J )(
|
|
- Preston Cannon
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 1 of 28 UNTEJP ST ATES DSTRCT COURT SOUT$RN DSTRCT OF NEW YORK J )( N RE: /lvj.ethyl TERTARY BUTYL ETHE~ ("MTBE") PRODUCTS LABUTY LTGATON ~ Ths d~tument relates to: New Je~$ey Dep t of Envtl. Prat. v. Atlantc Rchfel~ Co., 08 Cv r- -~ l..;~v l~y t : t<,,, "tt ;.,, c~:rr ; J..L:.l ~.. ""\HYr A. T 1 V T""t ; ~.~... ~ \....:.:-..11,1~1 t ~ Dth.:: #: T-+--:-- DATB F.LED: OPNON AND ORDER Master Fle No. 1: MDL 1358 (SAS) M )( SHRA) A. SCHENDLN, U.S.D.J.:. *TRODUCTON Ths s a consoldated mult-dstrct ltgaton ("MDL") relatng to contamftaton - actual or threatened - of groundwater from varous defendants use of t»e gasolne addtve methyl tertary butyl ether ("MTBE") and/or tertary butyl a~~ohol, a product formed by the breakdown of MTBE n water. n ths case, the Ne* Jersey Department of Envronmental Protecton ("NJDEP"), the Comm~ssoner of the NJDEP, and the Admnstrator of the New Jersey Spll ; Compe».saton Fund allege that Defendants use and handlng of MTBE has contattj~nated, or threatened to contamnate groundwater at servce statons, refner~es, and termnals throughout New Jersey. Famlarty wth the facts of ths 1
2 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 2 of 28 case s ~resumed for the purposes of ths Order. Currently before the Court s Plantffs moton for judcal approval of the Jµdcal Consent Order ("JCO"), whch rectes the terms of ther settlement wth Ctgo Petroleum Corporaton ("Ctgo"). The JCO resolves all clams aganst Ctgo f~r $23.25 mllon. Several Defendants ("Non-Settlng Defendants") 1 oppose/the JCO on the grounds that t does not account for Ctgos proportonate share of lablty. 2 For the reasons stated below, Plantffs moton s DENED.. $ACKGROUND A. Plantffs Clams Plantffs fled ths lawsut to recover damages for alleged MTBE,. Non-Settlng Defendants nclude Chevron U.S.A., nc.; Coastal Eagle Pont ~~. 1 Company; Cumberland Farms, nc.; El Paso Corporaton (n/k/a El Paso LLC); $qulon Enterprses LLC; Exxon Mobl Corporaton; Getty Petroleum Marke~tng, nc.; Gulf Ol Lmted Partnershp; Lyondell Chemcal Company; Motv~;Enterprses LLC; Shell Ol Company; Shell Ol Products Company LLC; Shell Jttadng (US) Company; Sunoco, nc.; Sunoco, nc. (R&M); and Unocal Corpo~aton. ~ BP Products North Amerca, nc. and Atlantc Rchfeld Company ("BP") submt a separate opposton to the JCO on the grounds that BP and Ctgo were t~e only defendants targeted at the Fve Ponts Ste - a tral ste for whch Plantffs clamed $15.2 mllon n damages. See BPs Memorandum n Oppos~t.. on to Plantffs Moton for Approval of the Ctgo JCO ("BP Mem.") at 4. f the <bourt approves the JCO and Plantffs preval at tral, BP worres that t would ]be allocated most, f not all, of the damages alleged at that ste. See d. Lke the other Non-Settlng Defendants, BP contends that the JCO does not farly accou* for Ctgos share of lablty. See d. at 1. 2
3 1 Plantffs Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 3 of 28 conta~naton n groundwater at 5,045 stes throughout New Jersey. Plantffs Fourth Amended Complant ("Complant") alleges two statutory clams under the New Jtjrsey Spll Compensaton and Control Act ("Spll Act") and four common law claµns aganst all Defendants. 3 Plantffs request ( 1) the costs of restorng MTBE~contamnated groundwater ("restoraton costs"), (2) the costs of past and future ~TBE testng of all publc water supples, (3) the costs of past and future treatm~rtt of all drnkng water supples contanng detectable levels of MTBE, ( 4) the cos~~ of past and future montorng of other waters to detect MTBE, ( 5) the costs o~past cleanup and removal costs, and (6) attorneys fees and costs. 4 B. The Focus Stes each s~lected ten focus stes. 6 Plantffs experts submtted reports offerng 31 common law clams nclude strct lablty, neglgence, nusante, and trespass. See Complant See d. ~ See Memorandum of Law n Support of Plantffs Moton to Approve the JC~ as to Ctgo Only ("Pl. Mem.") at 6. ~ Plantffs dsmssed ther clams at one of Defendants selected stes durng fact dscovery. See Non-Settlng Defendants Memorandum n Opposton to Pla*tffs Moton for Approval of the Proposed JCO as to Ctgo ("Def. Mem.") 3
4 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 4 of 28 damage& opnons for the ten Plantff-selected stes and one Defendant-selected ste. 7 A$ to the remanng Defendant-selected stes, Plantffs experts concluded that the costs of assessng damages would exceed the damages ncurred. 8 Plantffs allege that Ctgo s responsble for MTBE contamnaton at four of ~e ten Plantff-selected stes: (1) the Skylne Servce Center, (2) the Maple Shade qtgo, (3) the 5-Ponts Ste, and ( 4) the HP Delta Servce Staton. 9 As such, Ctgo stargeted at more Plantff-selected stes that any other Defendant. 10 C. The Terms of the JCO After sx months of negotaton, Plantffs settled wth Ctgo. Under the JCq,, Ctgo would pay $23.25 mllon for contrbuton protecton and a release at 6. 7 See d. at 7. 8 See Report of Plantffs Expert, Robert Unsworth ("Unsworth Report1), Ex. B to the Declaraton of Lsa A. Gerson, Defendants Counsel, ("Gersq~ Deel."), at See Case Management Order ("CMO") 107, Ex. C to Gerson Deel., at 1 ~ Other than Ctgo, no Defendant has been dentfed at more than three of the Blantff-selected stes. See d. 4
5 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 5 of 28 from l~blty at all 5,045 stes n ths case. 11 The JCO also enttles Non-Settlng Defenqants to a settlement credt to be appled at tral. 12 The JCO adopts the Spll Acts qredt scheme for Plantffs Spll Act clams and the common law credt schem for Plantffs common law clams. 13 n addton, the JCO grants Ctgo contrtjuton protecton under the Jont Tortfeasors Contrbuton Law, the Comp~ratve Neglgence Act, and common law prncples. 14 D. Non-Settlng Defendants Objectons Non-Settlng Defendants objectons are based on the unque way that settlenents are treated under the Spll Act. 15 Under the Spll Act credt scheme, non-s4tlng defendants receve a credt n the dollar amount of the settlement. 16 Howe~er, under the common law credt scheme, non-settlng defendants receve a 11 See JCO, Ex. A to the Declaraton of Leonard Z. Kaufmann, Plantprs Cousnel, ("Kaufmann Deel.")~~ See d. ~ 1 7. ) 3 See d. See also P. Mem. at ) 4 See JCO ~ See Def. Mem. at See N.J.S.A. 58:10-23:1 lf.a(2)(b) ("The settlement... shall reduce the po~ ntal lablty of any other dscharger... by the amount of... the settlenent. "). 5
6 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 6 of 28 credt b~sed on the settlng partys percentage of lablty as determned by the trer of fact. q Hypothetcally, a jury could award Plantffs three hundred mllon dollars tpr ther common law clams and ten mllon dollars for ther Spll Act clams. f the jury fnds Ctgo to be responsble for one-thrd of the total damages, Ctgo wpuld be lable for $ mllon. Non-Settlng Defendants would pay $210 m~llon - the entre $10 mllon for the Spll Act clams and $200 mllon for ther cojnbned share of the common law clams. But they would receve a settlem~nt credt of $23.25 mllon. n that scenaro, Non-Settlng Defendants would tjave no objecton because the $23.25 mllon settlement credt exceeds the $10 ml}on they would have to pay for the Spll Act clams. f, however, the hypothetcal s reversed, and the jury awards Plantffs ten mllon dollars for ther common law clams and three hundred mllon ~ollars for ther Spll Act clams, damages for the Spll Act clams would far out\tegh the settlement amount. Even though Ctgo s found to be lable for one-th~d of the total damages, agan $ mllon, Non-Settlng Defendants 1t See Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 NJ. 76, 100 (2013) ("n the wake of a pla~ntff s settlement wth one defendant... a non-settlng defendants rght to a cre~t [based upon an allocaton of fault at tral] takes the place of contrbuton rghts ektngushed by the settlement.") (quotng Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584, 595 (1~91) (ctng N.J.S.A. 2A: (a))). -6-
7 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 7 of 28 would have to pay $ mllon dollars of the $310 mllon verdct. Even wth the $ mllon settlement credt, Non-Settlng Defendants would be out of pocket $ mllon dollars, whch s far more than two-thrds of the total damag~s award. 18 E. Plantffs Damages Calculatons On October 21, 2013, Plantffs publshed notce of the JCO n the New Jetsey Regster. 19 Non-Settlng Defendants then provded comments to the NJDEPj They objected to the JCO on the grounds that Plantffs had faled to dsclos~ ( 1) ther total alleged damages, (2) how they determned Ctgo s far share : : of lablfty, and (3) how Ctgos payment would be allocated among the four dentfclf Ctgo stes or any of the other stes. 20 On December 20, 2013, Plantffs formally responded to the commel)ts. Frst, Plantffs estmated ther total damages for the 5,045 stes to be 18.. As a compromse, Non-Settlng Defendants have offered to wave 1 ther ob ectons to the JCO f Plantffs agree to ncorporate the common law scheme or all of ther clams. See Def. Mem. at 4-5. Plantffs have declned ths offer, w ch would effectvely requre them to overrde the Spll Act. See Plantf s Reply to Defendants Oppostons to Plantffs Moton for Approval of the ProBosed Ctgo JCO ("Pl. Reply Mem.") at See New Jersey Regster at 45 NJR 10(2), Ex. G to Kaufmann Deel. 20 : See 11/20/13 Exxon Mobl Comments (on behalf of multple defenda~ts), Ex. H to Kaufmann Deel.; 11/20/13 Shell Comments, Ex. to Kaufmam Deel.; 11/19/13 BP Comments, Ex. J to Kaufmann Deel. -7-
8 1 See Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 8 of 28 between$1.99 and $3.32 bllon, plus out-of-pocket costs. 21 To arrve at ths estmate~ Plantffs experts frst calculated the average cost of restoraton at the ten Plantff}selected stes to be $4,657,608 per ste. 22 Plantffs then multpled that cost by 498 because - accordng to Plantffs recent groundwater samplng ~f the 5,045 stes contaned MTBE above 700 parts per bllon ("ppb"). 23 Thus, djmages at the 498 stes totaled approxmately $2.32 bllon. 24 Plantffs then assgned an average damages value of $50,000 to each of the remanng 4,547 stes, re~ultng n an addtonal $ mllon n damages. 25 Plantffs further estmat~d that compensatory damages at these stes - outsde of restoraton costs -woul~ total approxmately $104 mllon. 26 fve per~ent contngency factor to "account for uncertanty." 27 Second, Plantffs explaned how they determned that $23.25 mllon 2l 12/20/13 NJDEP Response to Exxon Mobl Comments, Ex. L to Kaufmapn Deel., at See d. 231 See Pl. Mem. at See d. 2s See d. at See d. 21 d. Fnally, Plantffs assgned a twenty -8-
9 1 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 9 of 28 represtjnted Ctgo s far share of lablty. Plantffs found Ctgo to be lable at only 128 oflthe 5,045 stes. 28 They also consdered Ctgos lmted busness operatons n New Jersey, the number of Ctgo-branded stes n New Jersey, the quantty of MTBE.. contanng gasolne n New Jersey, Ctgos potental defenses, Ctgos wlln~ness to settle early, the tme-value of money, and the publc nterest n settlen1ent. 29 The fnal JCO was approved by the Commssoner of the NJDEP and the Ne~ Jersey Attorney General. 30. ~PPLCABLE LA W 31 Under New Jersey law, a court wll not "second-guess those judgmtnts of an admnstratve agency," lke the NJDEP, whch "fall squarely wthn lthe agencys expertse." 32 n fact, a court "wll reverse the decson of an admn~stratve agency only f t s arbtrary, caprcous, or unreasonable, or f t s See 12/20/13 NJDEP Response to Exxon Mobl Comments at 4. See P. Mem. at ~o See 217 /14 Declaraton of George Schlosser, New Jersey Deputy Attom~y General ("Schlosser Decl."),f 8. ~ 1 New Jersey law apples to ths case. See Menowtz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40 (2d Cr. 1993) (Pursuant to secton 1407 of ttle 28 of the Unted States Code Checton 1407"), a transferee dstrct court "apples the substantve state law... of fhe jursdcton n whch the acton was fled."). h Dv. 2 08). n re Steam Encroachment Permt, 402 N.J. Super. 587, 597 (App. -9-
10 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 10 of 28 not sup~0rted by substantal credble evdence n the record as a whole." 33 Despte ths def~tence, the courts revew of an agency decson s "not smply a proforma exercsen whch [the court] rubber stamp[s] fndngs that are not reasonably support~d by the evdence." 34 A court wll approve an agencys decson to settle as long as the settlemd111t s "far, reasonable, and adequate." 35 The standard to be appled "s not whetherj the settlement s one whch the court tself mght have fashoned, or consdets as deal, but whether the proposed decree s far, reasonable, and fathful to the o~jectve of the governng statute." 36 The court cannot smply "rubber stamp"~ settlement based on the arguments and recommendatons of counsel. 37 Rather, l[t]o make ths determnaton, the factual record before the dstrct court must bej suffcently developed." 38 3 ~ New Jersey Dep t of Envtl. Prot. v. Gloucester Envtl. Mgmt. Servs. nc., 5911 F. Supp. 2d 744, 753 (D.N.J. 2008) (ctng P.F. on Behalf of B.F. v. New Jersey bv. of Dev. Dsabltes, 139 N.J. 522, (1995)). 3t 3 n re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999) (nternal ctatons omtted). Alves v. Man,-Fed. Appx-, 2014 WL , at *2 (3d Cr. Mar. 2Q, 2014) (ctng n re Prudental ns. Co., 148 F.3d 283, 316 (3d Cr. 1998)). 3~ 1990). 3f 38 Unted States v. Cannons Engneerng Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 84 (1st Cr. n re Matzo Food Prods. Ltg., 156 F.R.D. 600, 604 (D.N.J. 1994). d. (ctng Grsh v. Jepson, 521F.2d153, 159 (3d Cr. 1975)). -10-
11 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 11 of 28 When a court revews a settlement that nvolves a Spll Act clam, t should ~ook to the federal case law nvolvng the Comprehensve Envronmental Respon~e, Compensaton, and Lablty Act ("CERLA") for gudance. 39 n fact, CERCDA has been called the "federal analogue to the Spll Act." 40 Under CERC4A case law, "[a] court should approve a consent decree f t s far, reasondble, and consstent wth CERCLAs goals." 41 "n evaluatng the farness of a consent decree, a court should assess both prpcedural and substantve consderatons." 42 "Procedural farness requres that set~ement negotatons take place at arms length." 43 "A court should look to the negjotaton process and attempt to gauge ts candor, openness and barganng balanc~~" 44 "Substantve farness requres that the terms of the consent decree are 1 9 See, e.g., Rechhold, nc. v. US. Metals Refnng Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 400, 414 (D.N.J. 2009); New Jersey Dep t of Envtl. Prat. v. Gloucester Envtl. Mgmt. 1 Servs., nc., 821 F. Supp. 999, 1009 (D.N.J. 1993). Plantffs and Non Settln~ Defendants agree that the Court should look to CERCLA case law for gudanpe. See BP Mem. at 9; PL Mem. at 14-15; Def. Mem. at to New Jersey Dept. of Envtl. Prat. v. Dmant, 418 N.J. Super. 530, 542 (App. pv. 2011), affd as modfed, 212 N.J. 153 (2012). ~ 2003). n re Tutu Water Wells CERCLA Ltg., 326 F.3d 201, 207 (3d Cr. d. ~3 d. d. (quotng Cannons, 899 F.2d at 86). -11-
12 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 12 of 28 based on comparatve fault and apporton lablty accordng to ratonal estmat~s of the harm each party has caused. " 45 The court must "compare the proporton of total projected costs to be pad by the settlors wth the proporton of lablt~ attrbutable to them, and then to factor nto the equaton any reasonable dscoutjts for ltgaton rsks, tme savngs, and the lke that may be justfed." 46 "As lotjg as the measure of comparatve fault on whch the settlement terms are : based ~ not arbtrary, caprcous, and devod of a ratonal bass, the dstrct court should pphold t." 47 V. ~SCUSSON Non-Settlng Defendants do not dspute the procedural farness of the JCO, wbch was the product of sx months of arms-length negotaton. 48 nstead, they ob~ect to ts substantve farness on the grounds that Plantffs have faled to adequa~ely evaluate Ctgos proportonate share of lablty. 49 Defendants object to 4~ 2000)). d. (quotng Unted States v. SEPTA, 235 F.3d 817, 823 (3d Cr. 4 t Unted States v. Montrose Chem. Corp., 50 F.3d 741, 747 (9th Cr. 1995) (ptng Unted States v. Charles George Truckng, nc., 34 F.3d 1081, 1087 (1st C~. 1994) ). 4t SEPTA, 235 F.3d at 824 (nternal ctatons and quotaton marks omttecp. 4~ See Pl. Mem. at 9. 4~ See Def. Mem. at
13 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 13 of 28 Plantffs calculaton of total damages and to Plantffs calculaton of Ctgos share tjf those damages. wll dscuss each objecton n tum. ~ Plantffs Calculaton of Total Damages s Arbtrary, Caprcous, and Unreasonable Frst, Non-Settlng Defendants object that Plantffs total damages :, estma~e of $1.99 to $3.32 bllon s unreasonable because of ts large range. 50 Non-S~tlng Defendants assert that Ctgos proportonate share oflablty would, be vasth dfferent f the judgment were $1.99 bllon than ft were $3.32 bllon. 51 Even t+ough Ctgo s dentfed at more Plantff-selected stes than any other defend~nt, Ctgos payment of $23.25 mllon would amount to only 0.7% of a $3.32 ~llon judgment. 52, Second, Non-Settlng Defendants object to the methodology Plantffs used tol calculate total damages. Plantffs calculaton s based on a lst of 498 stes th~t s flled wth nconsstences. 53 For example, the lst ncludes only three of the t~n Plantff-selected tral stes. 54 But t also ncludes one Defendant 5p See d. at See d. 5~ See d. 5~ See d. at l See Plantffs MTBE Stes wth "Most Recent Maxmum MTBE," Ex. E t~ Gerson Deel., at
14 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 14 of 28 selected ste where Plantffs experts declned to conduct dscovery. 55 Furthertjlore, the lst ncludes only stes were MTBE was supposedly detected above 7?0 ppb durng the latest round of groundwater samplng, but Plantffs fal to dscl~se when that round occurred, the concentraton of MTBE at any of the stes, or the pervasveness of the contamnaton. 56 Asde from the lst, Plantffs fal to support ther assumpton that the restoratl~n costs at the remanng 4,54 7 stes - where MTBE was detected below 700 ppbl, f at all - would be $50,000 per ste. 57 Because Plantffs have not even calculat~d damages at nne of the ten Defendant-selected stes, Non-Settlng Defend4nts assert that Plantffs offer no bass for ths assumpton. 58 Thrd, Non-Settlng Defendants argue that Plantffs gnore the damage~ calculatons of one of ther own experts, Kevn Boyle. 59 Boyle used a 55 See d. 5, See Def. Mem. at BP contends that Plantffs use of 700 ppb as a thr~shold s arbtrary, and n any event, fewer than 498 stes meet that thresho~. See BP Mem. at 17-20; Declaraton of Robert Powell ("Powell Deel."), BPs ex ert, Ex. G to the Declaraton of Andrew R. Runnng ("Runnng Deel."),,-r 13. Alt ough he used the same database as Plantffs and conducted the broadest search ~ossble, BPs expert dentfed only 401 stes wth MTBE concentratons over 700 ppb. See Powell Deel.,-r 13. 5~ See Def. Mem. at See d. 5~ See d. at
15 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 15 of 28 dffere~t methodology than Plantffs other experts and calculated damages to be, on avetage, $7.32 mllon per ste for the ten Plantff-selected stes. 60 However, Plantffs other experts, Anthony Brown and Robert Unsworth, calculated damag~s at those stes to be $4.66 mllon per ste. 61 Thus, Non-Settlng Defen4ants argue that Plantffs have underestmated ther damages by relyng on Brown1 and Unsworth, rather than Boyle. 62 Fourth, Non-Settlng Defendants contend that Plantffs total damagf s estmate s based solely on "restoraton costs" at the ten Plantff-selected tral s~es. 63 Plantffs have faled to account for all other categores of damages allege1 n the Complant, ncludng (1) the costs of past and future MTBE testng of all tjublc water supples, (2) the costs of past and future treatment of all drnktjg water supples contanng detectable levels of MTBE, (3) the costs of past and fu~ure montorng of other waters to detect MTBE, ( 4) the past cleanup and removfl costs, and (5) attorneys fees and costs See 11/7112 Expert Report of Kevn J. Boyle ("Boyle Rep."), Ex. D to the Ge~on Deel., at 3. 1 See, e.g., 1/9/13 Expert Report of Anthony Brown ("Brown Rep."), Ex. B ~o Kaufmann Deel., at 1. t 2 See Def. Mem. at See d. at See Complant f f
16 1 1 See Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 16 of 28 Plantffs respond that ther total damages calculaton s reasonable. Under the "bellwether" approach to dscovery, the partes focused on nneteen tral stes as 1 1a bass for ther damages calculatons. 65 Plantffs contend that t was mpract~cal and unnecessary to conduct ste-specfc dscovery at all 5,045 stes,. gven t~at CERCLA case law does not requre precse damages estmates as a condtqn to settlement. 66 Next, Plantffs assert that they were allowed to gnore Boyles damagef estmate because t merely provded a context for ther clams. 67 Because Plantffs do not ntend to rely on hs estmate at tral, they dd not rely on t durng the settl~ment process. 68 Fnally, Plantffs contend that t was unnecessary to consdet all potental damages categores lsted n the Complant before estmatng total da~ages. 69 Plantffs explan that most of the categores are "complementary" 651 See Pl. Mem. at Pl. Reply Mem. at 1; (ctng Cannons, 899 F.2d at 88 (statng ~at admnstratve agences must be gven "leeway to construct the barome~r of comparatve fault"); Montrose, 50 F.3d at 745 ("[P]recse data relevant to determnng the total extent of harm caused and the role of each [potent~lly responsble party] s often unavalable.")) See Pl. Reply Mem. at 8. See d. See d. at
17 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 17 of 28 contaml.nated groundwater, the cost of testng and treatng the drnkng water s dmn~hed. 71 Smlarly, f Defendants restore the groundwater, the cost of montotng s reduced. 72 As an ntal matter, Plantffs are free to gnore Boyles damages calculatons, especally snce they wll not rely on them at tral. 73 Plantffs are also correct ]that they need not calculate damages that fall nto overlappng or redundant 1p See d. 7~ See d. 7 f See d. Plantffs also argue that ther total damages estmate s reason~ble n lght of other MTBE ltgaton. See Pl. Mem. at 8. For example, n New H~ mpshre, a jury determned total damages to be $816,768,018. See Specal Verde Form ("Specal Verdct Form"), State of New Hampshre v. Hess Corp., et al., , Ex. D to Kaufmann Deel. Because New Jersey has 3.25 tmes as many cpntamnated stes as New Hampshre, Plantffs argue that New Jerseys total dajmage estmate should be 3.25 tmes that of New Hampshres - or, about $2.65 ~llon. See Pl. Mem. at 8. However, n the New Hampshre case, seventy fve pe. ent of Plantffs damages conssted of past cleanup or samplng and treatm. t costs. See Specal Verdct Form. Here, Plantffs have not calculated such c sts or ncorporated them nto ther total damages estmate. Even f they had, thy may not blndly assume that New Hampshres damages are drectly compatjable to New Jerseys, but on a smaller scale. 1 } See PL Reply Mem. at 8. See Neverson v. Farquharson, 366 F.3d 32, 45 (1st lcr. 2004) ("[W]hether to call a partcular expert s normally the sort of strategp decson that s reserved for tral counsel."); Kelly v. Hendrcks, No. 03 Cv. 25~6, 2005 WL , at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2005) ("[C]ounsels decson not to ~all the expert wtnesses was a strategc decson."). to restqraton damages. 7 For example, f Defendants clean up and restore MTBE- -17-
18 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 18 of 28 categotes for settlement purposes. At tral, Plantffs experts may not testfy beyoncj the scope of ther reports, whch nclude calculatons for restoraton damag~s only. 74 Because they are precluded from ntroducng new calculatons, Non-S~ttlng Defendants wll not be prejudced. 75 However, Non-Settlng Defendants remanng objectons rase serou~ concerns about the farness and reasonableness of the JCO. Whle total damag~s estmates need not be precse, Plantffs estmate spans $1.33 bllon. More t~oublng are the nconsstences wth Plantffs lst of 498 stes, whch serve as the ~ass for ther damages estmate. Seven of the ten Plantff-selected stes are exclud~d from the lst. 76 Meanwhle, the lst ncludes at least one ste where Planttrs experts conducted no dscovery. 77 Plantffs offer no explanaton for 4 See Allen v. Parkland Sch. Dst., 230 Fed. Appx 189, 195 (3rd Cr. 2007) ~[A] llowng [plantffs expert] to ntroduce an expert opnon beyond the scope ~f hs treatment would have prejudced the defendants and delayed the procee~ngs."); Rockemore v. Amba Corp., No. L , 2013 WL , at *3 (NJ Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2013) ("t s well settled that an experts testmony at tral m~y be lmted to opnons expressed wthn the experts report provded as part ofldscovery."). 1 5 Nevertheless, there may be some rsk of prejudce f Plantffs can prove ~on-overlappng categores of damages, such as attorneys fees, at tral wthouf elctng testmony from any expert. 10. l6 1 7 See d. See Plantffs MTBE Stes wth "Most Recent Maxmum MTBE" at -18-
19 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 19 of 28 these *consstences, whch rase doubts about the relablty of the entre lst. Nor do the)( explan how they determned that the average restoraton costs at the reman~ng 4,547 stes to be $50,000. Based on the record, t s unclear how many of thesr stes - f any- are contamnated at all. As a result, the $50,000 estmate appear$ arbtrary. Wth such an ncomplete record, t s mpossble for me to determ~ne whether the settlement s far and reasonable. $. Plantffs Calculaton of Ctgos Share of Lablty s Arbtrary, Caprcous, and Unreasonable Non-Settlng Defendants also contend that the $23.25 mllon settlentnt amount does not farly or reasonably account for Ctgos lablty. 78 Frst, trey assert that Plantffs lst of 128 stes assocated wth Ctgo s nconslstent and unrelable. 79 For example, the lst ncludes only one of the four Plant,f-selected stes assocated wth Ctgo. 80 As such, Plantffs assessed Ctgos lablt~ wthout consderng damages at the Skylne Servce Staton ste, the HP : Delta she, or the Fve-Ponts ste. Ths s especally problematc because Ctgos lablt~ at those three stes alone ranges from $16 mllon to $24.5 mllon 7 \ See Def. Mem. at : f See d. 8 ~ See MTBE Stes Afflated wth Ctgo, Ex. F to Gerson Deel. -19-
20 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 20 of 28 accordpg to Plantffs experts. 81 Therefore, Ctgos lablty at just those three stes co~ld potentally exceed the $23.25 mllon settlement amount. Second, BP contends that Plantffs used napproprate databases to generatf ther 128 ste lst. 82 Specfcally, they reled on an Envronmental Manag~ment System ("EMS") database, whch s desgned to allow "mappng" of release 1,stes, and summarze the stes regulatory status, "dscharge parameter," "progr~m nterest," and regulatory volatons. 83 The EMS database does not dentf)j hstorc supplers of gasolne to stes or lnk those supplers wth MTBE releasd. 84 Smlarly, Plantffs HazStes database merely stores sol and groundf ater laboratory test results. 85 t does not store nformaton that dentfes partes tesponsble for MTBE releases or dentfy the statons supplers. 86 BP argues ~hat relance on these databases caused defcences n Plantffs lst See Brown Rep. at 1; 11/8/12 Expert Report of Robert Unsworth, Ex. C to K~~fmann Deel., at 41; Boyle Rep. at 3. See BP Mem. at 11. d. See Powell Deel. ff See d. rr ~ 8~ See BP Mem. at 12. See d. -20-
21 1 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 21 of 28 Plantffs should have prepared a complete lst by examnng the NJDEPs ste fles and dehtfyng MTBE releases and the supplers durng those release perods. 88 Plantffs respond that they reled on "ste-specfc dscovery" as well as nform.aton from the databases to create ther lst. 89 Plantffs conducted dscov~ry on the ten Plantff-selected stes and one Defendant-selected ste. They then "a~count[ ed] for such nformaton on a statewde bass [] n the absence of ste-sp~cfc dscovery on the 5,000+ other stes" by consderng Ctgos "market share" }or gasolne sold n New Jersey. 90 Plantffs argue that ths approach was a reason,ble alternatve to conductng ste-specfc dscovery at all 5,045 stes. 91 Next, Plantffs argue that Non-Settlng Defendants mproperly assume~ that Ctgo s one hundred percent lable at all 128 stes. 92 n fact, many of the ste~ are assocated wth both Ctgo and other defendants. 93 For example, 8~ See d. 8~ PL Reply Mem. at 11. 9~ d. 9) See d. 9t See d. at See d. -21-
22 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 22 of 28 becausd BP and Ctgo both suppled MTBE at the Fve Ponts Ste, Plantffs suggestthat they should share lablty there. 94 Fnally, Plantffs contend that the settlement amount s also based on relevan~ factors, such as the relatvely small number of stes assocated wth Ctgo, Ctgos mnor market share n New Jersey, Ctgos wllngness to settle early, the lablty of remanng Defendants, ltgaton rsks, the certanty provded n settlem~nt, the tme value of money, the publc nterest n settlement, and Ctgos potent11 defenses. 95 As for ts potental defenses, Ctgo argues that unlke other Defend~ts, t dd not own, lease, or operate any servce staton n New Jersey. 96 nstead~ t merely suppled MTBE-contanng gasolne that was refned by others. 97 9~ See d. 9 ~ See Pl. Mem. at 1, Plantffs reled on the Unted States Energy nform1ton Admnstraton ("EA") Prme Suppler data, whch ndcates that Ctgos_market share n New Jersey s four percent. See Ctgos Reply n Support of Pla9tffs Moton for Approval of the JCO ("Ctgo Reply Mem.") at See Ctgo Reply at 2. 9t See d. Ctgo also nssts t has a unque "ethanol defense" because t sold ga~olne blended wth ethanol untl See Ctgos Memorandum n Suppotj:of Plantffs Moton for Approval of the Judcal Consent Order ("Ctgo Mem."~ at Although t ntended to contnue sellng ethanol-blended gasoln~, t was forced to swtch to MTBE-contanng gasolne n 1986 because t could nb longer obtan a steady supply of ethanol. See d. -22-
23 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 23 of 28 On the record before me, cannot determne whether the $23.25 mllon settlement amount represents Ctgo 1 s far share of lablty. Plantffs reache~ths amount based on a 128 ste lst that s replete wth problems. Frst, the lst om~s three of the four Plantff-selected stes where Plantffs clam Ctgo s lable. 3ecause Ctgos lablty at these three stes alone could exceed $23.25 mllonj Plantffs have severely underestmated Ctgos lablty. Second, the lst was generated from databases ncapable of dentfyng hstorc supplers of MTBE specfg knowledge by relyng on Ctgo s reported market share of four percent. But as ~tgo admts, f ts share of lablty was four percent of the total damages, t would ~e lable for $88 mllon. 98 Plantffs nsst that they gave Ctgo a dscount because "other defend4nts n addton to Ctgo" were dentfed at some of the 128 stes. 99 But they fa~] to dentfy whch stes Ctgo suppled at the tme of the MTBE releases, 9 ~ See Ctgo Mem. at 6-7. BP also contends that Ctgo s market share s rrelevf.nt to ts lablty under the Spll Act. Under New Jersey law, such lablty must b based on a nexus to the ste-specfc dscharges at the 5,045 stes at ssue, not on arket share. See New Jersey Dept. of Envtl. Prat. v. Dmant, 212 NJ. 153, 177 (2 12) (holdng that lablty requres a "nexus" that "tes the dscharger to the dscharge that s alleged to be the, or a, culprt n the envronmental contamnaton n ssu~). 9 ~ Pl. Reply Mem. at 12. at the t~e of the releases. Plantffs attempt to compensate for ther lack of ste- -23-
24 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 24 of 28 whch qther Defendants suppled those stes at those tmes, or how to allocate lablt~ among Defendants. Plantffs also clam that they consdered the number of stes jassocated wth Ctgo, Ctgos market share, Ctgos wllngness to settle early, t~e lablty of remanng defendants, ltgaton rsks, the certanty provded n settltjment, the tme value of money, the publc nterest n settlement, and Ctgosj arguments regardng ts potental defenses. 100 Whle these are all reason11ble factors to consder, the Court cannot approve the settlement wthout frst evmuatng "the measure of comparatve fault on whch the settlement terms Wthout a reasonable measures of both total damages and Ctgos share, rl cannot determne whether the settlement s far and reasonable. are bas~d." 101 t. Plantffs Cannot Justfy the Settlement as an "Aggregate Settlement" Fnally, Plantffs nsst that the Court can stll approve ther settlemrnt as an "aggregate settlement," even wthout ste-specfc nformaton on 1 Po See Pl. Mem. at 1, P 1 SEPTA, 235 F.3d at 824 (quotatons omted). Accord Montrose, 50 F.3d atl747 (A court should "compare the proporton of total projected costs to be pad b~ the settlors wth the proporton of lablty attrbutable to them, and then to factor hto the equaton any reasonable dscounts for ltgaton rsks, tme savngs, and thel lke that may be justfed."). 1 b 2 Pl. Mem. at 20. over 5,~00 stes. 102 Plantffs note that ths Court prevously approved a mult- -24-
25 1 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 25 of 28 defend~t, mult-ste settlement as an "aggregate settlement" n n re MTBE. 103 There,~ found that "the estmate of each defendants share of lablty s not relevatjt where allocaton of lablty under the settlement was done on an aggreg~te and not on a case-by-case bass, and where any non-settlng defendant that su~tans an adverse judgment at tral wll receve the beneft of the entre aggre(jte amount pad n settlement as a setoff." 104 Plantffs nsst that the JCO s smlarlbecause Non-Settlng Defendants wll be enttled to prove how the Ctgo settle~t;mt proceeds should be allocated at tnal. n fact, the two settlements are dramatcally dfferent. The settlement n n r4 MTBE arose out of global settlement dscussons that ncluded approx~mately seventy percent of the named defendants. 105 Ths Court held that plant~fs dd not need to estmate each settlng defendants share of lablty, as long a~ the aggregate settlement amount reasonably represented "the settlng defend~nts estmated combned share of lablty." 106 Here, however, Ctgo s the only sf lng defendant, and Plantffs are requred to farly estmate Ctgo s share., d. (ctng n re Methyl Tertary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Lab. Ltg., f178 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)) n re MTBE, 578 F. Supp. 2d at 529 (emphass n orgnal). l,05 See d. at d. at
26 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 26 of 28 Furthermore, n n re MTBE, plantffs used reasonable and relable methods to calculate the settlng defendants proportonate share. For example, durng ~ettlement negotatons, plantffs provded detaled, ste-specfc explan~tons regardng ther damages estmates. 107 They also explaned how ther settlem~nt proceeds would be allocated across the stes. 108 n calculatng total damag~s, Plantffs frst reled on a study by the Amercan Petroleum nsttute ("AP"~ that calculated "hgh, low, and mean costs of treatng wells contamnated wth MTBE for a ten-year perod." 109 They then talored the AP estmates to the specf~ contamnated wells n these cases, usng "a standard lnear regresson analysp to derve the estmated AP cost for treatment at each wells flow rate." 110 Fnall~, plantffs assessed the characterstcs of each well, and assgned each a "grade1~ based on a number of ste-specfc factors, ncludng flow rate, level of detect?ns, the length of tme over whch the detectons occurred, how recently detectpns have occurred, and the relatonshp of the detectons to applcable 101 See d. at 5 22 See d. d. at 524. j10 d. -26-
27 Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 27 of 28 regulat~ry standards. 111 Here, Plantffs have conducted no ste-specfc analyss beyond eleven ~al stes. nstead, they created an unrelable lst of 498 stes to determne total d~tnages. Wthout conductng any analyss of the remanng 4,54 7 stes, they assgn9d a an arbtrary $50,000 damages value. Plantffs have sued Defendants at 5,045 ~tes about whch lttle or nothng s known. The fact that Plantffs consder t "mphactcal" to conduct ste-specfc dscovery at these stes does not excuse them f~om ensurng that the JCO s far and reasonable. V. CONCLUSON For the foregong reasons, Plantffs moton s DENED. The Clerk of the ourt s drected to close ths moton (Doc. No. 344). Plantffs may resubn1t the JCO for approval when they develop and present a more complete record ~upportng the settlement. Shra A. Schendln U.S.D.J. Dated: New York, New York June 11, 2014 ~ 11 See d. at
28 . Case 1:00-cv SAS-DCF Document 4015 Fled 06/11/14 Page 28 of 28 - Appearances - For Pl~ntffs: George F. Schlosser Assstapt Attorney General Offce ~f the Attorney General of the State otnew Jersey 24 Mar~et St. P.O. B~x 093 Trentoq, NJ ( 609) 2~ Leonartt Z. Kaufmann, Esq. Cohn, kfland, Pearlman, Herrmann &KnopfLLP Park 8Q West, Plaza One Saddle fl3rook, NJ (201) 8~ Mcha~l Axlne, Esq. Tracey ORelly, Esq. Mller, Axlne & Sawyer 1050 Fplton Ave., Sute 100 Sacra~:nto, CA (916) LasoJ Counsel for Plantffs: Robn ~ 1 reenwald, Esq. Robert Gordon, Esq. Wetz Luxenberg, P.C. 180 M4den Lane New Ybrk, NY (212) For Ctgo: Nathan P. Emer, Esq. Pamela R. Hanebutt, Esq. Emer Stahl LLP 24 South Mchgan Ave., Sute 100 Chcago, L (312) For BP: Andrew R. Runnng, Esq. J. Andrew Langan, Esq. Slva N. Wnston, Esq. Krkland & Ells LLP 300 North LaSalle Dr. Chcago, L (312) Lason Counsel for Defendants: Peter John Sacrpant, Esq. James A. Pardo, Esq. Stephen J. Rccardull, Esq. Lsa A. Gerson, Esq. McDermott Wll & Emery LLP 340 Madson Ave. New York, NY
Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP 2016 NY Slip Op 31096(U) June 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge:
Rubn v Napol Bern Rpka Shkolnk, LLP 2016 NY Slp Op 31096(U) June 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154060/2015 Judge: Cyntha S. Kern Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY
More informationPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VI'RGINIA CHARLESTON PROCEDURE. required to satisfy said complaint or make answer thereto, in writing,
_ ----- -- PUBLC SERVCE COMMSSON OF WEST V'RGNA CHARLESTON At a sesson of the PUBLC SERVCE COMMSSON OF WEST VRGNA, at the Captol n the Cty of Charleston on the 24th day of March, 1976. CASE NO. 8264 ELBERT
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/12/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X KAMCO SUPPLY CORP., On behalf of tself and ndex No. 651725-15
More informationMatter of Diaz v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene 2013 NY Slip Op 32360(U) September 25, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket
Matter of Daz v New York Cty Dept. of Health & Mental Hygene 2013 NY Slp Op 32360(U) September 25, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100846/13 Judge: Joan B. Lobs Cases posted wth a "30000"
More informationGaber v Benhuri Ctr. for Laser Dentistry 2013 NY Slip Op 30378(U) February 15, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /11 Judge:
Gaber v Benhur Ctr. for Laser Dentstry 203 NY Slp Op 30378(U) February 5, 203 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 80064/ Judge: Joan B. Lobs Republshed from New York State Unfed Court System's
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant. This libel action arises out of the public controversy. concerning the safety.of fluoridation o:f public water supplies,
UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT SOUTHERN DSTRCT OF NEW YORK --------------------------~----------x J6HN YAMOUYANNS, PhD, -aganst- Plantff, CONSUMERS UNON OF UNTED STATES, NC, Defendant -------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. I i I. District of. l by Failing to Maintain an Accurate Oil Record:Book, to
~AO 245E (Rev. 12/03) Judgment n a Crmnal Case for Organzatonal efendants Sheet EASTERN UNTE STATES OF AMERCA v. OCEANC LLSABE LMTE THE EFENANT ORGANZATON: pleaded gulty to count(s) pleaded nolo contendere
More informationMatter of Dukhon v Kim 2013 NY Slip Op 31721(U) July 25, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Cynthia S.
Matter of Dukhon v Km 203 NY Slp Op 372(U) July 25 203 Sup Ct New York County Docket Number: 65776/203 Judge: Cyntha S. Kern Republshed from New York State Unfed Court System's E-Courts Servce. Search
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
,'" \.. 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 3 4 5 6 7 9 3 7 AARON S. DYER #999 aaron.dyer@plsburylaw.com LAUREN M. LEAHY #065 lauren.leahy@pllsburylaw.com PLLSBURY WNTHROP SHAW PTTMAN LLP.. 7 South Fgueroa Street, Sute 00 Los
More informationof any issue of law or fact, to the entry of the
J J FNANCAL?NDUSTRY REGU?ATORY AUTHORTY LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE WAVER AND CONSENT NO. 20705494530 TO: RE: Department of Enforcement Fnancal ndustry Regulatory Authorty ("FNRA") Anthony Vultaggo Jr. Respondent
More informationAttorney Docket Number Application Number
The applcaton data sheet s part of the provsonal or nonprovsonal applcaton for whch t s beng submtted. The followng form contans the bblographc data arranged n a format specfed by the Unted States Patent
More informationDiscrimination and Hostile Work Environment Claims Based upon Religion, National Origin, and Alienage
Amercan Bar Assocaton Amercan Law Insttute Aprl, 2002 Dscrmnaton and Hostle Work Envronment Clams Based upon Relgon, Natonal Orgn, and Alenage by Rchard T. Seymour Table of Contents A. Introducton B. The
More informationBY-LAW NO NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston hereby ENACTS as follows.
Clause (2), Report No_ 28. 2014 D142332012 BYLAW NO. 201440 A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW NO. 8499, "RESTRCTED AREA (ZONNG) BY LAW OF THE CORPORATON OF THE CTY OF KNGSTON" (Zone Modfcaton to allow 6 dwellng unt
More informationState of New York Public Employment Relations Board Decisions from September 5, 1974
Cornell Unversty ILR School DgtalCommons@ILR Board Decsons - NYS PERB New York State Publc Employment Relatons Board (PERB) 9-5-1974 State of New York Publc Employment Relatons Board Decsons from September
More informationFairfield Sentry and the limits of comity in Chapter15cases
IILR_2015_30001_1 IILR 1 ARTICLES Jeffrey A. Lesemer 1 Farfeld Sentry and the lmts of comty n Chapter15cases Introducton In the cross-border nsolvency case of Farfeld Sentry Lmted, the Unted States Court
More informationGarcia v Estate of Scott 2015 NY Slip Op 30567(U) March 2, 2015 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Alison Y. Tuitt Cases posted
Garca v Estate of Scott 2015 NY Slp Op 30567(U) March 2, 2015 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: 301087/2012 Judge: Alson Y. Tutt Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp Op 30001(U), are republshed
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY ON WEAPONS POSSESSION
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY ON WEAPONS POSSESSION The 2013 Kansas Legslature enacted a statute to preclude state and muncpal enttes from prohbtng the concealed carry of handguns
More informationMinorcyzk v City of New York 2006 NY Slip Op 30833(U) October 30, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /04 Judge: Eileen A.
Mnorcyzk v Cty of New York 2006 NY Slp Op 30833(U) October 30, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 02928/04 Judge: Eleen A. Rakower Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 203 NY Slp Op
More informationSolano v QLR Six, Inc NY Slip Op 33989(U) June 14, 2013 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Wilma Guzman Cases posted
Solano v QLR Sx, nc. 2013 NY Slp Op 33989(U) June 14, 2013 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 308771/10 Judge: Wlma Guzman Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp Op 30001(U), are republshed
More informationOrtega v Neris 2015 NY Slip Op 30987(U) May 4, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Lucindo Suarez Cases posted with a
Ortega v Ners 2015 NY Slp Op 30987(U) May 4, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 303825/2012 Judge: Lucndo Suarez Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp Op 30001(U), are republshed
More informationCase 1:11-cv VM-JCF Document 965 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 12 ~ S-1 K-:-~ 1-;.\ ~: --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Case 1:11-cv-07866-VM-JCF Document 965 Fled 06/26/15 Page 1 of 12 ~ S-1 K-:-~ 1-;.\ ~: -- DOC l "\ll:\t.e.. C RO:\CALLY nun,.doc# ~ UNTED STATES DST~CT COUR~).\ r ~l:. ---.. -{~.. j.
More information_=:::::::::::: ;~;;;;~:.1
Case 1:11-cv-07866-VM-JCF Document 1111 Fled 07/15/16 Page 1 of 12 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONCALLY FLED. DOC #: ~ UNTED STATES 7 DSTRl~CT COUR ~ 1 ~ SOUTHERN DSTRCT Of NEW YO -~=A=TE=_,:::Fl:::::;l::::,.::::n=:
More informationCONSTITUTION OF ADASTRAL PARK LEISURE AND SPORTS (ATLAS) BODY TALK GYM CLUB
CONSTITUTION OF ADASTRAL PARK LEISURE AND SPORTS (ATLAS) BODY TALK GYM CLUB 1. The organsaton shall be called Adastral Park Lesure and Sports (ATLAS) Body Talk Gym Club, herenafter referred as the Club.
More informationDepartment without an admission of wrongdoing and for the purposk of resolving this matter
STATE OF FLORDA OFFCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERA DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFARS n the Matter of: UNTED RESORT MARKETNG, NC., a Florda corporaton, SKY BLUE SOLUTONS, N CORPORA TED, a Florda corporaton, and ADAM
More informationTHIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE (this First Amendment ) is made and entered into this day of
FRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CTY OF LOS ANGELES AND GAVN DE BECKER & ASSOCATES, LP AT LOS ANGELES NTERNATONAL ARPORT (Lease LAA-8897 at 687 and 6875 W. mperal Hghway formerly 685 W. mperal Hghway)
More informationLoreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3, Ltd. v Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc NY Slip Op 32624(U) October 1, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number:
Loreley Fn. (Jersey) No. 3, Ltd. v Morgan Stanley & Co. nc. 2014 NY Slp Op 32624(U) October 1, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 653316/12 Judge: Jeffrey K. Ong Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e.,
More informationTHE FOLLOWING IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Robert H. 2. Judge LaPiana was apprised by the Commission in June 2017 that it was
!! 1 STATE OF NEW YORK COMMSSON ON JUDCAL CONDUCT n the Matter of the nvestgaton of Complants! Pursuant to Secton 44, subdvsons and 2,, J of the Judcary Law n Relaton to ' l. JAMES D. LAPANA, STPULATON
More informationIp :J:CTl\00.ICALLY FIL[[) '
tf Case 1:11-cv-07866-VM-JCF Document 975 Fled 07/07/15 Page 1 of 19 c-~; ;:~:~~~~~===-~=--. rjd
More informationI i IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA CA 1 WAKFS 1 01/2017. I j
,! j j! { l j N THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATC SOCALST REPUBLC OF SR LANKA CA WAKFS 0/207 Wakfs Trbunal No. WT/242/207 Wakfs Board Case No. WB/727/206 n the matter of an appeal under and n terms
More informationMatter of Brasky v City of New York 2006 NY Slip Op 30744(U) March 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /05 Judge: Lottie E.
Matter of Brasky v Cty of New York 2006 NY Slp Op 30744(U) March 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 114539/05 Judge: Lotte E. Wlkns Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J-A29036-16 NON-PRECEDENTAL DECSON - SEE SUPEROR COURT.O.P. 65.37 NORTHWEST SAVNGS BANK, : N THE SUPEROR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANA Appeant : : v. : : FDELTY NATONAL TTLE NSURANCE COMPANY AND THE CLOSNG COMPANY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.
, \ t f ( l N THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATC SOCALST REPUBLC OF SR LANKA. n the matter of an Appel from the order dated.02.204 made by the Provncal Hgh Court of Uva Provnce holden n Badulla n the
More informationEastside Floor Serv., Ltd. v Ibex Constr., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 33416(U) August 15, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Anil
Eastsde Floor Serv., Ltd. v bex Constr., LLC 2012 NY Slp Op 33416(U) August 15, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 108977/09 Judge: Anl C. Sngh Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC03-37 ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CLARENCE JAMES JONES, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: SC03-37 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : :
J-S01007-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROOSEVELT-BENTMAN TRUST FOR AMERICAN VOTERS INTER VIVOS TRUST APPEAL OF: HONORABLE PETER J. WIRS, TRUSTEE OF THE INTER VIVOS TRUST
More informationLOBBYIST DISCLOSURE REPORT
County ofsanta Clara Offce ofthe Clerk ofthe Board ofsupervsors County Government Center, East Wng 70 West Heddng Street San Jose, Calforna 95110-1770 (408)299-5001 FAX 938-4525 Megan Doyle Clerk ofthe
More informationMatter of Interview, Inc. v Fuller 2014 NY Slip Op 32469(U) September 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:
Matter of ntervew, nc. v Fuller 2014 NY Slp Op 32469(U) September 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653330/2013 Judge: Mchael D. Stallman Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013
More informationi i I l I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I
l CATHY V, REBECCA JONES, JONES, MSSOUR APPELLANT, RESPONDENT. SOUTHERN N THE APPELLANT'S DSTRCT BREF Appeal No. SD29176 Davd B. Ponter MO Bar No. 44498 Raymond M. Gross MO Bar No. 56438 PONTER LAW OFFCE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE! ) ' ) ; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
N THE UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE DSTRCT OF DELAWARE! GODO KASHA P BRDGE 1, ) ) Plantff, ) ) V. ) TCL COMMUNCATON TECHNOLOGY) HOLDNGS LMTED, a Chnese ) Corporaton, TCT MOBLE LMTED, a ), Hong Kong
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA ASA'CARSARMIUT TRIBAL COUNCIL, vs. APPELLANT JOHN D. WHEELER III JEANETTE MYRE, APPELLEES. Case No.: S-15318 Tral Case No. 3AN-12-4581 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR
More informationFull name Title Date of birth
PIB (UK) 2019 Applcaton for regstraton of a non-acca partner/drector/controller or a non-partner/drector responsble for Exempt Regulated Actvtes work n a frm seekng Exempt Regulated Actvtes regstraton
More informationPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON. Complainant, HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
EN@EPKP CHARLESTON CASE NO. 82-608-G-C CABOT CORPORATON, a publc utlty, Charleston, Kanawha County, V. Complanant, THE WELCH GAS COOPERATVE ASSOCATON, Welch, McDowell County, Defendant. HEARNG EXAMNER'S
More informationDISCOURAGING DEMAND. Defining the concept of demand. What do we mean when we talk about demand in relation to trafficking?
chapter 9 Preventon of traffckng n persons 491 DISCOURAGING DEMAND Tool 9.12 Defnng the concept of demand Overvew Ths tool consders what demand means wth respect to human traffckng. What do we mean when
More informationLast Time. u Priority-based scheduling. u Schedulable utilization u Rate monotonic rule: Keep utilization below 69%
Last Tme u Prorty-based schedulng Ø Statc prortes Ø Dynamc prortes u Schedulable utlzaton u Rate monotonc rule: Keep utlzaton below 69% Today u Response tme analyss u Blockng terms u Prorty nverson Ø And
More informationAPPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. L P.W. L P.W.
ML000946M S U P E R I O R C O U R T OF NEW J E R S E Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. L-6001-78 P.W. L-59128-85 P.W. MORRIS COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, et. al. r Plantffs v. BOONTON TOWNSHIP, et. al. Defendant
More informationLegal Strategies for FDA Consent Decrees
RU1 Legal Strateges for FDA Consent Decrees Wllam W. Vodra PDA Taormna Conference 14 October 2003 14 October 2003 Legal Strateges for FDA Consent Decrees Slde 1 Slde 1 RU1 #1001401.2-PDA Taormna speech
More informationSUPPLEMENT ISIOLO COUNTY GAZETTE BILLS, NAIROBI, 13th September,?fr16 SPECIAL ISSUE. REPUBLIC OF KEr.fYA
SPECAL SSUE solo County Gazette Supplement No. (Blls No.9) REPUBLC OF KEr.fYA SOLO COUNTY GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT BLLS, 2016 NAROB, 13th September,?fr16 CONTENT Bll for ntroducton nto the solo County Assembly-
More information17 W. 127th St. Partners LLC v Baruch Realty, LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31566(U) August 17, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12
17 W. 127th St. Partners LLC v Baruch Realty, LLC 2016 NY Slp Op 31566(U) August 17, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 158807/12 Judge: Cyntha S. Kern Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e.,
More informationApplication for Exempt Regulated Activities registration (UK)
ERA 2019 Applcaton for Exempt Regulated Actvtes regstraton (UK) Ths form should be completed f you wsh your frm to undertake exempt regulated actvtes through ACCA under the Fnancal Servces and Markets
More informationCombating Housing Benefit Fraud: Local Authorities' Discretionary Powers
Combatng Housng Beneft Fraud: Local Authortes' Dscretonary Powers A study carred out on behalf of the Department of Socal Securty by Roy Sansbury Socal Polcy Research Unt, Unversty of York Crown copyrght
More informationAn ordinance amending Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code by amending the zoning map.
ORDINANCE NO. 185827 An ordnance amendng Secton 12.04 of the Los Angeles Muncpal Code by amendng the zonng map. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Secton 1. Secton 12.04 of the
More informationSeptember 28, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of L. Patrick Bourne
September 28, 2016 PUBLC VERSON PROTECTED MATERALS REDACTED The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Re: Southwest Power
More informationCANTONMENT BOARD, RANIKHET MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA
\ APPONTMENT TO THE POST OF TOLL COLLECTOR, JUNOR CLERK AND WATER LNEMAN N CANTONMENT BOARD, RANKHET CANTONMENT BOARD, RANKHET MNSTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVT. OF NDA No. 121Recrutment 12017 01- Sept, 2017 Onlne
More informationofiys) B PG266 QUAIL RUN CONDOMINIUM TRUST Cambridge, Massachusetts (hereinafter called the "Trustees", which term and Name of Trust
' :. ofys) B. 17820PG266.. :... "':'>.."..... - QUAL RUN CONDOMNUM TRUST THS DECLARATON OF TRUST made ths 22nd day of January 1987 at Woburn n the County of Mddlesex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts by
More informationCONSTITUTION OF THE New Democratic Party of Canada EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2018
CONSTITUTION OF THE New Democratc Party of Canada EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2018 PREAMBLE Canada s a great country, one of the hopes of the world. New Democrats are Canadans who beleve we can be a better one
More informationE911 INFORMATION WETZEL COUNTY COMMISSION
E911 INFORMATION WETZEL COUNTY COMMISSION WETZEL COUNTY CowwrssroN NE WMARTINSVILLE, WV26155 CAROL S. HAUGHT COUNTY CLERK BARBARA A. KING, PRESIDENT PINE GROVE, WV 26419 DONALD E. MASON, VICE-PRESIDENT
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Thomas R. Dreiling, a shareholder of INFOSPACE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 08-35095 N THE UNTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NNTH CRCUT Thomas R. Drelng, a shareholder of NFOSPACE, NC., Plantff-Appellant, VS. AMERCA ONLNE, NC., a Delaware corporaton, Defendant-Appellee,
More informationAN ARBITRATION BETWEEN BEFORE : I MARSHALL A. SNIDER ARBITRATORI
SEP-09-2011 03:52 SSA-ODAR P.002 AN ARBTRATON BETWEEN :1 SOCAL securty ) ADMNSTRAOON OFFCE OF ) DSABLTY ADJUDCA non AND ) REVEW ) RE: Removal of Cases from ) Judge Eart W. Shaffer and ) ) FMCS No. 1G-60265-3
More informationAn ordinance amending Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code by amending the zoning map.
ORDINANCE NO. An ordnance amendng Secton.12.04 of the Los Angeles Muncpal Code by amendng the zonng map. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Secton 1. Secton 12.04 of the Los Angeles
More informationAGENDA REQUEST AGENDA ITEM NO: V.5. Board Appointments. December 7, 2015 BY City Auditor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadalini City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini
AGENDA HEADNG: Board Appointments AGENDA REQUEST COMMSSON MEETNG DATE: December 7, 2015 BY City Auditor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadalini City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini AGENDA TEM NO: V.5. Originating Department
More informationCase 3:09-cv MAP Document 1 Filed 07/23/2009 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:09-cv-30121 -MAP Document 1 Fled 07/23/2009 Page 1 of 17 EDWARD J. LAVALLEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MASSACHUSETTS Plantff, NO. V. VERIFIED COMPLAINT CROCS, INC., RONALD R. SNYDER, RUSS AND
More informationOregon Round Dance Teachers Association
Oregon Round Dance Teachers Assocaton Bylaws Adopted January 1982 Amended October 1983 Amended July 1987 Amended September 1990 Amended May 1995 Amended January 2000 Amended October 2000 Amended January
More informationDISABILITY LAW CTR 11: PAGE t CPR. I i HAMPDEN, COURT I ACTION
. 11:52 14135842976 14t40 4 35865711 DSABLTY LAW CTR PAGE 02 a HAMPDEN,! COURT ACTON wth 504 of the forth below, moton fbr judgment & the : 11:52 14135842976 14: 40 4135865711 P&GE 0 3 PAGE by Board of
More informationAGENDA REPORT. long term ground lease holder for the land filed an. application to amend Condition 14 of City Council Resolution No 09 65
Agenda Item 1 1 AGENDA REPORT Revewed Cty Manager Fnance Drector MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 2 2010 TO WILLIAM A HUSTON CITY MANAGER FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
More informationDefendants, DAVID A. BEN-ASHER, ESQ. 134 Evergreen Place East Orange, New Jersey 07018
U.I. v. / t/p* ARTHUR W. BURGESS, ESQ. DIRECTOR OF LAW TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE 1 Man Street Woodbrdge, New Jersey 07095 (201) 634-4500 Attorney for Defendant, Townshp of Woodbrdge URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER
More informationSCI PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND DISCOVERY REQUESTS. ComWnow VANESSA SAMUDIO, Plaintiff herein, complaining of CITY OF SAN
CAU SCI -G'.l VANESSA SAMUDIO VS..?,- CITY OF SAN ANTONIO I IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO THE H0lg5? MJ5E"JUDGE OF
More informationUUHlelNAt, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 401 IITN STREET. N W. BUITE 1000 WASHIKGTON. O C t]4 TELEPHONE: 202-g;'4*2gS0
UUHlelNAt, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 401 IITN STREET. N W. BUITE 1000 WASHIKGTON. O C 20004-2t]4 TELEPHONE: 202-g;'4*2gS0 ORIGINAL Joffrey k~ Jagublm OVect DtJ: 292-274-28GQ FmC
More informationKagan Lubic Lepper Findelstein & Gold LLP v 325 Fifth Ave. Condominium 2015 NY Slip Op 31470(U) August 6, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket
Kagan Lubc Lepper Fndelsten & Gold LLP v 325 Ffth Ave. Condomnum 2015 NY Slp Op 31470(U) August 6, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 151878/15 Judge: Cyntha S. Kern Cases posted wth a
More informationRural Municipality ofciayton No. 333 BYLAW NO. 4/2011. The council for the Rural Municipality ofclayton No. 333 in the Province ofsaskatchewan enacts
M (a Nusance Abatement Bylaw Rural Muncpalty ofcayton No. 333 BYLAW NO. 4/2011 A B^LAW TO PROVDE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF NUSANCES WTHN THE BOUNDARES OF THE ORGANZED HAMLET OF SWAN PLAN The councl for the
More informationImmigration New Zealand Operational Manual. Border Entry. Issue Date: 2 March 2009
Immgraton New Zealand Operatonal Manual Border Entry Issue Date: 2 March 2009 INZ Operatonal Manual Border Entry Contents Y1 Objectve 1-1 Y2 Arrvals and departures 2-1 Y3 People refused entry 3-1 Y4 Detenton
More informationCalifornia Ballot Propositions and Initiatives. Follow this and additional works at:
Unversty of Calforna Hastngs College of the Law UC Hastngs Scholarshp Repostory ntatves Calforna Ballot Propostons and ntatves 3-7-1994 ntatve Power. Follow ths and addtonal works at: http://repostory.uchastngs.edu/ca_ballot_nts
More informationDid Illegal Overseas Absentee Ballots Decide the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election? 1
Dd Illegal Overseas Absentee Ballots Decde the 2000 U.S. Presdental Electon? 1 Kosuke Ima 2 Gary Kng 3 March 23, 2004 1 We are deeply grateful to the many prvate ctzens of every poltcal strpe who took
More informationmembership in a language minority. assumption that Section 5 complies Case 2:13-cv Document Filed in TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 1 of 79
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 459-8 Fled n TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 1 of 79 Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC Document 1 Fled 07/19/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. Proposed for filing in Case No. 113,267) NO. 308; UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1Ngj
FILED JUN 2 9 2015 HEATHER L. SMITH CLERK OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Proposed for flng n Case No. 113,267) LUKE GANNON, et al, Plantffs, County Appealed From: Dstrct
More informationImmigration New Zealand Operational Manual. Border entry. Issue Date: 29 Novemer 2010
Immgraton New Zealand Operatonal Manual Border entry Issue Date: 29 Novemer 2010 CONTENTS Y1 Objectve...1-1 Y2 Arrvals and departures...2-1 Y3 People refused entry permsson...3-1 Y4 Vsas n error...4-1
More information- r. &he Gazette of Andia (a) ~~m;t-im;imjmit~&~~~is9f&i PUBLISHED BY AUTHOFUTY. otm 11-m3-3P-m (i) REGD. NO. D. L;-33~"
...@. 3 REGD. NO. D. L;-33~" - r &he Gazette of Anda L EXTRAORDNARY otm 11-m3-3P-m () - - PKRm~&o-b-seq - ~ + r ~ PUBLSHED BY AUTHOFUTY U. 4851 m, m, Wl'W 30, 20ll/un: 8, 1933 Na 4851 NEW DELH, TUESDAY,
More informationTENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT Request for Qualfcatons (RFQ) STENOGRAPHIC COURT REPORTING SERVICES RFQ # 10-2018-01 RFQ ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2018 RFQ RESPONSE DEADLINE: June 7, 2018, at 5:00 PM EST Note:
More informationCalculating Equivalent and Compensating Variations in CGE Models
ntroducton Calculatng Equvalent and Copensatng Varatons n CGE Models Véronque Robchaud July Most CGE odelers use these odels to assess the pacts of gven shocks or polces on a specfc econoy. Whle t s qute
More informationELEVENTH GUfu'lLEGISLATURE 1972 (SECOND) Regular Session. CERTIFICATION OF PASSAGE OF AN ACT TO THE C"'()VEfu"\fOR
ELEVENTH GUfu'lLEGSLATURE 972 (SECOND) Regular Sesson Guam Terrtoral Law Lbrary 4 San Ramon Rd. Agana GaaB 9690 CERTFCATON OF PASSAGE OF AN ACT TO THE C'()VEfu\fOR Ths s to certfy that Bll No. 723 An l>.ctto
More informationBEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF VSB DOCKET NO KIMBERLY LISA MARSHALL
VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF VSB DOCKET NO. 15-070-100583 KIMBERLY LISA MARSHALL AGREED DISPOSITION MEMORANDUM ORDER On January 9, 2018 ths matter was heard
More informationTABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES. Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1900)... 22
-.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 2 3 l 4 J 5 6 7 9 20 2 22 oj 23 25 26 27 2 TABLE OF AUTHORTES CASES Alexander v. Unted States 509 U.S. 544... 7 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England 546 U.S. 320 (20@6)...
More informationTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOOD GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY IN AUSTRALIAN SPORT
1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOOD GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY IN AUSTRALIAN SPORT Francesco Bonollo de Zwart * and George Gllgan ** Workng Paper Not to be quoted wthout the express permsson of the authors,
More informationThe Optimal Weighting of Pre-Election Polling Data
Brgham Young Unversty BYU ScholarsArchve All Theses and Dssertatons 2008-04-23 The Optmal Weghtng of Pre-Electon Pollng Data Gregory K. Johnson Brgham Young Unversty - Provo Follow ths and addtonal works
More informationAGENDA REQUEST AGENDA ITEM NO: V.3. Board Appointments. April 18, 2016 BY City Auditor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadalini City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini
AGENDA HEADNG: Board Appointments AGENDA REQUEST COMMSSON MEETNG DATE: April 18, 2016 BY City Auditor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadalini City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini AGENDA TEM NO: V.3. Originating Department
More information1300 I STREET, N. w. WASHINGTON, DC FACSIMILE 202" 408" 4400 WAITER'S DIRECT, DIAL. NUMBER: (202)
,~ FNNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT 0 DUNNER, L. L. p, 300 STREET, N. w. WASHNGTON, DC 20005-335, "'. L ~ t 202.. 408.. 4000 FACSMLE 202" 408" 4400 ATLANTA 404-653-6400 f:>alo AL.TO 650"849-6600 Dear
More informationAGENDA REQUEST AGENDA ITEM NO: V.3. Board Appointments. July 21, 2014 BY City Auditor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadalini City Auditor and Clerk Nadalini
AGENDA HEADNG: Board Appontments AGENDA REQUEST COMMSSON MEETNG DATE: July 21, 2014 BY Cty Audtor and Clerk Pamela M. Nadaln Cty Audtor and Clerk Nadaln AGENDA TEM NO: V.3. Orgnatng Department SUBJECT:
More informationRodriguez v Dickard Widder Indus., Inc NY Slip Op 33894(U) May 27, 2014 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 19323/13 Judge: Howard G.
Rodrguez v Dckard Wdder ndus., nc. 2014 NY Slp Op 33894(U) May 27, 2014 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 19323/13 Judge: Howard G. Lane Cases posted wth a "30000" dentfer,.e., 2013 NY Slp Op
More informationASBG Management Services, Inc, P.O. Box 549 Abington, PA Phone Fax 2 J
ASBG Management Servces, Inc, P.O. Box 549 Abngton, PA 19001 Phone 215.938.6665 Fax 2 J 5.938.7613 October 6,2014 Rosemary Chavetta, Secretary Pennsylvana Publc Utlty Commsson P.O. Box 3265 Harrsburg,
More informationAMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO _,,A_
f 3 partes, ~ Pae V V 7 " V Bc»c»I»=. IBB4 pae 1588, IN TH CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,.l1 IN AND FOR DUVAL, CLAY AND NASSAU COUNTIS AMNDD ADMINISTRATIV ORDR NO. 2004-6,,A ty 4 I A r. H * I;
More informationPrepared for PC35 only
.2 Queenstown Arport Mxed-Use Zone Rules.2.1 Zone Purpose The Mxed Use Zone comprses part of the underlyng zone for Queenstown Arport n the cnty of Lucas Place and Robertson Street at Frankton. It s charactersed
More informationSECTION I - BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING REPORT. 200 MacDill Blvd. Washington, D.C SECTION II - MAKING A FOIA REQUEST
ANNUAL FREEDOM OF NFORMATON ACT REPORT REPORT CONTROL SYMBOL DD-DA&M(A)1365 SUBCOMPONENT/COMPONENT OR AGENCY REPORTNG REPORT FOR FSCAL YEAR Defense ntelligence Agency 2013 SECTON - BASC NFORMATON REGARDNG
More informationUNICEF Humanitarian Action Study 2017
UNICEF/UN07326/DUBOURTHOUMIE UNICEF Humantaran Acton Study 2017 A synthess of UNICEF s response For more nformaton, please see the UNICEF Annual Results Report Humantaran Acton Democratc Republc of the
More informationgturhto IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Docket No S
II Danel J. Carroll (#09463) ( Lead Attorney) Phlp R. Mchael (# 26072) Kansas Department of Admnstraton Offce of Chef Counsel 1000 SW Jackson, Sute 500 Topeka, KS 66612 Telephone: ( 785) 296-6003 Dan.carrollna,
More informationUNCLASSIFIED UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND. White Paper. Redefining the Win. 06 Jan 2015 UNCLASSIFIED
UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND Whte Paper Redefnng the Wn 06 Jan 2015 Redefnng the Wn The Redefned Wn Concept The Redefned Wn Concept centers on proactve U.S. competton wth State / Non-State
More informationt implementation of Coordinated Care Organizations ( CCO' s) whose nurses provide very
k APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 25, 215 BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION February 11, 215 1 5: 3 P.m. Anne G. Basker Audtorum 6 N.W. Sxth Street, Grants
More informationBoard of Trustees Meeting Minutes
Bowlng Green State Unversty ScholarWorks@BGSU Board of Trustees Meetng Mnutes Unversty Publcatons 10-14-1913 Board of Trustees Meetng Mnutes 1913-10-14 Bowlng Green State Unversty Follow ths and addtonal
More informationASUM SENATE AGENDA Gold Oak Room April 26, :00 p.m.
ASUM SENATE AGENDA Gold Oak Room Aprl 26, 989 6:00 pm Call Meetng to Order 2 Roll Call 3 Approval of Aprl 9, 989 Mnutes 4 Presdents Report a Unverst Area Parkng - Ken Stolz b Publc Rado Week - Frank Feld
More informationv. W VUVb !2.\ 5/ H /«Z. la s W\C^\OA
v. W VUVb 5/ H /«Z. la s W\C^\OA!2.\ r AM000280B ALOIS, H/DEIS, ERNA HAUEIS, ) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY JOHN OCHS and PRISCILLA OCHS, Plantffs, LAW DIVISION SOMERSET COUNTY vs. THE BOROUGH OF FAR HILLS,
More information***** VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Roanoke, Virginia - July 24,2007
FIRST DAY SECTION ONE VIRGINIA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Roanoke, Vrgna - July 24,2007 You MUST wrte your answer to Questons 1 and 2 n WHITE Answer Booklet A 1. Blly Ray Valentne and hs wfe, Wlma owned a
More informationThis matter was opened to the Court by the Acting Attorney. General of New Jersey, John J. Hoffman, Deputy Attorney General
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; and THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW JERSEY SPILL COMPENSATION FUND, V. Plaintiffs,
More information