Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Clarence Hudson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN A. FRALEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO J ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) HONORABLE JUDGE GIBSON ) Defendant. ) Electronically Filed DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff has filed a personal injury Complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C et seq. ( FTCA ). Plaintiff, a civilian bus driver, alleges that he was transporting members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard back to Pennsylvania after they conducted relief operations in support of Hurricane Katrina. During a stop in Virginia, Plaintiff contends that an unidentified member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard was chasing a loose dog on the bus when the member ran into Plaintiff, knocking him out of the bus and onto the pavement. As a result of this impact, Plaintiff claims that he suffered permanent injuries and impairment of certain bodily functions. However, Plaintiff did not properly exhaust administrative remedies because he failed to present a proper administrative claim to the appropriate agency within the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for lack subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
2 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 2 of 13 II. FACTS On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina landed on the Gulf Coast of the United States with 130 mph winds and water surge that measured as high as 27 feet in certain places. See The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (February 2006) at p. 1 (located at This hurricane was catastrophic with a devastating path of damage that spread over 93,000 square miles of the Gulf Coast. Id. The human suffering was tremendous - over 1,300 people lost their lives. Id. Hurricane Katrina was considered the most destructive natural disaster in American history. Id. A major disaster emergency for the impacted areas was declared, and the governors from the states affected by Hurricane Katrina requested aid from various states. Attachment ("Att.") A at 1-3, 4-5. In response, Governor Edward G. Rendell mobilized 2,500 members of the Pennsylvania Army and Air National Guard ("the PA National Guard") to support disaster relief operations along the Gulf Coast. id. at 4-5; see also 51 Pa. C.S.A. 508(a) & (b) (PA Governor's mobilization authority); 35 Pa. C.S.A (Emergency Management Assistance Compact). Among the units mobilized were various troops from the 2/104th Calvary in Reading and Easton, Pennsylvania. Att. A at 4-5. The PA National Guard was initially mobilized to state active duty. Id. at 1-5. However, on September 7, 2005, federal authorities determined that National Guard personnel should be deployed in a federally-funded status pursuant to 32 U.S.C. 502(f). See Complaint at Ex. A; Att. A at The mobilization for the troops of the 2/104th Calvary lasted approximately 30 days. They returned to Pennsylvania on a bus driven by Plaintiff, John Fraley, a civilian bus driver employed by the Fullington Auto Bus Company. Complaint at 5. On or about October 6, 2005, the unit 2
3 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 3 of 13 was at a truck stop in Raphine, Virginia. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that he was standing next to his driver's seat when an unidentified member of the PA National Guard knocked him out of the bus and onto the pavement. Id. 9, 12. Plaintiff claims the guardsman was chasing after a stray dog that was running loose on the bus. Id. 12. As a result of this impact, Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries for which he now seeks compensation. Id Nearly two years after the accident, Plaintiff filed an administrative tort claim (SF-95) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Washington, DC. Att. A at The claim is dated September 24, 2007, and was received by FEMA on October 1, Id. at 16, 19. In a letter dated November 7, 2007, FEMA returned the administrative claim to Plaintiff's attorney and indicated that it was "not properly presented" because it had several defects. Id. at 19. Specifically, the administrative claim failed to provide documentation memorializing the representative capacity of Plaintiff's attorney and failed to include a "sum certain" in the damages section of the claim. Id. Additionally, FEMA informed the attorney that the administrative claim was filed with the wrong agency, that no FEMA employee was even involved, and that Plaintiff should direct his claim to the PA National Guard. Id. Plaintiff's counsel responded to FEMA in a letter dated November 26, Att. A at This letter provided documentation regarding the representation capacity of the attorney and clarified the total amount of damages requested in the administrative claim. Id. However, Plaintiff's counsel voiced confusion over the federalization of the National Guard troops and requested that FEMA continue adjudicating the administrative claim. Id. There is no evidence that Plaintiff ever filed an administrative claim with the PA National Guard. 3
4 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 4 of 13 III. ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF'S TORT CLAIM IS BARRED DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO PROPERLY EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. A. Applicable Legal Principles. The federal government and its agencies are shielded from tort actions for damages unless sovereign immunity has been waived. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). The FTCA is a limited statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims against the federal government. Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 1997). Because the FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, strict compliance with its terms is required. Livera v. First Nat'l Bank, 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir. 1989). As a prerequisite to suit under the FTCA, a party must present an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. See Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091 (3d Cir. 1995). This requirement is set forth at 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) which provides: An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office of employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) (emphasis added). The FTCA's statute of limitations provides that an administrative claim must be filed within two years of the claim's accrual. 28 U.S.C. 2401(b); Miller v. Philadelphia Geriatric Center, 463 F.3d 266, 270 (3d Cir. 2006). A claim "accrues" when an injured party knows of the existence and cause of the injury. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979). 4
5 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 5 of 13 The failure to present the administrative claim within the two-year statutory time period is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived. See Livera, 879 F.2d at 1194 (3d Cir. 1989) ("this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government."); see also Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 419 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating that when a statute requires exhaustion, the failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction.). B. Discussion. 1. National Guard personnel serving under Title 32 are "employees of the government" for FTCA purposes. Because the FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for actions attributed to federal agencies and employees, it must first be determined whether the PA National Guard, under the circumstances of this case, can be considered federal government employees for purposes of the FTCA. The National Guard is a dual federal and state program. See Perpich v. United States th Dept. of Defense, 880 F.2d 11, (8 Cir. 1989) (explaining relationship between State and Federal National Guard Programs). In Pennsylvania, the PA National Guard may be called to state active duty by the governor in order to respond to "in-state" emergencies or to requests for assistance from other states. 51 Pa.C.S. 508(a) & (b); 35 Pa.C.S Additionally, the PA National Guard may be activated solely in a federal status. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C (President may activate 200,000 National Guard members "to augment active forces for any operational mission."). There is also a hybrid status - known as "Title 32 Status" - whereby the National Guard may receive federal funding but remain under the control of their governor. 32 U.S.C. 502(f); see also CRS Report for Congress: Hurricane Katrina: DOD Disaster 5
6 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 6 of 13 Response, (Sept. 19, 2005) at pp. 6-9 (explaining the different status for National Guard service) (available at In this case, the PA National Guard was placed in Title 32 Status pursuant to a directive issued by the Acting Secretary of Defense on September 7, Complaint at 7; Att. A at The explicit language of the FTCA provides that members of the National Guard are "employee[s] of the [Federal] government" when they are "engaged in training or duty" under 32 U.S.C See 28 U.S.C. 2671; Matlack v. Treadway, 729 F. Supp. 1574, 1576 (S.D. W. Va 1990) ("The FTCA was amended in 1981 to afford protection from liability for negligent conduct to 'members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section of Title 32' and to make the United States government liable for such conduct."). Accordingly, because they were engage in duty under Title 32, the PA National Guardsman in this case may be considered as employees of the federal government for FTCA 1 purposes. 2. Due to several defects, Plaintiff's administrative claim was not properly exhausted and must be dismissed. As stated above, prior to bringing a lawsuit under the FTCA, a party must present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency. See Deutsch, 67 F.3d at The proper presentation of an administrative claim is detailed in 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a) as follows: [A] claim shall be deemed to have been presented when a Federal agency receives from a claimant, his duly authorized agency or legal representative, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an accident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for injury 1 In making this statement, Defendant does not waive any other jurisdictional defenses that may be present including whether or not the PA National Guardsman at issue was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of this incident. 6
7 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 7 of 13 to or loss of property, personal injury, or death alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident; and the title or legal capacity of the person signing, and is accompanied by evidence of his authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other representative. Moreover, "[a] claim shall be presented to the Federal agency whose activities gave rise to the claim." Id. at 14.2(b). In this case, Plaintiff's administrative claim was not properly "presented" to the appropriate Federal agency. The actions giving rise to this Complaint occurred on October 6, Complaint at 9. Plaintiff waited until October 1, 2007 to present his administrative tort claim. Att. A at 19; Drazan v. United States, 762 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir. 1985) (stating that "[m]ailing is not presenting; there must be receipt."). This was just five days prior to the end of the two-year statute of limitations period for filing administrative claims. 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). Once received, the administrative claim was recognized as having several defects. First, the administrative claim failed to contain a "sum certain." A sum certain value is critical because it enables the head of the federal agency to determine "whether the claim falls within the jurisdictional limits of his exclusive authority to process, settle, or to properly adjudicate the claim." Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d Cir. 1971). Numerous courts have held that the failure to include a "sum certain" in an administrative claim filed pursuant to the FTCA requires dismissal of the federal lawsuit. See, e.g., id., at 1050 (concluding that the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA were not satisfied where the administrative claim failed st to include a sum certain); Kokaras v. United States, 980 F.2d 20, 22 (1 Cir. 1992) ("This court has consistently held that a timely-presented claim stating a sum certain is necessary for a court to have jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the United States under the FTCA."). 7
8 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 8 of 13 Second, Plaintiff's administrative claim failed to include documentation memorializing the authority of Plaintiff's attorney to represent him. This is a specific requirement mandated by 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a), and the failure to comply can lead to rejection of the claim. Finally, Plaintiff's administrative claim was not presented to the appropriate federal agency as required by 28 C.F.R (b). The appropriate federal agency is the "agency whose activities gave rise to the claim." In this case, that agency is the PA National Guard as the facts in Plaintiff's own Complaint clearly indicate. See Complaint at FEMA had nothing to do with the supervision, control, or direction of the PA National Guard on the date of this incident. There was no excuse for Plaintiff's failure to properly file with the appropriate federal agency. Plaintiff could have easily have conducted minimal research or inquired with the PA National Guard to realize that all claims against the National Guard are processed according to 2 Army Regulation Chapter 6 of this regulation clearly indicates that National Guard claims, such as Plaintiff's, will be processed under the FTCA through an area claim office of the National Guard unit at issue. See Army Regulation at Chapters. 6 & 2. Plaintiff's counsel had at least some idea that the appropriate agency in this case was the PA National Guard. In his letter dated September 27, 2007, Plaintiff's attorney indicates that he sued the PA National Guard by filing suit in Blair County, Pennsylvania. Att. A at 15. However, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the PA National Guard. As a result, he failed to properly follow the administrative claims process that was mandated prior to filing this lawsuit in Federal Court. 2 This regulation may be accessed at 8
9 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 9 of 13 Due to these defects, Plaintiff failed to present a proper administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency within the two-year statute of limitations time period. Proper presentation is a critical step in the administrative process because it "provide[s] enough information to permit the agency to conduct an investigation and to estimate the claim's worth." Romulus v. United States, 160 F.3d 131, 132 (2d Cir. 1998). Where, as here, a plaintiff has failed to file a timely and proper administrative claim, any subsequent FTCA lawsuit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in [F]ederal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Because petitioner failed to heed that clear statutory command, the [d]istrict [c]ourt properly dismissed his suit. ); Livera, 879 F.2d at 1194 (explaining that exhaustion "is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government."); Tucker v. United States Postal Serv., 676 F.2d 954, 959 (3d Cir. 1982) ("Noncompliance with section 2675 deprives a claimant of federal court jurisdiction over his or her claim."). 3. Plaintiff's administrative claim was not "constructively filed." In certain limited cases, administrative claims that are presented to the wrong federal agency may still survive. Pursuant to the tort claim transfer regulation, 28 C.F.R. 14.2(b)(1), "[w]hen a claim is presented to [an improper Federal agency], that agency shall transfer it forthwith to the appropriate agency, if the proper agency can be identified from the claim, and advise the claimant of the transfer." Under these circumstances the administrative claim will be deemed "constructively filed", and the case will proceed through the administrative process. See, e.g., Greene v. United States, 872 F.2d 236 (8th Cir. 1989); Bukala v. United States, 854 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1988). 9
10 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 10 of 13 However, Plaintiff's claim should not be considered as "constructively filed." This benefit only works for those administrative claims that were properly "presented," albeit to the wrong federal agency, within the statute of limitations time period. The regulations clearly define what constitutes a properly "presented" claim. See 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a)("[A] claim shall be deemed to have been presented" when it contains a sum certain amount for damages and evidence of representative capacity) (emphasis added). In this case, Plaintiff's administrative claim was never "presented" when it was received by FEMA on October 1, 2007, because the sum certain value and evidence of representative capacity were lacking. See Bradley v. United States ex rel. Veterans Admin., 951 F.2d 268, 271 (10th Cir. 1991) ("Failure to comply with the sum certain requirements results in the case being treated 'as if no administrative claim had ever been filed.'") (quoting Caidin v. United States, 564 F.2d 284, 287 (9th Cir. 1977)). FEMA returned the claim and notified Plaintiff of the deficiencies including the appropriate agency that would handle the claim. See Att. A at 19 ("Therefore, you will need to direct your claim to the Pennsylvania National Guard, if you have not already done so."). Under 28 C.F.R. 14.2(b)(1), FEMA is only obligated to transfer appropriately "presented" administrative claims. Because this claim was defective, transfer was not feasible and FEMA correctly returned the claim to Plaintiff. 28 C.F.R. 14.2(b)(1) ("If transfer is not feasible, the claim shall be returned to the claimant."). By the time Plaintiff corrected his administrative claim, November 27, 2007, and again sent it to the wrong agency, the statute of limitations had already run. Even assuming Plaintiff's claim had no defects and was improperly sent to FEMA on October 1, 2007 (still within the statute of limitations time period), constructive filing would not be permitted. Courts have universally held that "claimants who wait to the last minute or the 10
11 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 11 of 13 eleventh hour and file with the wrong agency cannot take advantage of constructive filing." Ortiz v. United States, 2007 WL at *11 (E.D. Ca. Feb. 2, 2007) (citing cases); see also Hart v. Dept. of Labor, 116 F.3d 1338, 1341 (10th Cir. 1997) ("If, however, as here, a claimant waits until the eleventh hour to file and, despite notification of the appropriate agency, the filing is misdirected, there is no compelling reason for allowing constructive filing."); Oquendo-Ayala v. United States, 30 F. Supp.2d 193, 195 (D. P.R. 1998) ("He who files at the last minute takes the risk that a misidentified claim will not be transferred to the appropriate agency on time."). In this case, Plaintiff's claim was received by FEMA on October 1, only five days prior to the expiration of the limitations period. Courts have held that administrative claims filed with an inappropriate agency anywhere from one to eighteen days prior to the expiration of the limitations period are considered "last minute" or "eleventh hour" claims and are therefore timebarred. Ortiz v. United States, 2007 WL at *11 (citing Cronauer v. United States, 394 F. Supp.2d 93, (D.D.C. 2005) (one day); Lotrionte v. United States, 560 F. Supp. 41, (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (eight days); Massengale v. United States, 2006 WL at *1-2 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2006) (eighteen days)). Accordingly, even if Plaintiff's administrative claim had no defects, the fact that it was filed with the wrong agency at the "last minute" or "eleventh hour" would have deprived him of the advantage of constructive filing. 11
12 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 12 of 13 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court should grant the instant Motion and dismiss the Complaint against the United States for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal Defendant, with prejudice. 3 Respectfully submitted, MARY BETH BUCHANAN United States Attorney s/paul D. Kovac PAUL D. KOVAC Assistant U.S. Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. Post Office & Courthouse 700 Grant Street, Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA Dated: September 8, 2008 (412) In his Complaint, Plaintiff has also demanded a jury trial. However, there is no right to a jury trial in FTCA actions. 28 U.S.C Accordingly, Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial should be stricken. 12
13 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE th I hereby certify that on this 8 day of September, 2008, I electronically filed and/or served via first-class U.S. Mail, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint to the following: Michael J. Koehler, Esq. Nicholas, Perot, Smith, Koehler & Wall th 2527 West 26 Street Erie, PA s/paul D. Kovac PAUL D. KOVAC Assistant U.S. Attorney
14 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 1 of 23
15 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 2 of 23
16 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 3 of 23
17 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 4 of 23
18 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 5 of 23
19 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 6 of 23
20 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 7 of 23
21 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 8 of 23
22 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 9 of 23
23 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 10 of 23
24 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 11 of 23
25 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 12 of 23
26 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 13 of 23
27 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 14 of 23
28 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 15 of 23
29 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 16 of 23
30 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 17 of 23
31 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 18 of 23
32 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 19 of 23
33 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 20 of 23
34 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 21 of 23
35 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 22 of 23
36 Case 3:08-cv KRG Document 12-2 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 23 of 23
Raphael Theokary v. USA
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-31-2014 Raphael Theokary v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-3143 Follow this and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Morales v. United States of America Doc. 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : NICHOLAS MORALES, JR., : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2578-BRM-LGH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:05-cv-04182-SRD-JCW Document 19514 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In Re: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION CIVIL ACTION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
13-3880-cv Haskin v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR
More informationCase 3:13-cv KC Document 8 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION
Case 3:13-cv-00343-KC Document 8 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION CYNTHIA B. EGGER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-05867-CAS-JPR Document 78-14 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1276 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 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney DOROTHY
More informationMervin John v. Secretary Army
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-5-2012 Mervin John v. Secretary Army Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-4223 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
0 0 MICHAEL C. ORMSBY United States Attorney FRANK A. WILSON Assistant United States Attorney Post Office Box Spokane, WA 0- Telephone: (0) - GREGORY CHALLINOR and SHANDA JENNINGS, as Personal Representatives
More informationCase 2:17-cv MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01903-MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARCIA WOODS, et al. : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Shanklin et al v. Ellen Chamblin et al Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION STEVEN DALE SHANKLIN, DORIS GAY LUBER, and on behalf of D.M.S., and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Staples v. United States of America Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM STAPLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-10-1007-C ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SCHMIDT v. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FORT DIX et al Doc. 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STEVEN SCHMIDT, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-HUCK/TURNOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-21276-CIV-HUCK/TURNOFF JOEL MARTINEZ, v. Plaintiff, [Defendant A], a/k/a [Defendant A] and [Defendant B] Defendants. / DEFENDANTS MOTION
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
Case: 15-36003, 09/19/2016, ID: 10127799, DktEntry: 26, Page 1 of 14 Docket No. 15-36003 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit GLENN EAGLEMAN, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROCKY
More informationPhilip Burg v. US Dept Health and Human Servi
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-21-2010 Philip Burg v. US Dept Health and Human Servi Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION
Hendley et al v. Garey et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION MICHAEL HENDLEY, DEMETRIUS SMITH, JR., as administrator for the estate of CRYNDOLYN
More informationCase 3:14-cv KRG Document Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:14-cv-00125-KRG Document 80 80 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY EVANS, JR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-125 v.
More informationThe Federal Tort Claims Act A primer for medical malpractice cases in Virginia and beyond
The Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Volume 26 Number 3, 2017 17 Federal Practice The Federal Tort Claims Act A primer for medical malpractice cases in Virginia and beyond by Rachel Procopio
More informationThe Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP. Introduction
The Struggle to Preserve Tribal Sovereignty in Alabama David Smith Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP Introduction Over the last decade, the state of Alabama, including the Alabama Supreme Court, has
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued September 20, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00836-CV GORDON R. GOSS, Appellant V. THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 270th District
More informationNo ANNETTE CARMICHAEL, Individually, and as Guardian for KEITH CARMICHAEL, an incapacitated adult, Petitioners, V.
No. 09-683 ANNETTE CARMICHAEL, Individually, and as Guardian for KEITH CARMICHAEL, an incapacitated adult, Petitioners, V. KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and RICHARD
More informationCase 1:14-cv JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:14-cv-00097-JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION HENRY D. HOWARD, et al., v. Plaintiffs, AUGUSTA-RICHMOND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN AFTERGOOD, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 01-2524 (RMU CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
More informationCase 3:15-cv RAL Document 32 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 208 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-03015-RAL Document 32 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 208 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION DENISE LIGHTNING FIRE AND WAKIYAN PETA, on behalf of
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ticktin v. Central Intelligence Agency Doc. 1 1 1 1 WO Philip Ticktin, vs. Plaintiff, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0--PHX-MHM
More informationFedERAL LIABILITY. Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act?
FedERAL LIABILITY Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act? CASE AT A GLANCE The United States is asking the Court to
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240 JOSEPH CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ) RECOMMENDATION HARRAH S NC CASINO COMPANY,
More informationCase MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 14-50435-MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC., et al., Debtors Chapter 11 Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)
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 information3:13-cv JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
3:13-cv-00882-JFA Date Filed 04/04/13 Entry Number 4 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Charles Smith, individually and as Parent of Minor
More informationDefendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 2) by defendant the United
Camizzi v. United States of America Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID CAMIZZI, v. Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 10-CV-949A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 33 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Case 2:15-cv-00103 Document 33 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARIA FERNANDA RICO ANDRADE, Individually and on behalf
More informationCase4:09-cv CW Document16 Filed06/04/09 Page1 of 16
Case:0-cv-0-CW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California SARA J. DRAKE Supervising Deputy Attorney General PETER H. KAUFMAN Deputy Attorney General State Bar No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
MARGIOTTI v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Doc. 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 17) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE GERARD MARGIOTTI Plaintiff,
More informationNo. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MILO A. JONES, Appellant,
No. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MILO A. JONES, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Eleventh Amendment
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 2:09-CV-271 OPINION
Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. v. Vikingcraft Spine, Inc. et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION PIONEER SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:03-cv RNC Document 32 Filed 11/13/2003 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendants.
Case 3:03-cv-00252-RNC Document 32 Filed 11/13/2003 Page 1 of 7 WILLIAM SPECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION LLC C.A. NO. 3:03-CV-00252
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-84C (Filed: November 19, 2014 FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, et al. v. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tucker Act;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION. Case No. 13-cv CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
TAMMY GARCIA, an individual, v. Plaintiff, MAKO SURGICAL CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 13-cv-61361-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:17-cr-00229-AT-CMS Document 42 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARED WHEAT, JOHN
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-488 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JORGE ORTIZ, AS
More informationCase 1:15-cv MJW Document 89 Filed 04/11/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01523-MJW Document 89 Filed 04/11/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01523-MJW ROBERT W. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationCase 0:12-cv WJZ Document 215 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-60460-WJZ Document 215 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 12-60460-CIV-ROSENBAUM A.R., by and through her next
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI MICHAEL PAYMENT, M.D., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV01003-LTS-RHW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI MICHAEL PAYMENT, M.D., VS. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV01003-LTS-RHW DEFENDANT DEFENDANT STATE
More informationCase 4:17-cv JLK Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2018 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-10092-JLK Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2018 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA KEY WEST DIVISION CHABAD OF KEY WEST, INC., and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Kinard v. Greenville Police Department et al Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Ira Milton Kinard, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 6:10-cv-03246-JMC
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VETERAN ESQUIRE LEGAL ) SOLUTIONS, PLLC, ) 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive ) Suite 400
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-28-2002 Caleb v. CRST Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2218 Follow this and additional
More informationCase: 5:17-cv JMH Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/28/18 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 144
Case: 5:17-cv-00405-JMH Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/28/18 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 144 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON ALI SAWAF, Individually and as Administrator
More informationLawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-2-2010 Lawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-1446 Follow
More informationMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN AUTHORITIES
Case :-cv-000-ckj Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 ELIZABETH A. STRANGE First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona J. COLE HERNANDEZ Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 00 e-mail:
More informationCase 4:08-cv RP-RAW Document 34 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00370-RP-RAW Document 34 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION CARL OLSEN, ) ) Civil No. 4:08-cv-00370 (RWP/RAW) Plaintiff, )
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY NO: 4:16-CV BR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY NO: 4:16-CV-00021-BR IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF TRAWLER SUSAN ROSE, INC. AS ) OWNER OF THE
More informationCase4:09-cv SBA Document42 Document48 Filed12/17/09 Filed02/01/10 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-00-SBA Document Document Filed//0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 BAY AREA LEGAL AID LISA GREIF, State Bar No. NAOMI YOUNG, State Bar No. 00 ROBERT P. CAPISTRANO, State Bar No. 0 Telegraph Avenue Oakland,
More informationNew York Central Mutual Insura v. Margolis Edelstein
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-1-2016 New York Central Mutual Insura v. Margolis Edelstein Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationCase 3:13-cv SCC Document 47 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:13-cv-01606-SCC Document 47 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MARIA A. VALDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIV. NO.: 13-1606(SCC) UNITED STATES OF
More informationReview of Recent Juvenile Cases (2011)
Review of Recent Juvenile Cases (2011) by The Honorable Pat Garza Associate Judge 386th District Court San Antonio, Texas An employee of the El Paso Juvenile Probation Department is not an "employee" of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Montanez et al Doc. 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., CASE NO. :0-cv-0-AWI-SKO v. Plaintiff,
More informationHomeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions
Order Code RL31649 Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions Updated May 9, 2008 Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DARLENE K. HESSLER, Trustee of the Hessler Family Living Trust, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of the Treasury,
More informationSn ~ ~upreme ~ourt o{ t~e ~Init~l~ ~,tate~
Supreme Court,, U.S. FILED OCT 2 9 2~ No. 09-26 F. F_I_C~E OF THE CLERK Sn ~ ~upreme ~ourt o{ t~e ~Init~l~ ~,tate~ SUSAN HERTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROGER B. HERTZ,
More informationCase 1:09-cv SOM-BMK Document 48 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 437 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Case 1:09-cv-00336-SOM-BMK Document 48 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 437 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII OKLEVUEHA NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH OF HAWAII, INC.; MICHAEL
More informationCase 2:11-cv CDJ Document 12 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 211-cv-07391-CDJ Document 12 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MOTHER SMITH, on behalf of herself and as Parent and Natural Guardian,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION NICOLE SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:03-CV-1727 CAS ) PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ) ST. LOUIS REGION, et al., ) ) Defendants.
More informationCase 3:13-cv RAL Document 8 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 3:13-cv-03021-RAL Document 8 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION NORMA SORACE, Administratrix ) of the Estate of MELANIE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More informationCase 2:12-cv JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-03783-JD Document 50 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHERIE LEATHERMAN, both : CIVIL ACTION individually and as the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : ORDER. AND NOW, this day of, 2007, upon
GULLIFORD v. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES et al Doc. 11 Case 207-cv-02346-EL Document 11 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELAINE C. GULLIFORD,
More informationCase: 1:16-cv MRB Doc #: 10 Filed: 10/31/16 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:16-cv-00699-MRB Doc #: 10 Filed: 10/31/16 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
More information5th Circuit Reverses Itself on Hurricane Katrina Liability Lawsuit
5th Circuit Reverses Itself on Hurricane Katrina Liability Lawsuit Willis Hon* INTRODUCTION The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed an earlier ruling by holding that the Army Corp of Engineers
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JOAN ROSS WILDASIN, Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:14-cv-2036 v. Judge Sharp PEGGY MATHES; HILAND, MATHES & URQUHART; AND BILL COLSON
More informationCase 2:06-cv SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:06-cv-04091-SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. BRANCH CONSULTANTS, L.L.C. VERSUS * CIVIL
More informationCase 3:15-cv TSL-RHW Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:15-cv-00105-TSL-RHW Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION KENNY PAYNE, on behalf of the Estate of
More informationMARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2401 S.E. MONTEREY ROAD STUART, FL 34996 DOUG SMITH Commissioner, District 1 November 26, 2018 Telephone: (772) 288-5925 Fax: (772) 288-5439 Email: eelder@martin.fl.us
More informationAnthony Catanzaro v. Nora Fischer
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-20-2014 Anthony Catanzaro v. Nora Fischer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4728 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL V. PELLICANO Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION No. 11-406 v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. OPINION Slomsky,
More informationCase 7:18-cv VB Document 37 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 10
Case 718-cv-00883-VB Document 37 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x MICHELET CHARLES,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States. v. ALAN METZGAR, ET AL.,
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States KBR, INCORPORATED, ET AL., v. ALAN METZGAR, ET AL., Petitioners, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationCase 1:07-cv RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) NOLBERTA AGUILAR, et al., ) ) Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES
More informationCase 3:14-cv AC Document 11 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01239-AC Document 11 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 S. AMANDA MARSHALL, OSB # 95347 United States Attorney District of Oregon STEPHEN J. ODELL, OSB # 903530 Assistant United States Attorney steve.odell@usdoj.gov
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DENNIS G. HUCKINS. MARK MCSWEENEY & a. Argued: February 12, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 11, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60285 Document: 00513350756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar ANTHONY WRIGHT, For and on Behalf of His Wife, Stacey Denise
More informationCase 3:15-cv MHL Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16
Case 3:15-cv-00349-MHL Document 4 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JAIME S. ALFARO-GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. HENRICO
More informationWatts v. Brunson, Robinson & Huffstutler, Attorneys, P.A. et al Doc. 55
Watts v. Brunson, Robinson & Huffstutler, Attorneys, P.A. et al Doc. 55 FILED 2017 May-24 PM 04:27 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
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 informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- WILLIAM GIL PERENGUEZ,
More informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC ORDER AND REASONS
Parson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, LLC Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHARLES H. PARSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-0037 CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC SECTION: R ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Knight v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PARKER MICHAEL KNIGHT, Plaintiff, 3:13-CV-01349-BR OPINION AND ORDER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 1:17-cv RBW Document 11-1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00102-RBW Document 11-1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TECO GUATEMALA HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner, REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA, 8va Avenida de
More informationPlaintiff Lieutenant Colonel Richard A. Vargus ("Plaintiff" or "LTC Vargus") brings this action against Defendant Secretary of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LTC RICHARD A. VARGUS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-924 (GK) JOHN M. MCHUGH, OF THE ARMY, SEC'Y Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Lieutenant
More informationStewart v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al Doc. 32 ELLIE STEWART v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
More informationCase 1:04-cv GBD-RLE Document 953 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00397-GBD-RLE Document 953 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
More informationCase 3:14-cv PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 146
Case 3:14-cv-02686-PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 146 PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney By: J. ANDREW RUYMANN Assistant U.S. Attorney 402 East State Street, Room 430 Trenton,
More informationCase 4:15-cv Document 31 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:15-cv-01371 Document 31 Filed in TXSD on 07/19/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GRIER PATTON AND CAMILLE PATTON, Plaintiffs, and DAVID A.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed 0// Page of Steven James Goodhue (#0) Law Offices of Steven James Goodhue East Shea Blvd., Suite 00 Scottsdale, AZ 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 E-Mail: sjg@sjgoodlaw.com
More informationCase 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:13-cv-00185-S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ) DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 13-185
More informationCase 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
Case 2:16-cv-05042-JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANLOGIC SCOUT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., v. Petitioners, CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. No. CIV JB/KK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kucera v. United States of America Doc. 20 GREGORY EDWARD KUCERA (III), CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO vs. No. CIV 17-1228 JB/KK
More information