UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: March 9, 2017 Decided: May 22, 2017)
|
|
- Avis Flynn
- 1 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 --cv(l) Makinen, et al. v. City of New York, et al UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Argued: March, 01 Decided: May, 01) Docket Nos. 1 cv(l), 1 0 cv(xap) KATHLEEN MAKINEN, JAMIE NARDINI, Plaintiffs Appellees Cross Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, RAYMOND W. KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, DANIEL J. SWEENEY, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants Appellants Cross Appellees. * Before: SACK, LIVINGSTON, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. We consider a provision of the New York City Human Rights Law ( NYCHRL ) that defines only recovering or recovered alcoholics as having a disability. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code (1)(c). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.) held that individuals regarded as untreated alcoholics may state a claim under the * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
2 NYCHRL because analogous claims are available under New York State and federal law. In the absence of authority from New York courts, we cannot predict with confidence how the New York Court of Appeals would reconcile the broad, remedial purpose of the NYCHRL with the specific language of section (1)(c). Accordingly, we defer decision on this appeal and crossappeal in order to certify the following question: Do sections (1)(c) and (1)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code preclude a plaintiff from bringing a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception of untreated alcoholism? LISA F. JOSLIN, Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O Shea, Albany, NY, for Plaintiffs Appellees Cross Appellants. KATHY CHANG PARK (Richard Dearing and Devin Slack, on the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants Appellants Cross Appellees. LOHIER, Circuit Judge: In this disability discrimination case we consider a provision of the New York City Human Rights Law ( NYCHRL ) that, as relevant to this appeal, defines the term disability in a way that excludes alcoholics who are not recovered or recovering from the protection of the statute. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code (1)(c). Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini brought suit under the NYCHRL and its New York State and federal counterparts alleging discrimination based on a mistaken perception that they
3 were alcoholics. The City of New York and the individual defendants, former Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly of the New York City Police Department ( NYPD ) and NYPD Sergeant Daniel J. Sweeney, argued principally that the plaintiffs claims were barred by the plain text of the NYCHRL because the plaintiffs were not (and were not perceived to be) recovered or recovering alcoholics. On summary judgment and again on a post trial motion after a jury verdict partly in favor of the plaintiffs, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.) held that individuals regarded as untreated alcoholics may state a claim under the NYCHRL because analogous claims are available under both the New York State Human Rights Law ( NYSHRL ), N.Y. Exec. Law 0 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), U.S.C. et seq. The defendants appealed, urging certification of the question to the New York Court of Appeals. In the absence of authority from New York courts, we cannot predict with confidence how the New York Court of Appeals would reconcile the broad, remedial purpose of the NYCHRL with the specific language of section (1)(c). Accordingly, we defer decision on this appeal and cross appeal
4 in order to certify the following question: Do sections (1)(c) and (1)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code preclude a plaintiff from bringing a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception of untreated alcoholism? BACKGROUND Makinen and Nardini served as NYPD officers for several years, during which each was referred to the NYPD s Counseling Services Unit ( CSU ). CSU offers treatment and rehabilitation for officers struggling with substance abuse. Once an officer is referred to CSU with alleged alcohol related problems, a trained counselor conducts an intake interview and contacts references to gather information regarding the officer s reported alcohol use. If an officer is diagnosed with an alcohol related condition, CSU staff develop a personal treatment plan, potentially consisting of educational videos, counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, outpatient treatment, or inpatient treatment. An officer who refuses treatment is referred to the NYPD s Medical Division, which may direct the officer to undergo treatment. That direction constitutes an order with which the officer must comply or face disciplinary action. The officer is entitled to challenge the disciplinary action
5 in administrative proceedings by filing a grievance with the agency that oversees CSU or through an Article proceeding. Otherwise, once an officer is diagnosed with an alcohol related problem, receipt by CSU of subsequent evidence of alcohol consumption triggers a mandatory reassessment and, potentially, further treatment. Officers Makinen and Nardini were referred to CSU by an ex husband and an ex boyfriend, respectively. Each received an alcohol related diagnosis and was directed to undergo treatment. As it turned out, the parties agree, Makinen and Nardini were not actually alcoholics. 1 They filed suit in New York Supreme Court, claiming primarily that the defendants mistakenly perceived that they were alcoholics and discriminated against them on the basis of that perceived disability, in violation of the NYCHRL, NYSHRL, and ADA. The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted partial summary judgment in their favor, leaving for a jury trial both plaintiffs NYCHRL claims as well as Makinen s NYSHRL and ADA claims. Makinen v. City of New York, F. 1 The jury necessarily rejected the defendants affirmative defense that the plaintiffs were alcoholics and therefore unable to perform the essential duties of their jobs. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code (1)(b).
6 1 1 1 Supp. d (S.D.N.Y. 01). A jury rejected Makinen s State and federal claims, but rendered a verdict in favor of both Makinen and Nardini on their NYCHRL claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants moved for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the NYCHRL does not extend to untreated alcoholism. The District Court denied the motions in relevant part, Makinen v. City of New York, 1 F. Supp. d (S.D.N.Y. 01), and the defendants appealed, arguing that (1) the NYCHRL does not protect an employee who is perceived to be an untreated alcoholic, () the District Court applied an incorrect adverse employment action standard, and () the evidence did not support Commissioner Kelly s individual liability or the imposition of punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney. In this opinion, we address only the first issue relating to untreated alcoholism, on which the plaintiffs NYCHRL claims depend. The plaintiffs cross appeal the partial dismissal of their State and federal claims, including Makinen s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S.C. 01 et seq. We reserve decision on the issues that are the subject of the cross appeal pending any response from the New York Court of Appeals on the certified issue.
7 DISCUSSION Section (1)(a) of the NYCHRL prohibits employment discrimination based on an actual or perceived... disability. N.Y.C. Admin. Code (1)(a). The statute defines disability as any physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment, or a history or record of such impairment. Id. (1)(a). In the case of alcoholism, however, the NYCHRL narrows the definition of disability so that it shall only apply to a person who (1) is recovering or has recovered and () currently is free of such abuse. Id. (1)(c). In view of section (1)(c), we consider whether a plaintiff may state a claim under section (1)(a) if she is perceived to be an untreated alcoholic. The defendants urge that the plain text of section (1)(c) forecloses such a claim, as only recovered or recovering alcoholics are defined as having a disability. Makinen and Nardini argue that the limitation in section (1)(c) applies only in the case of alcoholism that is, only when a plaintiff in fact suffers from alcoholism, not when she is mistakenly perceived to be an alcoholic.
8 The original 11 Committee Report accompanying the passage of what would become section (1)(c) explains that only an individual who is recovering and currently free of abuse is entitled to the law s protection. 11 N.Y.C. Legis. Ann. at. Under this description, an employer may take appropriate action under section (1)(a) against an employee it believes, rightly or wrongly, suffers from alcoholism but is neither recovered nor recovering (or is not currently free of abuse ). But this construction seems in tension with the New York City Council s stated intention of affording plaintiffs who sue under the NYCHRL all of the protection guaranteed by comparable provisions of State and federal law. The City Council passed the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 00 out of a concern that the NYCHRL had been construed too narrowly to ensure protection of the civil rights of all persons covered by the law. Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 00, N.Y.C. Local Law No., at 1 (Oct., 00) ( Restoration Act ). The City Council therefore provided as follows: Interpretations of New York state or federal statutes with similar wording may be used to aid in interpretation of the New York City Human Rights Law, viewing similarly worded provisions of federal and state civil rights laws as a floor below which the City s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.
9 Id. The City Council also amended Administrative Code section to emphasize the NYCHRL s uniquely broad and remedial purposes, id., and more recently amended the section again to clarify its intent to foster jurisprudence maximally protective of civil rights in all circumstances, N.Y.C. Local Law No., at 1 (Mar., 01). We have understood the Restoration Act to create a one way ratchet that requires us to construe the NYCHRL more liberally than its State and federal counterparts. Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., F.d, (d Cir. 00) (quotation marks omitted); see also Albunio v. City of New York, 1 N.Y.d, (0) (requiring that the NYCHRL be construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible ). The relevant State and federal counterparts in this case the NYSHRL and ADA treat alcoholism as an impairment that can form the basis of a disability discrimination suit. See McEniry v. Landi, N.Y.d, (1) (NYSHRL); Reg l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, F.d, (d Cir. 00) (ADA), superseded by statute on other grounds, ADA Amendments of 00, Pub. L. No. 1, 1 Stat.. Both statutes also prohibit discrimination on the basis of a perceived
10 1 1 impairment. See N.Y. Exec. Law (1)(c); U.S.C. 1(1)(C), ()(A). But neither statute is limited to recovering or recovered alcoholics. See N.Y. Exec. Law (1)(a), (1)(a); U.S.C. 1, 1. On the one hand, as the plaintiffs argue, because the NYSHRL and ADA prescribe a floor below which employee protections may not fall, the NYCHRL should not be interpreted to exclude untreated alcoholics. On the other hand, we recognize that neither the NYSHRL nor the ADA contains a similarly worded provision[], Restoration Act 1, comparable to the NYCHRL s limitation on the definition of disability in the form of alcoholism. Insofar as the text of section (1)(c) specifically differs from that of its State and federal counterparts, we are arguably constrained by the text, since the one way ratchet, Loeffler, F.d at, operates only to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible, Albunio, 1 N.Y.d at. We recognize that both the NYSHRL and the ADA require a plaintiff to demonstrate as an element of her claim that she was able to perform the essential duties of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. See Jacobsen v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., N.Y.d, (01) (NYSHRL); McMillan v. City of New York, F.d, 1 (d Cir. 01) (ADA). But under the NYCHRL, whether an employee can perform the essential duties of her job arises only as an affirmative defense available to the employer. Jacobsen, N.Y.d at. Accordingly, the question here is whether a plaintiff who sues under the NYCHRL can establish a prima facie case of discrimination based only on a perception of untreated alcoholism and an employment action causally linked to that perception.
11 The defendants point us to Zakrzewska v. New School, where the New York Court of Appeals construed the unambiguous text of section of the NYCHRL to give effect to its plain meaning even though the City law did not match up with State law. 1 N.Y.d, (0) (quotation marks omitted). But Zakrzewska is somewhat inapposite, as it held that the NYCHRL s plain language foreclosed an employer s affirmative defense rather than a plaintiff s cause of action. See id. The decision therefore comported with the City Council s support of employees under the uniquely broad and remedial NYCHRL. See Restoration Act. No New York court decision of which we are aware, however, addresses either the specific question here or an analogous provision of the NYCHRL that on its face provides narrower protection for employees than is required under State or federal law. CERTIFICATION Second Circuit Local Rule. permits us to certify to the New York Court of Appeals determinative questions of New York law [that] are involved in a case pending before [us] for which no controlling precedent of the Court of Appeals exists. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit., 00.(a);
12 see also N.Y. Const. art. VI, (b)(). In deciding whether to certify a question, we consider: (1) the absence of authoritative state court interpretations of [the law in question]; () the importance of the issue to the state, and whether the question implicates issues of state public policy; and () the capacity of certification to resolve the litigation. Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn Star Ins. Co., 0 F.d 1, 1 (d Cir. 01) (quotation marks omitted). Here, each factor favors certification. First, as we have explained, no State court has addressed whether sections (1)(c) and (1)(a) permit a plaintiff to bring a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception that the plaintiff suffered from untreated alcoholism. This factor weighs heavily in favor of certification: New York has a strong interest in deciding the issue certified rather than having the only precedent on point be that of the federal court, which may be mistaken. Carney v. Philippone, F.d 1, 1 (d Cir. 00) (quoting Great N. Ins. Co. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 1 F.d, (d Cir. 1)). Second, the question identified for certification presents important issues of New York law and policy. Doe v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd., F.d, 1
13 (d Cir. 01) (quotation marks omitted). Both section (1)(c) and the Restoration Act reflect careful policy judgments. The former arguably seeks to protect only recovering alcoholics, while the latter seeks to ensure that employees with disabilities do not receive less protection under City law than they receive under State and federal law. A New York court should determine in the first instance which of these judgments ought to prevail in the event they conflict. See Chauca v. Abraham, 1 F.d, (d Cir. 01). The question presented also broadly affects the viability of employersponsored rehabilitation programs in New York, has practical ramifications for the NYPD in particular, and is likely to recur, see MacShane v. City of New York, No. 0 CV 00, 01 WL 1, at * (E.D.N.Y. Mar., 01). Finally, if on certification the New York Court of Appeals determines that the plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief based on a perception of untreated alcoholism, that decision would entitle the defendants to judgment as a matter of law and render moot the remaining issues in the defendants appeal. 1
14 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we certify the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Do sections (1)(c) and (1)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code preclude a plaintiff from bringing a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception of untreated alcoholism? In certifying this question, we understand that the New York Court of Appeals may reformulate or expand the certified question as it deems appropriate. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit to the Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals a certificate in the form attached, together with a copy of this opinion and a complete set of briefs, appendices, and the record filed by the parties in this Court. This panel will retain jurisdiction to decide the case once we have had the benefit of the views of the New York Court of Appeals or once that court declines to accept certification. Finally, recognizing that the defendants have indicated their willingness to expedite proceedings before the New York Court of Appeals, see N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit., 00.1(b), we order the parties to bear equally any fees and 1
15 costs that may be requested by the New York Court of Appeals. Decision is RESERVED. CERTIFICATE The foregoing is hereby certified to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York pursuant to Second Circuit Local Rule. and New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations title, 00.(a), as ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
08-1330-cv(L) Kinneary v. City of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2008 (Argued: April 3, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2010) Docket No. 08-1330-cv(L); 08-1630-cv(XAP)
August Term, (Argued: September 9, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016) Docket No (L), (XAP)* Plaintiff Appellant,
15 1777 Chauca v. Abraham UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2016 (Argued: September 9, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016) Docket No. 15 1720(L), 15 1777(XAP)* VERONIKA CHAUCA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x SONYA GORBEA, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Gorbea v. Verizon NY Inc Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------x SONYA GORBEA, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM & ORDER 11-CV-3758 (KAM)(LB) VERIZON
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: - Document: - Page: 0/0/0 --cv(l) Gutman v. Klein UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
Case 1:08-cv AT-HBP Document 447 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:08-cv-01034-AT-HBP Document 447 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X DAVID FLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ. 1034 (AT) -against- THE CITY OF NEW
Follow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-20-2006 Murphy v. Fed Ins Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1814 Follow this and
Case 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:15-cv-04685-JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE:
Case 1:17-cv DLI-ST Document 15 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 97
Case 1:17-cv-00383-DLI-ST Document 15 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- x JENNIFER
Intersection Between the New York State Division of Human Rights and Title the Goes New York Here Courts
Intersection Between the New York State Division of Human Rights and Title the Goes New York Here Courts Presented By: Keji A. Ayorinde, Assistant General Counsel, The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.
No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
Case 1:15-cv WHP Document 67 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 11 : : : : : : : : : : : : 15cv9702
Case 115-cv-09702-WHP Document 67 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARGRETTA FATCHERIC, -against- Plaintiff, THE BARTECH GROUP, INC., and DAWNETTE
Case: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:16-cv-02889-JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL PENNEL, JR.,, vs. Plaintiff/Movant, NATIONAL
Case 1:17-cv KBF Document 33 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 : : : : : : : : : :
Case 117-cv-00788-KBF Document 33 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------- X LUCIA MARKETT,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 12-15981 Date Filed: 10/01/2013 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-15981 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00351-N [DO NOT PUBLISH] PHYLLIS
Defendant. Robert H. Balian, affirms that the following is true under penalties of peljury:
If l STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF CLINTON INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PART THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -against- AFFIRMATION Defendant Index No. Docket No. Robert H. Balian, affirms
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: February 5, 2010, Decided: March 29, 2010) Docket No.
09-2547-cv Napoli v. Town of New Windsor UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2009 (Argued: February 5, 2010, Decided: March 29, 2010) MICHAEL NAPOLI, SR., v. Docket No. 09-2547-cv
ADRIENNE RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, AND ORDER - versus - 13-CV-6552 (JG) Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION ONLY ADRIENNE RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, AND ORDER - versus - 13-CV-6552 (JG) THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND W. KELLY,
Case 3:15-cv SI Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:15-cv-01389-SI Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON HEATHER ANDERSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:15-cv-01389-SI OPINION AND ORDER v.
Case 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
Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :
Case 113-cv-01787-LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X BLOOMBERG, L.P.,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TAYLOR & LIEBERMAN, An Accountancy Corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
0:11-cv CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11
0:11-cv-02993-CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Torrey Josey, ) C/A No. 0:11-2993-CMC-SVH )
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-613 In the Supreme Court of the United States D.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P.; AND L.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO W. JANUARY, an individual, No. 12-56171 and Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,
Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,
Case 1:15-cv AT-AJP Document 114 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:15-cv-03556-AT-AJP Document 114 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-03556-AT-AJP Document 114 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 13 BACKGROUND This case arises from Asare s refusal to perform cosmetic
: : : : : : : Plaintiffs, current and former telephone call center representatives of Global Contract
Motta et al v. Global Contact Services, Inc. et al Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X ESTHER MOTTA, et al.,
Case 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK
[*1]Dilek Edwards, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent,
Edwards v Nicolai 2017 NY Slip Op 06235 Decided on August 22, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. This opinion is uncorrected
JOSEPH ROGERS, BY AND ) THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT ) FRIEND, JUDY LONG, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Shelby Law No T.D. ) vs.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON FILED JOSEPH ROGERS, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JUDY LONG, Plaintiff/Appellant, Shelby Law No. 65673 T.D. vs. MEMPHIS CITY
Winston Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2009 Winston Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-1145
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Matthew B. Ashman, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 11 C 50388 Winnebago County Sheriff s Department, et al., Defendants. Judge Frederick
Case 3:16-cv MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:16-cv-08640-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JANE DOE, : Plaintiff, : v. : Vincent T. Arrisi, : in his
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. Frango Grille USA, Inc. v. Pepe s Franchising Ltd., et al.
Case No. CV 14 2086 DSF (PLAx) Date 7/21/14 Title Frango Grille USA, Inc. v. Pepe s Franchising Ltd., et al. Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge Debra Plato Deputy Clerk
Case 1:15-cv JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 : : : : : : Plaintiffs, : Defendant. :
Case 115-cv-10000-JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X TRUSTEES FOR THE
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: February 23, 2017 523137 CATA TKACHEFF et al., Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of ANGELA
Fernandez v POP Displays 2017 NY Slip Op 30012(U) January 3, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: Joan M.
Fernandez v POP Displays 2017 NY Slip Op 30012(U) January 3, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154516/2016 Judge: Joan M. Kenney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1 1 ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General COLLEEN M. MELODY PATRICIO A. MARQUEZ Assistant Attorneys General Seattle, WA -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON YAKIMA NEIGHBORHOOD
Case 3:15-cv JAG Document 13 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case 3:15-cv-01771-JAG Document 13 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO RONALD R. HERRERA-GOLLO, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL NO. 15-1771 (JAG) SEABORNE
CASE 0:09-cv SRN-JSM Document 294 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. ORDER
CASE 0:09-cv-02018-SRN-JSM Document 294 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA William Eldredge, Civil No. 09-2018 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. ORDER City of Saint Paul
Case: Document: Page: 1 08/24/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: -0 Document: 0- Page: 0//0 0 0-0-cv Zeevi Holdings Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL
Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc., Plaintiff Appellant Cross Appellee, General Motors LLC, Defendant Appellee Cross Appellant.
0 (L) 0 Before: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: October, 0 Final Submission: October, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket Nos. 0, 0 Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc., Plaintiff
Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/27/18 Page 1 of 23 ECF CASE INTRODUCTION
Case 1:18-cv-00749 Document 1 Filed 01/27/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Wayne Pritchett v. Richard Ellers
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-28-2009 Wayne Pritchett v. Richard Ellers Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1669 Follow
United States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-1774 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1484 ERICSSON, INC., v. Plaintiff, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, v. NOKIA CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants,
ARTICLE II. APPELLATE PROCEDURE
APPEALS FROM LOWER COURTS 210 Rule 901 ARTICLE II. APPELLATE PROCEDURE Chap. Rule 9. APPEALS FROM LOWER COURTS... 901 11. APPEALS FROM COMMONWEALTH COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT... 1101 13. INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
Case 1:17-cv VEC Document 60 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 7. Plaintiff, : : : : : : : Defendants. :
Case 117-cv-04002-VEC Document 60 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- MARLINE SALVAT, -against-
Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/11/17 Page 1 of 27 : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 1:17-cv-08784 Document 1 Filed 11/11/17 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JASON CAMACHO
Case 1:17-cv IT Document 47 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-10273-IT Document 47 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LISA GATHERS, R. DAVID NEW, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil Action No.
: : : : : : : : : : x. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action, inter
-SMG Yahraes et al v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp. et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
PROTOPAPAS et al v. EMCOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEORGE PROTOPAPAS, Plaintiff, v. EMCOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:09-cv-07710-PA-FFM Document 18 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 5 Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Paul Songco Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys
Plaintiff, : OPINION AND ORDER 04 Civ (LTS) (GWG) -v.- :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANDREW YOUNG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, : Plaintiff,
Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:18-cv-03879 Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWIN ZAYAS, Individually and on Behalf of 18 Civ. 3879 All Others Similarly Situated,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GINGER OLDHAM, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 2002 v No. 196747 Wayne Circuit Court BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LC No. 94-407474-NO MICHIGAN
Michael Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-14-2014 Michael Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 14-1668
Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 22 ECF CASE INTRODUCTION
Case 1:18-cv-00925 Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv WTM-GRS.
Case: 14-14275 Date Filed: 08/06/2015 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-14275 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00306-WTM-GRS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 6, 2009 United States Court of Appeals No. 07-31119 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
In this civil forfeiture action, we are asked to. determine whether service of process pursuant to CPLR 313 on
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
Case 3:15-cv SB Document 56 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:15-cv-01550-SB Document 56 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON COBBLER NEVADA, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01550-SB Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW
WRITTEN BY: J. Wilson Eaton ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW Employers with arbitration agreements
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-3514 Norman Rille, United States of America, ex rel.; Neal Roberts, United States of America, ex rel., lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit METSO MINERALS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEREX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. v Nos ; ;
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan OPINION Chief Justice: Robert P. Young, Jr. Justices: Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-1460 Michael R. Nack, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Douglas Paul
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case -00, Document -, 0//0, 0, Page of -00-cv Sharkey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
Case 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-00615 Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD KRAUSE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0615-L v.
Case 1:12-cv HB Document 38 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:12-cv-04681-HB Document 38 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
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,
Case 2:14-cv JS-SIL Document 25 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 135
Case 2:14-cv-03257-JS-SIL Document 25 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 135 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X TINA M. CARR, -against-
FILED 12/01/2017 1:43 PM ARCHIVES DIVISION SECRETARY OF STATE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE DENNIS RICHARDSON SECRETARY OF STATE LESLIE CUMMINGS DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER INCLUDING STATEMENT OF NEED & JUSTIFICATION MHS 15-2017 CHAPTER
Case 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:13-cv-21525-JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 LESLIE REILLY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S MLIVE MEDIA GROUP, doing business as GRAND RAPIDS PRESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 12, 2017 9:10 a.m. v No. 338332 Kent Circuit
Case3:13-cv SI Document39 Filed11/18/13 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 STEVEN POLNICKY, v. Plaintiff, LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; WELLS FARGO
Gina N. Del Tinto, Plaintiff, v. Clubcom, LLC, Defendant.
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR ADAAA Case Repository Labor and Employment Law Program 11-15-2012 Gina N. Del Tinto, Plaintiff, v. Clubcom, LLC, Defendant. Judge Arthur J. Schwab Follow
Case 2:12-cv RJS-BCW Document 452 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00302-RJS-BCW Document 452 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION CHARLES ROBERTS, an individual, and KENNETH MCKAY, an individual,
B. The 1991 Civil Rights Act and the Conflict between the Circuits
Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Law By Louis Malone O Donoghue & O Donoghue A. Introduction Historically, federal courts have allowed the recovery of money damages resulting from civil rights
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
12-1346-cv U.S. Polo Ass n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
Bowlin, Nicole v. Servall, LLC
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 2-8-2018 Bowlin, Nicole v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
LaFlamme et al v. Safeway Inc. Doc. 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 KAY LAFLAMME and ROBERT ) LAFLAMME, ) ) :0-cv-001-ECR-VPC Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) SAFEWAY, INC.
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 22, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JAMES P. TENNILLE; ADELAIDA DELEON; YAMILET
Case 2:16-cv DRH-SIL Document 46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 166
Case 2:16-cv-00883-DRH-SIL Document 46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 166 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02106-JWL-DJW Document 36 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS YRC WORLDWIDE INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 10-2106-JWL ) DEUTSCHE
Case No. 2:15-bk-20206, Adversary Proceeding No. 2:15-ap United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston. March 28, 2016.
IN RE: STEPHANIE LYNNE PINSON and KENDALL QUINN PINSON, Chapter 7, Debtors. STEPHANIE LYNNE PINSON and KENDALL QUINN PINSON, Plaintiffs, v. PIONEER WV FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant. Case No. 2:15-bk-20206,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv PGB-TBS.
Catovia Rayner v. Department of Veterans Affairs Doc. 1109482195 Case: 16-13312 Date Filed: 04/10/2017 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13312
ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS
ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS I. INTRODUCTION MELICENT B. THOMPSON, Esq. 1 Partner
4:11-cv RBH Date Filed 12/31/13 Entry Number 164 Page 1 of 9
4:11-cv-00302-RBH Date Filed 12/31/13 Entry Number 164 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Mary Fagnant, Brenda Dewitt- Williams and Betty
Atria Retirement Props., L.P. v Bradford 2012 NY Slip Op 33460(U) August 22, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /11 Judge:
Atria Retirement Props., L.P. v Bradford 2012 NY Slip Op 33460(U) August 22, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651823/11 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: October 1, 2014 Decided: April 20, 2015)
1 cv Universitas Education LLC v. Nova Group Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: October 1, 0 Decided: April 0, 01) Docket Nos. 1 cv;
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-3830, Document 202-1, 12/19/2017, 2197329, Page1 of 7 16-3830-cv United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:14-cv-00493-TSB Doc #: 41 Filed: 03/30/16 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, : Case No. 1:14-cv-493 : Plaintiff,
Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/11/17 Page 1 of 28 : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 1:17-cv-08787 Document 1 Filed 11/11/17 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JASON CAMACHO
ALI-ABA S CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW. July 28-30, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1227 25TH STREET, NW, SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20037-1175 202.861.0900 FAX: 202.296.2882 EBGLAW.COM FRANK C. MORRIS, JR. TEL: 202.861.1880 FAX: 202.296.2882 FMORRIS@EBGLAW.COM MINH N.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No CV-T-26-EAJ. versus
[PUBLISH] VICTOR DIMAIO, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-13241 D.C. Docket No. 08-00672-CV-T-26-EAJ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAN 30, 2009 THOMAS
No Third Party Action for Contribution or Implied Indemnification for Equitable Claims in False Claims Act Case
No Third Party Action for Contribution or Implied Indemnification for Equitable Claims in False Claims Act Case Hervé Gouraige, Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. In a thoughtful and thorough ruling, 1 Judge John
Case 3:08-cv BHS Document 217 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :0-cv-0-BHS Document Filed /0/ Page of The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle 0 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, THURSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, et al., Defendants.
SUMMARY Revises provisions regulating certain abortions. (BDR ) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: May have Fiscal Impact.
SUMMARY Revises provisions regulating certain abortions. (BDR 40-755) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: May have Fiscal Impact. Effect on the State: Yes. AN ACT relating to abortions; revising provisions