UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )"

Transcription

1 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 16 Rebecca K. Smith P.O. Box 7584 Missoula, Montana ( ( FAX publicdefense@gmail.com James Jay Tutchton Tutchton Law Office, LLC 6439 E. Maplewood Ave. Centennial, CO ( jtutchtontlo@gmail.com Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Clearwater UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. KEN SALAZAR, et al., Defendants, Case No M-DWM Case No M-DWM RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR AN INDICATIVE RULING

2 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 16 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Court s Order of March 21, 2011 (ECF Doc. # 193, Plaintiffs Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Clearwater (collectively Non-Settling Plaintiffs hereby indicate their opposition to the Motion for an Indicative Ruling filed jointly by a group of Settling Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants (collectively the Settling Parties. ECF Doc. # 187. Though counsel for the Non-Settling Plaintiffs are new to this long-running litigation, it is fairly easy to understand the basic motivation behind the proposed settlement: In order to avoid potential Congressional action delisting the wolf in Montana and Idaho and possibly in adjacent states or even nationwide, the Settling Plaintiffs have struck a deal with the Federal Defendants to delist the wolf in Montana and Idaho via settlement instead. Whatever the wisdom of this arrangement when viewed through a political lens, this means to accomplish it is inappropriate: The Settling Parties are asking the Court to restore to operation a Rule it has found illegal. The sole question before the Court is not whether this arrangement represents shrewd politics, but whether it is legal. Because the Non- Settling Plaintiffs believe that it is not, they oppose the pending Motion. STANDARD OF REVIEW The pending Motion for an Indicative Ruling is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P The Settling Parties have appropriately set out the standard for 1

3 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 16 review of such a motion in their brief. ECF Doc. # 188 at The Court has indicated that the Motion appears to raise a substantial issue. Order, ECF Doc. # 193 at 3. Because a finding that a motion for an indicative ruling raises a substantial issue does not require a court to grant the motion upon a return of jurisdiction from the appellate court, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs do not necessarily quarrel with this limited conclusion. 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P (Advisory Committee Note(2009( The district court is not bound to grant the motion after stating that the motion raises a substantial issue; further proceedings on remand may show that the motion ought not be granted.. However, because in deciding a motion for an indicative ruling the district court may also indicate that it would grant the motion upon a remand from the court of appeals for that purpose, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs must further set out their opposition at this juncture. The question of whether this Court should ultimately grant the pending Motion and stay the remedial aspects of its Judgment, vacating and setting aside the 2009 Delisting Rule as applied to Montana and Idaho, calls for the application of an additional standard of review; that contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b. Here 1 Page number references refer to ECF page numbers, not internal page numbers in the documents cited. 2 The Non-Settling Plaintiffs state that they do not necessarily quarrel with the limited conclusion that the pending Motion raises a substantial issue, based on the assumption that, as contemplated in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 62.1, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs would be given an opportunity during further proceedings on remand to argue that the Motion ultimately ought not be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P (Advisory Committee Note(

4 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 16 the Settling Parties Motion is premised upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b(5 & (6. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at Rule 60(b(5 provides a court may relieve a party from a final judgment when the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. Rule 60(b(6 provides a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for any other reason that justifies relief. See Id. More specifically, in order to be eligible for relief from a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b(5, a movant must demonstrate a significant change in either factual conditions or in the law. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 368 ( ; see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 216 (1997( Obviously, if neither the law nor the facts have changed, there would be no need to decide the propriety of a Rule 60(b(5 motion. In order to be eligible for relief from a judgment pursuant to the catch-all provision in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b(6 a movant must show that extraordinary circumstances justify such relief. Ackerman v. U.S., 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950. A court may only grant such relief when it offends justice to deny [it]. Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10 th Cir Though Rufo dealt with a consent decree there is no basis for distinguishing a consent decree from a final judgment entered by a court for purposes of Rule 60(b(5. 3

5 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 5 of 16 Finally, any motion for relief from judgment under either Rule 60(b(5 or (6 must be made within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c. In determining what is a reasonable time, courts consider the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to the other parties. Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9 th Cir Because, as argued below, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs do not believe that the Settling Parties can satisfy the standards for relief from judgment contained in either Rule 60(b(5 or (6, or that their Motion is timely within the meaning of Rule 60(c, they believe the Motion must ultimately be denied. ARGUMENT I. The Motion is Not Timely The Settling Parties argument that their Motion is timely rests on the proposed settlement being negotiated in good faith over the past several months. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 10 n. 6. This much is apparently true. However, the Settling Parties do not address the other factors a court should consider in determining whether a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b is timely within the meaning of Rule 60(c namely the interests of other parties in the finality of the judgment, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigants to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and the prejudice to the other parties. See 4

6 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 6 of 16 Ashford, 657 F.2d at Here proper consideration of all of these factors together appears to cut in opposition to a finding of timeliness. First, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs have an obvious interest in the finality of the Court s existing judgment, including the provisions for relief. Even more obvious is the prejudice to the Non-Settling Plaintiffs that would arise from the removal of those provisions of the Court s judgment providing relief -- which the Non-Settling Plaintiffs litigated to obtain. Neither of these factors is addressed in the pending Motion. Accordingly, under the analysis required by the Ninth Circuit in Ashford, a finding the pending Motion is timely is unsupported. Second, though the Settling Parties point to settlement negotiations taking place over the past few months as the reason for delay in bring their request for relief from judgment to the Court, the Settling Parties make no substantial argument, at least not in their Court filings, that any new developments precipitated this delay. Rather what it appears has happened is that the Settling Plaintiffs determined that the relief they obtained from this Court was not politically supported by certain Congressional actors. The pending Motion makes no effort to explain or justify the factors actually leading to Settling Parties delay in requesting relief from the judgment. What is missing from the pending Motion is the truth. While the settlement negotiations understandably took some time to complete, the Settling Plaintiffs do not explain honestly how political pressure and 5

7 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 7 of 16 potential proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act ( ESA arose and apparently gave rise to a negotiation in which the Settling Plaintiffs decided to relinquish the relief they obtained from this Court. The delay at issue here is not simply explained by a statement that settlement negotiations take time, but must include an explanation as to why the Settling Plaintiffs delayed in arriving at their political calculation that the relief obtained from this Court needed to be negotiated away. The Settling Parties have explained the mechanism of delay, but not its causation. This failure of the pending Motion to explain the underlying reason for delay (the development of political pressure as opposed to the mechanism of delay (settlement negotiations gives rise to the third and final infirmity in the Settling Parties argument their Motion is timely under Rule 60(c, the Settling Parties have not explained why they lacked the practical ability to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon. Ashford, 657 F.2d at From the Non-Settling Plaintiffs perspective, the question is more direct why ask for relief you apparently didn t really want? In short, though the Court may ultimately determine the Settling Parties have filed the pending Motion within a reasonable time, it should not do so without a full and accurate consideration of the factors for determining what is a reasonable time under Rule 60(c as articulated by the Ninth Circuit. The Motion and 6

8 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 8 of 16 supporting brief do not allow for such full and accurate consideration and, at present, a finding that the Settling Parties have filed the Motion within a reasonable time is unsupported. II. Relief From the Judgment is Not Appropriate Under Rule 60(b(5 In order to qualify for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b(5 the Settling Parties must point to a significant change in either factual conditions or in the law. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 368. See also Agostini, 521 U.S. at 216 ( Obviously, if neither the law nor the facts have changed, there would be no need to decide the propriety of a Rule 60(b(5 motion. Here it is apparent that there has been no change in the governing law and the pending Motion does not attempt to articulate any such change. Indeed, the pending Motion specifically indicates that it seeks no change in the Court s conclusions of law, but only its provision for relief. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 5 n.3. As to the Court s provision of relief the question then becomes what facts have changed. The Settling Plaintiffs and the Non-Settling Plaintiffs both originally argued that [t]he decision to eliminate ESA protections for gray wolves in the northern Rockies will also cause irreparable ecological harm to the ecosystems where wolves are now found. Complaint, ECF Doc. # 1 at 11, 22. Similarly, both the Settling and Non-Settling Plaintiffs originally argued a connected population of 2,000-5,000 wolves is necessary to ensure a genetically 7

9 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 9 of 16 viable northern Rockies wolf population over the long term. Id. at 19, 43. The Non-Settling Plaintiffs stand by these factual assertions. The Settling Plaintiffs have not explained what they believe has changed with respect to these factual conditions. More importantly, specifically with respect to the 2009 Delisting Rule both the Settling and Non-Settling Plaintiffs argued that [w]hile the Delisting Rule asserts that the population may remain above 1,000 wolves under state management, FWS did not seek or obtain commitments from Montana and Idaho to manage for any more than wolves in each state. Id. at 28, Yet, it is these very state management plans that all Plaintiffs once argued were inadequate and illegal that the Settling Plaintiffs now wish to put back in place via their proposed settlement. Again, the Settling Plaintiffs have failed to articulate any change in their assessment of what is factually required under the state management plans of Montana and Idaho, or how these plans they now wish to return to force no longer risk irreparable harm to the wolf population and the ecosystem. In sum, the state wolf management plans of Idaho and Montana that the 4 See also, Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF Doc. # 89 at ( Nor does FWS [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] attempt to support the Delisting Rule s claim that Idaho and Montana have committed to maintaining more than 1,000 wolves more than three times the state s actual commitment.. 8

10 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 10 of 16 Settling Plaintiffs now wish to return to force remain unchanged. The wolf population remains essentially unchanged, though it has declined somewhat. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at The illegality of the Federal Defendants delisting of only part of a Distinct Population Segment and the Solicitor s Memorandum that supported this piecemeal delisting remains unchanged. The Settling Parties have not pointed to any change in fact or law that justifies relief from the remedial portions of this Court s judgment. In fairness, the Settling Parties could point to the provisions of the proposed settlement agreement itself as operating some change in factual conditions and thus the Settling Plaintiffs prior assessment of the impact of implementation of the Idaho and Montana wolf management plans on the wolf population. However, such an argument calls into question what does the proposed settlement agreement actually require. Here the answer is very little. First, the proposed settlement agreement requires the Federal Defendants to withdraw the Solicitor s Opinion that this Court has already determined provides an illegal interpretation of the relevant provisions of the ESA. See Settlement Agreement, ECF Doc. # at 5 2. This provides no additional protection for wolves. Second, the settlement provides the Federal Defendants will begin, but not necessary complete, a public process to provide a new interpretation of the relevant ESA provisions. Id. 3. Again, there is no new protection for wolves here. Third, 9

11 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 11 of 16 the settlement states the Delisting Rule relies on documents that are already part of the Administrative Record. Id. 4. Fourth, the settlement provides that in establish a new Delisting Rule, FWS will consider the relevant state management plans, the required elements of the ESA, and various delisting alternatives, but the settlement does not constrain FWS s administrative options in any significant manner. Id. at 5-6, 5. Fifth, the settlement requires FWS to gather data, monitor wolf management, and comply with various provisions of the ESA, but no substantive outcomes are required. Id. at 6-7, 6-7. Sixth, and finally, the settlement requires FWS to seek an independent scientific review of wolf management and make this review publicly available, but it does not require FWS to act upon, or even to heed in any manner whatsoever, the conclusions of this independent scientific review. Id. at 7, 8. In sum, the proposed settlement agreement offers little if any certain additional protection for wolves. More importantly, it neither requests any change in the Idaho or Montana wolf management plans all Plaintiffs previously argued and factually asserted were inadequate, nor addresses how re-instituting a partial Delisting Rule the Court previously found to be illegal is now appropriate. Accordingly, the pending Motion fails to satisfy the requirements for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b(5. 10

12 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 12 of 16 III. Relief From the Judgment is Not Appropriate Under Rule 60(b(6 Failing to establish any change in the governing law or factual situation under Rule 60(b(5, the Settling Parties must rely on the catch-all provision in Rule 60(b(6 any other reason that justifies relief to support their Motion. Here, the Settling Parties rely first on the Court s discretion and ability to leave illegal rules in place during remand. Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 21. However, the Settling Parties acknowledge only in a footnote that in the first case they cite in support of this argument, Idaho Farm Bureau Fed n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1405 (9 th Cir. 1995, the court left ESA protection for a species in place pending a remand, and contrary to the present request, did not remove it during remand. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 21 n.8. Additionally, the Settling Parties do not argue that there was anything incorrect with the Court s initial determination, under its discretion, that the Delisting Rule needed to be set aside during remand. Second, the Settling Parties argue that the settlement agreement will provide protection for delisted wolves. Id. at 22. However, as discussed above, the settlement agreement provides little if any actual protection for delisted wolves. Provisions for additional monitoring, data collection, or even independent scientific assessment do not necessarily translate into additional on the ground protection because the settlement agreement does not require FWS to take any specific action once informed with the new monitoring data or independent 11

13 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 13 of 16 scientific assessment. Moreover, as argued above, the Settling Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain how the state wolf management plans of Idaho and Montana they once found so inadequate have now become adequate. Third, the Settling Parties argue the settlement agreement will ensure the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. Id. at The Settling Parties expound that they are motivated by a desire to help resolve or at least diminish the ongoing public controversy surrounding the issue of wolf management in the northern Rockies. Id. at 23. Here what the Settling Parties mean through their vague language is closer to the truth. They desire to head off Congressional efforts to amend the ESA. However, the settlement agreement does not ensure that such Congressional efforts will diminish. The Settling Parties have made a political calculation. Whether sound or not, the fact remains that the political calculations of the Settling Plaintiffs should not negate the legal rights on the Non-Settling Plaintiffs to the relief that they have obtained from this Court. Such a result, sacrificing the legal rights of some to the political calculations of others is hardly just or equitable. More importantly, it is wildly inappropriate for a court to consider political backlash in enforcing the law as written. As the Supreme Court has stated in interpreting the ESA it is for courts to enforce [the law] when enforcement is sought. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978. It is not for the courts to amend 12

14 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 14 of 16 their judgments to deny relief previously afforded as just because some plaintiffs fear a Congressional response. If Congress desires to amend the governing law that is within its constitutional authority. However, it is equally within the authority and responsibility of the courts to enforce the law as written, until Congress acts. Third, and finally, the Settling Parties argue the Court should grant the pending Motion because it will promote the laudable goal of settlement. Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 25. While settlement is certainly a laudable goal, its promotion is difficult when not all parties agree to a proposed settlement. Here it is far from clear that approval of the pending settlement among less than all parties will actually reduce litigation. In this sense, the Settling Parties are speculating. It is unclear whether the many Intervenor-Defendants agree to the terms of the proposed settlement and will, like the Federal Defendants, consider dropping their respective appeals. More certain, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs are not agreeing to forego further litigation either through the instant case, or by agreeing not to challenge any future delisting rules or refrain from petitioning for the relisting of wolves if delisted. Additionally, because not all plaintiffs are in agreement the ability of the settlement to resolve the related litigation, Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Gould, 08-cv-14-DWM (D. Mont., is also hypothetical. See Brief in Support, ECF Doc. # 188 at 27 (dismissal of Gould is an integral part of 13

15 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 15 of 16 settlement. The Gould litigation may well be continued by the Non-Settling Plaintiffs and/or Intervenor-Defendants. Accordingly, the ability of the instant proposed settlement to actually settle anything remains an open question. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court deny the pending Motion for an Indicative Ruling. However, if the Court is inclined, as it has indicated, to determine that the pending Motion presents a substantial issue, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs respectfully request that upon remand from the Ninth Circuit, this Court conduct an additional hearing, with opportunity for further briefing and argument, to fully consider the underlying motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of March, 2011, S/James J. Tutchton James Jay Tutchton Tutchton Law Office, LLC 6439 E. Maplewood Ave. Centennial, CO ( jtutchtontlo@gmail.com Rebecca K. Smith P.O. Box 7584 Missoula, Montana ( ( FAX publicdefense@gmail.com 14

16 Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 16 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 22, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana using the Court s CM-ECF System which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record. S/ James J. Tutchton James J. Tutchton 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 187-1 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, KEN SALAZAR, et

More information

UNI T E D ST A T ES DIST RI C T C O UR T F O R DIST RI C T O F M O N T A N A M ISSO U L A DI V ISI O N

UNI T E D ST A T ES DIST RI C T C O UR T F O R DIST RI C T O F M O N T A N A M ISSO U L A DI V ISI O N Rebecca K. Smith P.O. Box 7584 Missoula, Montana 59807 Ph: (406) 531-8133 Fax: (406) 830-3085 Email: publicdefense@gmail.com James Jay Tutchton Tutchton Law Office, LLC 6439 E. Maplewood Ave. Centennial,

More information

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2012 Case Summaries Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar Jack G. Connors University of Montana School of Law, john.connors@umontana.edu Follow this

More information

NOS and (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOS and (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOS. 11-35661 and 11-35670 (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES; FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER; and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, and Plaintiffs - Appellants,

More information

Case 9:17-cv DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION

Case 9:17-cv DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:17-cv-00089-DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION CROW INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 210 Filed 04/09/11 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ) NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE ) COUNCIL,

More information

Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 188 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 32

Case 9:09-cv DWM Document 188 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 32 Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 188 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 32 BRIAN K. GALLIK Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin, P.C. 35 North Grand P.O. Box 6580 Bozeman, MT 59771-6580 Telephone: (406 587-0618 Facsimile: (406

More information

Case 2:10-cv JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Case 2:10-cv-00106-JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION Case 4:14-cv-00139-HLM Document 34 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., and DAVID JAMES, Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central

More information

Case 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792

Case 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALITY

More information

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu

More information

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-CW Document 0 Filed //0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; and GREENPEACE,

More information

Case 1:12-cv JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:12-cv-00111-JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL M. ASHE

More information

Case 1:12-cv ABJ Document 69 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv ABJ Document 69 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:12-cv-01833-ABJ Document 69 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 12-1833 (ABJ

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., v. SCOTT WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-CV-1128 Defendants. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF WISCONSIN,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV 16-21-GF-BMM Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Case 1:14-cv-00102-JMS-BMK Document 19 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 392 MARR JONES & WANG A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP RICHARD M. RAND 2773-0 Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1500

More information

Case 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790

Case 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA

More information

Case 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482

Case 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 Case 3:15-cv-00773-GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00773-GNS ANGEL WOODSON

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-000-WQH-KSC Document Filed // Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for LA JOLLA BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, vs.

More information

Case: 1:92-cv Document #: 929 Filed: 10/29/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:16507

Case: 1:92-cv Document #: 929 Filed: 10/29/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:16507 Case: 1:92-cv-03409 Document #: 929 Filed: 10/29/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:16507 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COREY H., LATRICIA H., ANDREW B.,

More information

Case 4:92-cv SOH Document 72 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 730

Case 4:92-cv SOH Document 72 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 730 Case 4:92-cv-04040-SOH Document 72 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 730 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION MARY TURNER, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. CASE NO.

More information

(Consolidated with Case Nos M-DLC and v M-DLC)

(Consolidated with Case Nos M-DLC and v M-DLC) Case 9:14-cv-00247-DLC Document 98 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 10 Jeffrey M. Hindoien Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, PLLP 33 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601 T: (406) 442-8560 F: (406) 442-8783

More information

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone

More information

Case 2:68-cv MHT-CSC Document 759 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:68-cv MHT-CSC Document 759 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 6 Case 2:68-cv-02709-MHT-CSC Document 759 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cv-0-jgz Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Sally Jewell, et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendants. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV--0-TUC-JGZ

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 ROBERT G. DREHER Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice F. PATRICK

More information

Case 2:17-cv MJP Document 189 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv MJP Document 189 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 5 Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., CASE NO. C--MJP v. Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS RULE (d)

More information

Cory J. Swanson Anderson and Baker One South Montana Avenue PO Box 866 Helena, Montana Phone: (406) Fax: (406) (fax) Attorney

Cory J. Swanson Anderson and Baker One South Montana Avenue PO Box 866 Helena, Montana Phone: (406) Fax: (406) (fax) Attorney Cory J. Swanson Anderson and Baker One South Montana Avenue PO Box 866 Helena, Montana 59624 Phone: (406) 449-3118 Fax: (406) 449-0667 (fax) Attorney for Montana Republic Party IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER

More information

Case 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189

Case 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189 Case 1:16-cv-02431-JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN DOE, formerly known as ) JANE DOE,

More information

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service Maresa A. Jenson Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

Case 8:01-cr DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 8:01-cr DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 8:01-cr-00566-DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOSEPHINE VIRGINIA GRAY : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-0532 Criminal Case

More information

Case 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785

Case 3:11-cv JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785 Case 3:11-cv-00879-JPG-PMF Document 140 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #1785 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vs.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central

More information

Case 2:17-cv SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:17-cv SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11 Case 2:17-cv-01004-SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11 Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB # 135436 Tel: (503) 227-2212 oliver@crag.org Christopher G. Winter, OSB # 984355 Tel: (503) 525-2725 chris@crag.org

More information

Case 1:05-cv WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:05-cv WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:05-cv-01297-WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: WMN 05 CV 1297 JOHN BAPTIST

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 45 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12 Mark A. Echo Hawk (pro hac vice ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Ave., Suite 100 PO Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 Phone: (208 478-1624

More information

Case 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:10-cv-02007-EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, and PROJECT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Deadline.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Deadline.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Civil No. 1:13-cv-00758 (RMC) Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer FILMON X LLC, et al.,

More information

CASE NO E UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. HON. TOM PARKER, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama,

CASE NO E UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. HON. TOM PARKER, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Case: 16-16319 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 11 CASE NO. 16-16319-E UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HON. TOM PARKER, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES, ) et al. ) CV 11-70-M-DWM ) CV 11-71-M-DWM Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER KEN SALAZAR, et

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ORDER Case 2:13-cv-00274-EJL Document 7 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ST. ISIDORE FARM LLC, and Idaho limited liability company; and GOBERS, LLC., a Washington

More information

2:12-cv DPH-MJH Doc # 63 Filed 05/30/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1692 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:12-cv DPH-MJH Doc # 63 Filed 05/30/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1692 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:12-cv-13312-DPH-MJH Doc # 63 Filed 05/30/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1692 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company,

More information

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13 Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-LHK

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Civil Division WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director COLIN KISOR Deputy Director

More information

Case 1:08-cv DC Document 61 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv DC Document 61 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 1 of 3 Case 108-cv-07104-DC Document 61 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------X SECURITIES

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SPIRIT OF THE SAGE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:98CV01873(EGS GALE NORTON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv600-HSO-LRA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv600-HSO-LRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL B. O'KEEFE, CELESTE A. FOSTER O'KEEFE, and THE DANCEL GROUP, INC. VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and MARSHALL

More information

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce Establishment of an Interagency Working Group to Coordinate Endangered

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9 Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE and SIERRA CLUB v. Plaintiffs, SCOTT PRUITT, in

More information

Case 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 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 information

Case 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Case 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:13-cv-00057-DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED MAY 082014 Clerk. u.s District Court District Of Montana

More information

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 460 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 460 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 10 Case 2:11-cv-00099-BSJ Document 460 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 10 Alan Edelman aedelman@cftc.gov James H. Holl, III jholl@cftc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1155 21

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-11556 D.C. Docket No. CV-05-00530-T THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler,

More information

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG, v. Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

Case 1:04-cv RJH Document 32-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:04-cv RJH Document 32-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:04-cv-06626-RJH Document 32-2 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARTIN RAPAPORT, RAPAPORT USA and INTERNET DIAMOND EXCHANGE, L.L.C., CIVIL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This is an action in diversity by plaintiff Agency Solutions.Com.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This is an action in diversity by plaintiff Agency Solutions.Com. 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY SOLLUTIONS.COM, LLC dba HEALTHCONNECT SYSTEMS, Plaintiff, v. : -CV-0 AWI GSA ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR AWARD OF

More information

Case 1:04-cv RWR Document 27-2 Filed 01/14/2005 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:04-cv RWR Document 27-2 Filed 01/14/2005 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:04-cv-00063-RWR Document 27-2 Filed 01/14/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., go Plaintiffs, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED

More information

UNITED 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 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 information

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEMARCUS O. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 15-CV-1070-MJR vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) REAGAN, Chief

More information

Case 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-02770-ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON and ANNE L. WEISMANN

More information

Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215

Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215 Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL

More information

Case: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. CROW ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. CROW ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION, et al., Case: 15-35679, 06/22/2016, ID: 10025228, DktEntry: 32, Page 1 of 23 No. 15-35679 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CROW ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Plaintiff. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Plaintiff. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT BERKSHIRE, ss. C.A. No. 1676CV00083 APPEALS COURT NO. 2016-J-0231 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al.,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.

More information

3:18-cv JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

3:18-cv JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 3:18-cv-01795-JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, v. Plaintiff,

More information

Case 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED

Case 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED Case 4:18-cv-00116-KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 2 2018 ~A~E,5 gormack, CLERK y DEPCLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. between. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. between. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce on Establishment of an Interagency Working Group to Coordinate Endangered

More information

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 43 Filed: 12/22/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 43 Filed: 12/22/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 43 Filed: 12/22/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:435 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHRISTOPHER YEP, MARY ANNE YEP, AND TRIUNE HEALTH GROUP,

More information

3:16-cv MGL Date Filed 02/15/17 Entry Number 36 Page 1 of 6

3:16-cv MGL Date Filed 02/15/17 Entry Number 36 Page 1 of 6 3:16-cv-00045-MGL Date Filed 02/15/17 Entry Number 36 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION CASY CARSON and JACQUELINE CARSON, on their own

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND In re: Jeffrey V. Howes Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE JEFFREY V. HOWES Civil Action No. ELH-16-00840 MEMORANDUM On March 21, 2016, Jeffrey V. Howes, who

More information

Case 1:12-cv RPM Document 8 Filed 07/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:12-cv RPM Document 8 Filed 07/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:12-cv-00754-RPM Document 8 Filed 07/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-00754-RPM-MEH WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, v.

More information

4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 4:07-cv-03101-RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD M. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, C.A. NO. 4:07-CV-3101 v.

More information

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 52 Filed: 10/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1366

Case: 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 information

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gary J. Smith (SBN BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0- Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 gsmith@bdlaw.com Peter J.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Superior Solution LLC et al Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the. Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the. Ninth Circuit Case: 08-35954 04/07/2010 Page: 1 of 26 ID: 7293310 DktEntry: 22 No. 08-35954 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CITY OF VANCOUVER, Plaintiff/Appellant. v. GEORGE SKIBINE, Acting

More information

Case: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 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 information

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida

More information

Case 4:12-cv RC-DDB Document 66 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 741

Case 4:12-cv RC-DDB Document 66 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 741 Case 4:12-cv-00375-RC-DDB Document 66 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 741 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION GREGORY C. MORSE Plaintiff, v. HOMECOMINGS

More information

Case 2:07-cv RSL Document 51 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:07-cv RSL Document 51 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 12 Case :0-cv-0-RSL Document Filed /0/ Page of The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 0 0 DKT. 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Northwest Center for Alternatives ) NO. 0-cv--RSL

More information

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No.

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. Case: 17-10135 Document: 00513935913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS E. PRICE, Secretary

More information

ENR Case Notes, Vol. 30 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules

ENR Case Notes, Vol. 30 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules ENR Case Notes, Vol. 30 Recent Environmental Cases and Rules Environmental and Natural Resources Section Oregon State Bar Devin Franklin, Editor July 2017 Editor s Note: This issue contains selected summaries

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:15-cv-02573-PSG-JPR Document 31 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:258 #19 (7/13 HRG OFF) Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk

More information

Case 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU

More information

Virginia ''from conducting any elections subsequent to 2014 for the. Office of United States Representative until a new redistricting plan

Virginia ''from conducting any elections subsequent to 2014 for the. Office of United States Representative until a new redistricting plan Page et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections et al Doc. 137 DAWN PAGE, ^ al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division V. Civil Action No.

More information

Case 2:13-cv Document 995 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:13-cv Document 995 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 1 of 6 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 995 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARC VEASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFFS, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFFS, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Physicians Insurance Capital, LLC et al v. Praesidium Alliance Group, LLC et al Doc. 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION PHYSICIANS INSURANCE CAPITAL, CASE NO. 4:12CV1789

More information

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX MOHAMMAD HAMED, by his authorized agent,, WALEED HAMED,. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL NO. SX -12 -CV -370 FATHI YUSUF and UNITED CORPORATION, Defendants.

More information