-Oxley are recognizing the high stakes
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV M
Lewis v. Southwest Airlines Co Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JUSTIN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:17-cv SVW-AGR Document Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:2261
Case :-cv-0-svw-agr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP JENNIFER L. JOOST (Bar No. ) jjoost@ktmc.com STACEY M. KAPLAN (Bar No. ) skaplan@ktmc.com One Sansome
More informationCase 4:12-cv Document 6 Filed in TXSD on 03/16/12 Page 1 of 21
Case 4:12-cv-00345 Document 6 Filed in TXSD on 03/16/12 Page 1 of 21 IN T H E UNI T E D ST A T ES DIST RI C T C O UR T F O R T H E SO U T H E RN DIST RI C T O F T E X AS, H O UST O N DI V ISI O N K H A
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION. Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HSC Holdings. v. Hughes et al Doc. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION HSC HOLDINGS; fka GE&F CO, LTD, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6-12-18 CARY E. HUGHES, et
More informationCase 1:17-cv JPO Document 25 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:17-cv-09785-JPO Document 25 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEXTENGINE INC., -v- Plaintiff, NEXTENGINE, INC. and MARK S. KNIGHTON, Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:16-cv-02629-ES-JAD Document 14 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 119 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHELLE MURPHY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
More informationCase 8:13-cv RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:13-cv-03056-RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRENDA LEONARD-RUFUS EL, * RAHN EDWARD RUFUS EL * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Defendant. Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Defendant Lime Energy Services Co.
DRESSLER v. LIME ENERGY Doc. 13 *NOT FOR PUBLICATION* WENDY P. DRESSLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY v. Plaintiff, Civ. No 3:14-cv-07060 (FLW)(DEA) OPINION LIME ENERGY, Defendant.
More informationCase 1:16-cv GJQ-PJG ECF No. 106 filed 08/28/17 PageID.794 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:16-cv-00100-GJQ-PJG ECF No. 106 filed 08/28/17 PageID.794 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TIERRA VERDE ESCAPE, LLC, TOW DEVELOPMENT,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00145-RMC Document 29 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES RYAN, DAVID ALLEN AND ) RONALD SHERMAN, on Behalf of ) Themselves and
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-EFB Document Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 7
Case :0-cv-000-MCE-EFB Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 JOHN P. BUEKER (admitted pro hac vice) john.bueker@ropesgray.com Prudential Tower, 00 Boylston Street Boston, MA 0-00 Tel: () -000 Fax: () -00 DOUGLAS
More informationU.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 In the Matter of: JACK R. T. JORDAN, ARB CASE NOS. 10-113 11-020 COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NOS. 2006-SOX-098
More informationJOYCE REYNOLDS WALCOTT, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 13-CV Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION ONLY JOYCE REYNOLDS WALCOTT, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 13-CV-3303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and JANE DOE,
More informationBy: Jack Kaufman, Esq. Alexander Janghorbani, Esq.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Greenstone Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 260 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
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 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS
More informationCase 9:17-cv RLR Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:17-cv-80574-RLR Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 9:17-CV-80574-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS FRANK CALMES, individually
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 6:16-cv-02123-GAP-DCI Document 177 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 6313 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION v. Case No:
More informationDean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-14-2012 Dean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2415
More informationCase 1:10-cv BSJ-MHD Document 47 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 11. x : : : : : : : : : : : : x
Case 1:10-cv-03229-BSJ-MHD Document 47 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. and
More informationExamining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB Cases: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Examining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 4:11-cv-02580 Document 21 Filed in TXSD on 01/30/12 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JAMIE V. HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2580
More informationPlaintiff, 08 Civ (JGK) The plaintiffs, investors who purchased or otherwise. acquired American Depository Shares of the China-based solar
Ellenburg et al v. JA Solar Holdings Co. Ltd et al Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LEE R. ELLENBURG III, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS INDIVIDUALLY SITUATED,
More informationCase 8:18-cr TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. TDC-18-0012 MARK T. LAMBERT, Defendant.
More informationCase 4:12-cv Document 105 Filed in TXSD on 11/07/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 4:12-cv-03009 Document 105 Filed in TXSD on 11/07/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ) EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, ) et al., ) Plaintiffs, )
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 informationCase 1:10-cv DPW Document 27 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:10-cv-10113-DPW Document 27 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PAUL PEZZA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 10-10113-DPW INVESTORS CAPITAL
More informationCase 1:08-cv GBL-JFA Document 420 Filed 05/08/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 6862
Case 1:08-cv-00827-GBL-JFA Document 420 Filed 05/08/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 6862 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) SUHAIL NAJIM ABDULLAH ) AL SHIMARI,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHASON ZACHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 17 CV 7256 v. ) ) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS )
More informationCase 1:19-cv DLC Document 1 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:19-cv-00070-DLC Document 1 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLES MASIH, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. REPORT
More informationCase 1:16-cv RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-00236-RJL Document 152 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., v. BRIAN NEWBY, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationThe Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs
The Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs By Mark Young, Jonathan Marcus, Gary Rubin and Theodore Kneller, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Law360, New York (April 26, 2017, 5:23 PM EDT)
More informationCase KS/2:14-cv Document 8 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case KS/2:14-cv-02497 Document 8 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE SYNGENTA MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION MDL DOCKET NO. 2591 U.S. SYNGENTA
More informationCase 1:11-cv RJL Document 29 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:11-cv-00477-RJL Document 29 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHIRLEY SHERROD, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW BREITBART et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 11-00477
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. New York Southern District Court Case No. 1:13-md In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation.
PlainSite Legal Document New York Southern District Court Case No. 1:13-md-02475 In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation Document 366 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer
More informationCase 1:16-cv WHP Document 15 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 18 NO. 1:16-CV-6544 HON. WILLIAM H. PAULEY III
Case 1:16-cv-06544-WHP Document 15 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, NO. 1:16-CV-6544 V. DEUTSCHE
More informationCase 1:09-cv JCC-IDD Document 26 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:09-cv-01149-JCC-IDD Document 26 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER ) COMPANY ) )
More informationCase 1:17-cv MJG Document 146 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG Document 146 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BROCK STONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG DONALD J. TRUMP,
More informationCase 8:09-cv PJM Document 24 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 8:09-cv-00005-PJM Document 24 Filed 08/13/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND WARD KLUGMANN, et al. * * Plaintiffs * * v. * Civil No. PJM 09-5 * AMERICAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-CV-1363 (EGS) U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 1:12-cv CKK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00203-CKK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and ERIC
More informationCase: 3:14-cv wmc Document #: 360 Filed: 04/20/17 Page 1 of 10
Case: 3:14-cv-00513-wmc Document #: 360 Filed: 04/20/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, v. Plaintiff, THE MORTGAGE
More informationCase 1:15-cv ILG-RML Document 26 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 134
Case 1:15-cv-07261-ILG-RML Document 26 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x ROBERTO
More informationNo IN THE. CYAN, INC., et al., Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents.
No. 15-1439 IN THE CYAN, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
More information