Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Isaac Moore
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (1 of 27 Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT MARIA VERGARA, SANDEEP PAL, JENNIFER REILLY, JUSTIN BARTOLET, JAMES LATHROP, and JONATHAN GRINDELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, KERRY ANN SWEENEY, Objector-Appellant, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 15-cv The Honorable Thomas Durkin, Judge Presiding PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTOR-APPELLANT S APPEAL Plaintiffs-Appellees, Maria Vergara, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly, Justin Bartolet, James Lathrop, and Jonathan Grindell ( Appellees, pursuant to Rule 3(a(2, Rule 3(e and Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Seventh Circuit R. 3(b, hereby move to dismiss the appeal of Objector-Appellant, Kerry Ann Sweeney ( Appellant, for 1
2 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (2 of 27 failure to pay the required appellate fees. In support of this Motion, the moving Appellees state as follows: BACKGROUND 1. Appellees brought a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The Parties subsequently reached a class settlement. On August 17, 2017, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. (Dist. Ct. Dkt On December 19, 2017, Appellant filed an objection to the class action settlement. (Dist. Ct. Dkt On February 26, 2018, the District Court entered an Order overruling Appellant s objection, finding that it was meritless, factually inaccurate, and added no value to the settlement class members. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. 111, at 4-5 (attached hereto as Exhibit A. In rejecting Appellant s objection, the District Court further noted that Appellant is a serial class action settlement objector with a substantial history of filing objections that have been criticized and overruled by courts nationwide, and who engages in a practice of objector blackmail: filing 2
3 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (3 of 27 serial objections in attempt to extort money from class counsel without providing value. (Id. at On March 1, 2018, the District Court entered an Order granting final approval of the Parties class action settlement and entering judgment. (Dist. Ct. Dkt On March 22, 2018, Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the District Court s February 26, 2018 Order overruling her objection and its March 1, 2018 Order granting final approval and entering judgment. (Dist. Ct. Dkts. 114, Shortly thereafter, on March 26, 2018, the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a Circuit Rule 3(b Notice informing the Parties to the appeal that Appellant had failed to pay the required $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee and $ appellate docketing fee, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(e. (Dkt. 1-4 (attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. The Clerk s March 26, 2018 letter advised that, pursuant to Seventh Cir. R. 3(b, the Clerk has the authority to dismiss the appeal if either the docketing and filing fees were not paid, or a motion to proceed 3
4 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (4 of 27 on appeal in forma pauperis was not filed, within 14 days of when the appeal was docketed on March 26, 2018 by April 9, (Dkt On April 26, 2018, the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued another Order, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b, providing Appellant with an additional 14 days, until May 10, 2018, to pay the required filing and docketing fees in the District Court or to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 3 (attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9. Appellant did not comply with the May 10, 2018 fee deadline and, to date, Appellant has not paid the filing fee or docketing fee associated with her appeal, nor has Appellant moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ARGUMENT 10. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a(2 authorizes the Court of Appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing [an] appeal in the event that an appellant [fails] to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a( Fed. R. App. P. 3(e requires an appellant to pay all required fees upon filing a notice of appeal. If an appellant fails to pay the required 4
5 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (5 of 27 fees within 14 days after a proceeding is docketed, the clerk is authorized to dismiss the appeal. Seventh Cir. R. 3(b. 12. This appeal was docketed on March 26, (Dist. Ct. Dkt Since Appellant filed her notice of appeal, she has failed to pay the appellate filling and docketing fees required by the Federal Appellate and Seventh Circuit Rules, and as specifically required by this Court s April 26, 2018 Order providing an extended deadline of May 10, 2018 for Appellant to so comply. (Dkt Further, Appellant has on numerous occasions failed to pay the required appellate filing and docketing fees in other appeals that she has filed, despite being notified that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See, e.g., Cody v. SoulCycle, Inc., No (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2018, ECF Nos. 4, 5 (dismissing Appellant s appeal for failure to prosecute after she failed to pay the required filing fees; Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., No (9th Cir. June 5, 2017, ECF No. 10 (same. 14. Moreover, on May 7, 2018, the District Court entered an Order requiring Appellant to post a $5,000 appeal bond pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 7, finding evidence of bad faith or vexatious conduct on the part of [Appellant] and that [Appellant s] prior failure to pay required 5
6 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (6 of 27 fees suggests a risk that she will not pay Appellees costs should she lose on appeal. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. 129, at 3 (attached hereto as Exhibit D. As of this filing, Appellant has not posted the required bond. 15. Given Appellant s history as a serial objector who fails to prosecute the appeals she files; Appellant s failure to comply with the Federal and Seventh Circuit Rules of Appellate Procedure by paying the required filing and docketing fees, or moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, within seven weeks since filing the Notice of Appeal; and Appellant s failure to comply with the Court s April 26, 2018 Order requiring her to pay the required fees by May 10, 2018, the Court should dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(a(2, Fed. R. App. P. 3(e, and Seventh Cir. R. 3(b. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Appellees respectfully request that the Court enter an Order dismissing this appeal and for any such further relief as it deems reasonable and just. 6
7 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (7 of 27 Dated: May 15, 2018 Respectfully submitted, MARIA VERGARA, JAMES LATHROP, SANDEEP PAL, JENNIFER REILLY, JUSTIN BARTOLET, and JONATHAN GRINDELL, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals By: /s/ Eugene Y. Turin One of Plaintiffs-Appellees Attorneys Myles McGuire Evan M. Meyers Paul T. Geske Eugene Y. Turin MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL Tel: ( Fax: ( mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com Hassan A. Zavareei Andrea R. Gold Andrew J. Silver TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC Tel: ( hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com asilver@tzlegal.com 7
8 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (8 of 27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 15, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit using the CM/ECF system. A copy of said document will be electronically transmitted to all counsel of record: Adam J. Hunt David J. Fioccola Tiffani B. Figueroa MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY adamhunt@mofo.com dfioccola@mofo.com tfigueroa@mofo.com John C. Ellis ELLIS LEGAL P.C. 250 South Wacker Drive Suite 600 Chicago, IL jellis@ellislegal.com Austin V. Schwing GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA aschwing@gibsondunn.com 8
9 Case: Document: 10-1 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 9 (9 of 27 A copy of said document will also be sent via first-class mail and electronic mail to the following: Kerry Ann Sweeney th Street Santa Monica, CA kerryannsweeney@gmail.com /s/ Eugene Y. Turin 9
10 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (10 of 27 Exhibit A
11 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1573 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (11 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARIA VERGARA, et al. Plaintiffs, No. 15 C 6942 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Judge Thomas M. Durkin Defendant. ORDER Before the Court are: (1 plaintiffs motion for approval of attorneys fees, expenses, and incentive awards [93]; (2 plaintiffs corresponding motion for leave to file a memorandum in excess of fifteen pages [91]; (3 plaintiffs motion for final approval of class action settlement [101]; and (4 plaintiffs motion to strike the objection of Kerry Ann Sweeney to the award of attorneys fees [104]. For the reasons set forth below and at the January 23, 2018 final approval hearing [103], the Court grants plaintiffs motion for final approval of the class action settlement [101], grants plaintiffs motion for leave to file excess pages [91], and grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs motion for approval of attorneys fees, expenses, and incentive awards [93]. The Court denies plaintiffs motion to strike the objection of Kerry Ann Sweeney [104], but nevertheless overrules Sweeney s objection. The Court directs plaintiffs on or before March 9, 2018 to prepare a proposed order incorporating and consistent with this Court s rulings on
12 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1574 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (12 of 27 their motions for final approval of class action settlement [101] and for approval of attorneys fees, expenses, and incentive awards [104]. Discussion At a hearing on January 23, 2018, this Court granted plaintiffs motion for approval of the $20 million class action settlement in this case [101]. The Court incorporates herein its reasons stated orally for approving the settlement based on the factors outlined by the Seventh Circuit in Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA, Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 652 (7th Cir The Court further explained at the January 23, 2018 hearing that it planned to grant plaintiffs requested expenses and incentive awards, and to grant at least in part plaintiffs requested attorneys fees [93]. As discussed at the hearing, the Court adopts what appears to have become the standard model in this circuit for awarding fee awards in TCPA cases like this one involving a common fund settlement: a sliding-scale percentage approach. See, e.g., Aranda v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2017 WL , at *5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017; In re Capital One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Ill (examining data from TCPA common fund settlements to adopt approach. Under this approach, the common fund is separated into bands, and class counsel is awarded a percentage of each band, with the percentage awarded decreasing as the size of the common fund increases. Id. at 804; see also In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 325 F.3d 974, 979 (7th Cir
13 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1575 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (13 of 27 The $20 million settlement in this case implicates only the first two bands (of $10 million each. The base percentage applied to the first $10 million band is 30%, and the base percentage applied to the second $10 million band is 25%. Capital One, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 804. In high risk cases, courts apply an upward risk adjustment to the base percentages of each band. See, e.g., Aranda, 2017 WL , at *8-9. In the course of determining what risk factors to apply, the Aranda court reasoned that at the same time that counsel s success at each stage of the litigation may increase the expected value for his clients, counsel s own risk of nonpayment also decreases as another obstacle to recovery is removed. Id. at *8. Plaintiffs in a hypothetical negotiation might, therefore, agree to pay a risk premium at each band in a highrisk case like this but insist that the size of the premium decrease at each band, as the risk of non-recovery decreases. Id. The court applied this logic by awarding a decreasing risk premium to the standard sliding-scale structure specifically, a six-point premium to the first band, a five-point premium to the second band, a four-point premium to the third band, and a three-point premium to the fourth band. Id. at *9. The Aranda court therefore awarded class counsel 36% of the first $10 million ($3.6 million, 30% of the second $10 million ($3 million, 24% of the band from $20 million to $56 million ($8.64 million, and 18% of the remainder. Id. As discussed at the January 23, 2018 hearing, this case, like Aranda, involved real and significant risk by plaintiffs counsel, id. at *6, including litigating against a defendant with substantial resources, strong legal defenses, and 3
14 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1576 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (14 of 27 a willingness to litigate. This Court therefore agreed with plaintiffs that a six-point risk premium should be applied to the first $10 million band. The Court explained that the only remaining issue was the risk premium to apply to the second band (which totals $9,043,000 after subtracting costs and incentive awards. Plaintiffs ask the Court to apply the same, six-point risk premium to the first $10 million band and the second $9,043,000 million band. But, as the Aranda court explained, plaintiffs counsel s incentives change as the risk of non-recovery decreases. Plaintiffs counsel articulated no reason and the Court sees no reason to distinguish the risk assessment in this case from that in Aranda, where the court applied a lower, five-point premium to the second band. Indeed, plaintiffs counsel acknowledged during the January 23, 2018 hearing that it would be in this Court s discretion to apply either a five-point risk premium or a six-point risk premium to the second band. The Court therefore awards plaintiffs counsel 36% of the first $10 million band ($3.6 million and 30% of the second $9,043,000 band ($2,712,900, for a total award of $6,312,900. This corresponds to a $37,100 reduction of the $6,350,000 fee award requested by plaintiffs. R. 93 at 17. Finally, the Court turns to the only remaining objection in this case 1 : a pro se objection by Kerry Ann Sweeney pertaining to the award of attorneys fees. As plaintiffs explain in their motion to strike Sweeney s objection [104] (to which Sweeney responded [106], Sweeney and her family members are serial class action 1 This Court granted objector Marie Krikava s motion to withdraw her objection [97] the only other objection filed. 4
15 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:1577 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (15 of 27 settlement objectors with a substantial history of filing objections that have been criticized and overruled by courts nationwide. See R. 101 at (collecting cases. Although the Court does not find that the grounds identified by plaintiffs warrant striking Sweeney s objection outright, the Court nevertheless overrules Sweeney s objection. Sweeney argues that the attorneys fees sought by plaintiffs counsel are excessive, and that the award should follow the sliding-scale model set forth in Aranda. But plaintiffs cited and applied the sliding-scale approach and base percentages set forth in Aranda in their fee request. R. 93 at The only problem with plaintiffs application of this approach, as explained above, was their failure to decrease the risk factor applied to the second band. The Court identified and addressed this issue independently of Sweeney s objection. Sweeney has therefore added no value to the process. Like other courts across the country, this Court declines to reward Sweeney for what is effectively a practice of objector blackmail: filing serial objections in attempt to extort money from class counsel without providing value. See, e.g., In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1361 n.30 (S.D. Fla ( professional objectors can levy what is effectively a tax on class action settlement, a tax that has no benefit to anyone other than to the objectors. Literally nothing is gained from the cost: Settlements are not restructured and the class... gains nothing. ; In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 178 F. Supp. 3d 635, 639 (N.D. Ohio 2016 ( The serial objector s ultimate goal is extortion.. For these reasons, the 5
16 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 02/26/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:1578 Case: Document: 10-2 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 7 (16 of 27 Court denies plaintiffs motion to strike Sweeney s objection [104], but overrules that objection. ENTERED: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge Dated: February 26,
17 Case: Document: 10-3 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 3 (17 of 27 Exhibit B
18 Case: Document: Filed: 03/26/ /15/2018 Pages: 23 (18 of 27 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Office of the Clerk Phone: ( CIRCUIT RULE 3(b NOTICE March 26, 2018 No MARIA VERGARA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Originating Case Information: District Court No: 1:15-cv Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Clerk/Agency Rep Thomas G. Bruton District Judge Thomas M. Durkin APPEAL OF: KERRY A. SWEENEY, Objector Circuit Rule 3(b empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen (14 days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on March 26, The District Court has indicated that as of March 26, 2018, the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on your situation, you should: 1. Pay the required $ docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the District Court Clerk, if you have not already done so. The Court of Appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records. 2. File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the District Court, if you have not already done so. An original and three (3 copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a sworn affidavit in the form prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended 12/01/2013, listing the assets and income of the appellant(s.
19 Case: Document: Filed: 03/26/ /15/2018 Pages: 23 (19 of If the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied by the district court, you must either pay the required $ docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the District Court Clerk, within fourteen (14 days after service of notice of the action to the district court, or within thirty (30 days of that date, renew your motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with this court. If the motion is renewed in this court, it must comply with the terms of Fed.R.App.P. 24(a. If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed. form name: c7_dc_fee_notice_sent(form ID: 158
20 Case: Document: 10-4 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 3 (20 of 27 Exhibit C
21 Case: Document: Filed: 04/26/ /15/2018 Pages: 2 3 (21 of 27 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Office of the Clerk Phone: ( CIRCUIT RULE 3(b NOTICE April 26, 2018 No MARIA VERGARA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs Appellees v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Originating Case Information: District Court No: 1:15 cv Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Clerk/Agency Rep Thomas G. Bruton District Judge Thomas M. Durkin APPEAL OF: KERRY A. SWEENEY, Objector Circuit Rule 3(b empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen (14 days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on March 26, The District Court has indicated that as of March 26, 2018, the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on your situation, you should: 1. Pay the required $ docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the District Court Clerk, if you have not already done so. The Court of Appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records. 2. File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the District Court, if you have not already done so. An original and three (3 copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a sworn affidavit in the form prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended
22 Case: Document: Filed: 04/26/ /15/2018 Pages: 2 3 (22 of 27 12/01/2013, listing the assets and income of the appellant(s. 3. If the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied by the district court, you must either pay the required $ docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the District Court Clerk, within fourteen (14 days after service of notice of the action to the district court, or within thirty (30 days of that date, renew your motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with this court. If the motion is renewed in this court, it must comply with the terms of Fed.R.App.P. 24(a. If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed. form name: c7_dc_fee_notice_sent(form ID: 158
23 Case: Document: 10-5 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 5 (23 of 27 Exhibit D
24 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 129 Filed: 05/07/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1786 Case: Document: 10-5 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 5 (24 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARIA VERGARA, et al. Plaintiffs, No. 15 C 6942 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Judge Thomas M. Durkin Defendant. ORDER In March 2018, objector Kerry Ann Sweeney appealed this Court s orders granting final approval of the class action settlement in this case and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs motion for approval of attorneys fees, expenses, and incentive awards [111, 112]. Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for a $5,000 appeal bond [122]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiffs motion. Discussion As this Court explained in its February 26, 2018 order overruling Sweeney s objection to the Court s award of attorneys fees, Sweeney and her family members are serial class action settlement objectors with a substantial history of filing objections that have been criticized and overruled by courts nationwide. R. 111 at 4-5. Because the Court found that Sweeney... added no value to the [settlement] process, the Court overruled Sweeney s objection. Id. Sweeney appealed. R On
25 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 129 Filed: 05/07/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1787 Case: Document: 10-5 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 5 (25 of 27 April 26, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a Circuit Rule 3(b Notice requiring Sweeney to either (a pay the filing and docketing fees for her appeal or (b file a motion to appeal in forma pauperis, or her appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. R As of the date of this order, Sweeney has taken neither of these actions. Currently before the Court is plaintiffs motion for an appeal bond to ensure payment of costs on appeal. R Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 authorizes district courts to require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. While the Seventh Circuit has not enumerated a test for when an appeal bond is appropriate, courts generally consider the following factors in determining whether an appeal bond is appropriate: (1 the appellant s financial ability to post a bond, (2 the risk of nonpayment of appellee s costs if the appeal is unsuccessful, (3 the merits of the appeal, and (4 bad faith or vexatious conduct on the part of the appellants. Heekin v. Anthem, Inc., 2013 WL , at *2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, Plaintiffs motion cites and attaches a number of court orders requiring Sweeney to post appeal bonds, including in larger amounts than the $5,000 requested by plaintiffs here. See R. 127 at 6; R ; R As the courts in those cases found, there is no reason to question Sweeney s ability to pay the requested bond for purposes of the first factor of the analysis. E.g., R at 3 (Cody v. SoulCycle, No. 15 C 6457 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, Sweeney has not moved 2
26 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 129 Filed: 05/07/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1788 Case: Document: 10-5 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 5 (26 of 27 to appeal in forma pauperis or taken any other action indicating that she is unable to pay. Turning to the second factor, Sweeney s prior failure to pay required fees suggests a risk that she will not pay Appellee s costs should she lose on appeal. Id. (collecting cases; see also R (Ninth Circuit order dismissing Sweeney s appeal for failure to pay filing fees; R (same. With respect to the third factor, this Court has already considered Sweeney s objection and determined that it was without merit. R. 111 at 4-5. And with respect to the fourth factor, this Court has already found evidence of bad faith or vexatious conduct on the part of Sweeney. See id. In response (R. 128, Sweeney does not dispute any of these facts or argue that she should not be required to pay a bond. Instead, she requests that the bond amount be set at $500, explaining that plaintiffs failed to present to the Court a detailed summary of what costs make up their request for a $5, bond. R. 128 at 1. But plaintiffs provide such a summary in their reply. Plaintiffs explain, and the Court agrees, that it is likely plaintiffs will incur significant expenses compiling and submitting the complete record on appeal given that Sweeney has declined to order or submit copies of transcripts from any other hearings associated with the orders she is appealing. See Vergara v. Sweeney, (7th Cir. May 2, 2018, Dkt. 8 (Transcript Information Sheet stating that Sweeney is not ordering any transcripts; see also Fed. R. App. P. 39(e (costs of preparation and transmission of relevant transcripts recoverable for a party entitled to costs. 3
27 Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 129 Filed: 05/07/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1789 Case: Document: 10-5 Filed: 05/15/2018 Pages: 5 (27 of 27 The Seventh Circuit has instructed that a bond should not be used as a sanction for abusive class action objectors. Allen v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 2015 WL , at *1 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, But a bond is appropriately used to ensure payment of costs on appeal by such an objector. Id. In this case, plaintiffs have set forth the costs they seek to ensure payment of on appeal. And this Court finds that $5,000 is an appropriate estimate of the amount required to cover those costs. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit in Allen modified the appeal bond from $121,886 down to $5,000, finding that $5,000 would cover appellate costs. See id. And other courts in this district have likewise found $5,000 to be a reasonable estimate of the likely costs on appeal. E.g., In re Navistar Diesel Engine Prod. Liab. Litig., 2013 WL , at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, For these reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs motion for an appeal bond in the amount of $5,000. R ENTERED: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge Dated: May 7,
LEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF COURT
LEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF COURT If, at Any Time Between December 31, 2010 and August 17, 2017, You Received One or More Text Messages from Uber Technologies, Inc., You May Be Eligible for a Payment from
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document
PlainSite Legal Document California Northern District Court Case No. 5:14-cv-02396-JTM Think Computer Foundation et al v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts et al Document 57 View Document
More informationCase: 1:11-cv Document #: 353 Filed: 01/20/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:4147
Case: 1:11-cv-08176 Document #: 353 Filed: 01/20/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:4147 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE SOUTHWEST AIRLINES ) VOUCHER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Office of the Clerk. After Opening a Case Pro Se Appellants (revised December 2012)
Case: 13-55859 05/16/2013 ID: 8632114 DktEntry: 1-2 Page: 1 of 16 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Office of the Clerk After Opening a Case Pro Se Appellants (revised December 2012)
More informationp,~~~ <~ t 2Df8 ~~R ~7 PN 3~ Sty Caroline Tucker, Esq. Tucker ~ Pollard Business Center Dr., Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612
Case 2:11-cv-04153-CAS-AGR Document 448 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:26816 Caroline Tucker, Esq. 1 Tucker ~ Pollard 2 2102 Business Center Dr., Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612 3 Office 949-253-5710
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 548 Filed: 01/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:12939
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 548 Filed: 01/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:12939 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHEMEIER, STEPHEN
More informationCase5:11-cv EJD Document133 Filed11/20/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-EJD Document Filed/0/ Page of 0 Simon Bahne Paris (admitted pro hac vice) Patrick Howard (admitted pro hac vice) SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, nd Floor 0 Market
More informationCase: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3766 NAPERVILLE SMART METER AWARENESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationWILVIS HARRIS Respondent.
No. - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RODNEY PATTON, IPetitioner, v. WILVIS HARRIS Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 93-3 Filed: 11/15/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1196
Case: 1:15-cv-06942 Document #: 93-3 Filed: 11/15/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARIA VERGARA, SANDEEP PAL, JENNIFER REILLY,
More informationCase: Document: 26-1 Filed: 12/04/2014 Pages: 6 NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) )
NO. 14-3091 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ARIE FRIEDMAN, M.D. and THE ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District
More informationCase: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 18-15054, 04/17/2019, ID: 11266832, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CALENDAR: 13 PAGE 1 of 8 CIRCUIT COURT OF CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS CHANCERY DIVISION COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION CLERK DOROTHY BROWN JUDITH FLAHIVE, individually
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHILIP CHARVAT, on behalf of himself
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-55881 06/25/2013 ID: 8680068 DktEntry: 14 Page: 1 of 10 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INGENUITY 13 LLC Plaintiff and PRENDA LAW, INC., Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-55881 [Related
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314
Case: 1:14-cv-01741 Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JASON DOUGLAS, individually and on
More informationCase 1:12-cv CMA Document 132 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2013 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:12-cv-21695-CMA Document 132 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2013 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION A AVENTURA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER,
More informationCase: Document: 16 Filed: 04/23/2012 Pages: 6. Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 12-1269 & 12-1788 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LISA MADIGAN and HIRAM GRAU, Defendants-Appellees. MARY E. SHEPARD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
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 1:14-cv PAC Document 95 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:14-cv-04281-PAC Document 95 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HARRY GAO and ROBERTA SOCALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
Hamilton v. State of Hawaii Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I COLLEEN MICHELE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF HAWAII, Defendant. CIVIL NO. 16-00371 DKW-KJM ORDER
More informationCase: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-35945, 08/14/2017, ID: 10542764, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 126 Filed: 08/06/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:879
Case: 1:16-cv-08898 Document #: 126 Filed: 08/06/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:879 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JERROLD DOLINS, on behalf of himself, and all others
More informationCase 5:14-cv BLF Document 798 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:4-cv-05344-BLF Document 798 Filed 09/26/8 Page of 7 Kathleen Sullivan (SBN 24226) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com Todd Anten (pro hac vice) toddanten@quinnemanuel.com 5 Madison Avenue, 22 nd Floor
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JONATHAN BENJAMIN FLEMING, Case No. -CV-00-LHK v. Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE
More informationUnited States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1 (Chicago) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cr All Defendants
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1 (Chicago) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cr-00315 All Defendants Case title: USA v. Hastert Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Assigned
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 25 Filed: 10/18/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:156 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:17-cv-04692 Document #: 25 Filed: 10/18/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:156 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LINDA ALLARD and KELLY STRACHE, individually and on behalf of all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-511 (CE)
More informationCase 1:16-md GAO Document 381 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:16-md-02677-GAO Document 381 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE: DAILY FANTASY SPORTS LITIGATION 1:16-md-02677-GAO DEFENDANTS
More informationCase 1:08-cv LAK-GWG Document 472 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:08-cv-05523-LAK-GWG Document 472 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re LEHMAN BROTHERS SECURITIES AND ERISA LITIGATION This Document Applies
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 117 Filed: 08/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:706
Case: 1:12-cv-05510 Document #: 117 Filed: 08/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:706 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONATHAN I. GEHRICH, ROBERT LUND,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 14-80121 09/11/2014 ID: 9236871 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 13 Docket No. 14-80121 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MICHAEL A. COBB, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, IN RE: CITY OF
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)
Appeal: 16-1110 Doc: 20-1 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(1 of 52) FILED: January 30, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1110 (1:15-cv-00675-GBL-MSN) NATIONAL COUNCIL
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:18-cv-04861 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARY NISI, On behalf of herself and the class
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 52 Filed: 10/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1366
Case: 1:13-cv-04341 Document #: 52 Filed: 10/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PRENDA LAW, INC., ) Case No. 1:13-cv-04341
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:365
Case: 1:17-cv-07256 Document #: 18 Filed: 02/01/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:365 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHASON ZACHER, individually and )
More informationCase 0:10-cv MGC Document 913 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:10-cv-60786-MGC Document 913 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 5 COQUINA INVESTMENTS, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-60786-Civ-Cooke/Bandstra
More informationCase3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8
Case3:15-cv-01723-VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAYER BROWN LLP DALE J. GIALI (SBN 150382) dgiali@mayerbrown.com KERI E. BORDERS (SBN 194015) kborders@mayerbrown.com 350
More informationIf you were a borrower on a mortgage loan account held or serviced by Wells Fargo, a class action settlement may affect your rights.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-09483 If you were a borrower on a mortgage loan account held or serviced by Wells Fargo,
More informationCase 2:14-cv ODW-RZ Document 66 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:791
Case :-cv-0-odw-rz Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 MICHAEL FEUER (SBN CITY ATTORNEY mike.feuer@lacity.org JAMES P. CLARK (SBN 0 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY james.p.clark@lacity.org CITY OF LOS
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 informationOFFICE OF THE CLERK B
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 Elizabeth A. Shumaker (303) 844-3157 Douglas E. Cressler
More informationRE: In re National Security Letter, Nos , , & [Argued before Judges Ikuta, N.R. Smith, and Murguia on October 8, 2014]
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Rm: 7231 DNL:SRM:JHLevy Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Tel: (202) 353-0169 Fax: (202) 514-7964 November 6, 2014 Molly
More informationGCIU-Employer Retirement Fund et al v. All West Container Co., Docket No. 2:17-cv (C.D. Cal. Jun 27, 2017), Court Docket
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund et al v. All West Container Co., Docket No. :-cv-0 (C.D. Cal. Jun, 0, Court Docket Multiple Documents Part Description pages Declaration of Judi Knore in Support of Motion
More informationCase: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56454, 10/18/2016, ID: 10163305, DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF A EALS ;.1::' 1 L.Q FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 28 fj07 In re : RIVERSTONE NETWORKS, INC., No. 05-17272 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DENNIS PASPARAGE,
More informationUnited States DistrictCourt NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Case: 1:08-cv-03645 Document #: 75 Filed: 01/04/10 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:387 MICHAEL W. DOBBINS Mr. William K. Suter, Clerk U.S. Supreme Court First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 United States DistrictCourt
More informationCase: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-16051, 05/19/2016, ID: 9982763, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-17134, 12/17/2015, ID: 9797754, DktEntry: 47-1, Page 1 of 8 (1 of 11) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KELI I AKINA, et al., No. 15-17134 vs. Plaintiffs, Appeal from
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 22, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JAMES P. TENNILLE; ADELAIDA DELEON; YAMILET
More informationU.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14 cv JDB
USCA Case #15-5190 Document #1561501 Filed: 07/08/2015 APPEAL,CLOSED,TYPE C Page 1 of 16 U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14 cv 01870 JDB ASSOCIATION
More information[Dist Ct. No.: 3:12-CV WHO] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. JOHN TEIXEIRA; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, vs.
Case: 13-17132 04/07/2014 ID: 9048020 DktEntry: 25-1 Page: 1 of 8 (1 of 12) No. 13-17132 [Dist Ct. No.: 3:12-CV-03288-WHO] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TEIXEIRA; et al.,
More informationCase: , 01/02/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55470, 01/02/2018, ID: 10708808, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 02 2018 (1 of 14) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase AJC Doc 303 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
Case 16-20516-AJC Doc 303 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION IN RE: PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS INC. and PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:14-CV ELR
Case: 16-13031 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 of 12 RYAN PERRY, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13031 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-CV-02926-ELR Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) JONATHAN I. GEHRICH, ROBERT LUND, ) COREY GOLDSTEIN, PAUL STEMPLE, ) and CARRIE COUSER, individually and ) on behalf of all
More informationCase 1:18-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2018 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:18-cv-25005-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2018 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SABRINA ZAMPA, individually, and as guardian
More informationCase 5:09-cv JW Document 214 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case :0-cv-00-JW Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. ) SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. ) Douglass Street San Francisco, California Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-000-RS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
More informationCase3:12-cv CRB Document22 Filed10/26/12 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-0-CRB Document Filed// Page of 0 Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law #0 Dogwood Way Boulder Creek, CA 00 Telephone No.: () 0-0 Fax No.: () -0 Email: nick@ranallolawoffice.com Attorney for Defendant
More informationLeave to file reply brief of up to 10,500 words.
Case: 14-319 Document: 116 Page: 1 08/14/2014 1295884 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 169 Filed: 12/01/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2786
Case: 1:15-cv-01944 Document #: 169 Filed: 12/01/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2786 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE AKORN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No.
More informationCase 3:09-cv JPG-PMF Document 64 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #639
Case 3:09-cv-00255-JPG-PMF Document 64 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #639 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DORIS J. MASTERS, individually and as the representative
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 626 Filed: 04/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:23049
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/25/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:23049 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Philip Charvat on behalf of himself
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Case: 13-17132 03/31/2014 ID: 9037376 DktEntry: 22-1 Page: 1 of 7 (1 of 21) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-17132 John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. County of
More informationOffice of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Post Office Box San Francisco, California
Case: 17-56081, 07/28/2017, ID: 10525018, DktEntry: 1-4, Page 1 of 1 Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Post Office Box 193939 San Francisco,
More informationAGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case 1:09-cv-04387 Document 59 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 6 ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. No. 09 CV
More informationCase 2:17-cv JLR Document 179 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.
Case :-cv-00-jlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, DONALD TRUMP, in his
More informationCase 1:14-cv PAC Document 94 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:14-cv-04281-PAC Document 94 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HARRY GAO and ROBERTA SOCALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
More informationCase 1:08-cv Document 45 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-04572 Document 45 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, Plaintiff, v. BLOCKSHOPPER LLC et al., Defendants. CASE
More informationCase 1:08-mc PLF Document 300 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-mc-00511-PLF Document 300 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINATION ) LITIGATION ) ) Misc. No. 08-mc-0511 (PLF)
More informationCase: , 08/27/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 126-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-55565, 08/27/2018, ID: 10990110, DktEntry: 126-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase AJC Doc 327 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
Case 16-20516-AJC Doc 327 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION IN RE: PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS INC. and PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME
More informationCase 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-JST Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER March 29, 2012 This Standing Order supercedes all prior Standing Orders regarding pending
More informationJOINT MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) and 10th Cir. R. 27.5, the parties jointly
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STEVEN WAYNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KRIS KOBACH, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG Document 73 Filed 12/19/17 PageID.715 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEFF M. OSTROW (admitted pro hac vice) KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
More informationLEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS If you received an automated call to your cell phone and were transferred to a State Farm Agent between January
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: Filed: 09/02/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:5205
Case: 1:13-cv-04836 Document #: 362-4 Filed: 09/02/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:5205 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JENNIFER OSSOLA, JOETTA CALLENTINE, and SCOTT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-lab-bgs Document Filed // PageID. Page of 0 0 DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 0) DMcDowell@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 0 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 00- Telephone:..00 Facsimile:..
More informationCase: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-56778, 12/29/2014, ID: 9363202, DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 FILED (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationCase 3:12-cv GPC-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document Filed // Page of 0 Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: ) ak@kazlg.com Jason A. Ibey, Esq. (SBN: 0) jason@kazlg.com Telephone: (00) 00-0 Facsimile: (00) - HYDE & SWIGART Robert L.
More informationCase 2:06-cv R-CW Document 437 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:7705
Case :0-cv-00-R-CW Document Filed // Page of Page ID #:0 0 JOSEPH J. TABACCO, JR. # Email: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com NICOLE LAVALLEE # Email: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com BERMAN DeVALERIO One California
More informationCase M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5 Jon B. Eisenberg, California Bar No. 88278 (jon@eandhlaw.com William N. Hancock, California Bar No. 104501 (bill@eandhlaw.com Eisenberg
More informationCase 7:19-cv NSR Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 7:19-cv-01732-NSR Document 1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, v. LAW OFFICES OF CRYSTAL MORONEY,
More informationCase: , 08/16/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-16593, 08/16/2017, ID: 10546582, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
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 informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55693, 11/07/2016, ID: 10189498, DktEntry: 56, Page 1 of 9 Nos. 16-55693, 16-55894 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. INTERNET
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc. Doc. 1 1 1 1 RAFAEL DAVID SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, YAHOO!
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cv-02117-P Document 71 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID 954 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY; BOYD L. RICHIE, in his capacity
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Case No.
Case 2:18-cv-12480 Document 1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1 DENTONS US LLP John R. Vales (JV4307) john.vales@dentons.com Kelly L. Lankford (KL9203) kelly.lankford@dentons.com 101 JFK Parkway Short
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-30958 Document: 00513004474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-30958 April 14,
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More informationCase 5:18-cv TES Document 204 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Case 5:18-cv-00388-TES Document 204 Filed 04/15/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION VC MACON GA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00388-TES
More informationCase: 1:69-cv Document #: 3762 Filed: 05/15/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:23784
Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 3762 Filed: 05/15/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:23784 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, PAUL M. LURIE,
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case: 11-50814 Document: 00511723798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2012 No. 11-50814 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, doing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 Randolph H. Barnhouse Justin J. Solimon (Pro Hac Vice Johnson Barnhouse & Keegan LLP th Street N.W. Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM 0 Telephone: (0 - Fax: (0 - Email: dbarnhouse@indiancountrylaw.com
More informationCase: , 04/24/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15419, 04/24/2017, ID: 10408045, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 (1 of 7) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More information