IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT"

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) THE WESTERN SHOSHONE ) IDENTIFIABLE GROUP, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 06-cv-00896L ) Judge Edward J. Damich THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Appendix A of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ( RCFC ), the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group, as represented by Plaintiffs Yomba Shoshone Tribe; Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe; and Western Shoshone Indian individuals, Maurice Frank-Church, Jerry Millet, and Virginia Sanchez (collectively Plaintiffs ), and Defendant United States of America, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Preliminary Status Report ( JPSR ) to the Court. This JPSR sets forth the areas of agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Where the parties were unable to come to an agreement, however, the parties state their separate positions, and they do not adopt or consent to the statements of the other party by virtue of submission of this JPSR to the Court. I. PLAINTIFFS INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Plaintiff Yomba Shoshone Tribe filed its Complaint on December 26, Docket No. ( Dkt. No. ) 1. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 12, 2008 (Dkt. No. 24) which, inter

2 alia, added as plaintiffs Western Shoshone individuals Maurice Frank-Church, Jerry Millet, and Virginia Sanchez, and stated claims on behalf of the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group. On May 22, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 30. On June 24, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On June 27, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 34) on behalf of the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group and added as additional representative Plaintiffs the Timbisha and Duckwater Shoshone Tribes. Plaintiffs filed their case against the United States under the Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. 1491, and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Defendant relating to Defendant s failure to properly manage certain judgment funds resulting from earlier proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission ( ICC ) and this Court, including, but not limited to, the failure to properly invest, reconcile and account for Plaintiffs trust funds in a manner that would maximize the growth of the trust funds. Plaintiffs seek an award of monetary damages, including compound interest, for the mismanagement of those funds. The specific funds at issue in this case are: United States Department of the Interior ( Interior ) Account JA , which contains the proceeds of the ICC award in ICC Docket No. 326-K, initial award of $26,145,189.89, deposited on December 19, 1979; Account JA which contains the proceeds of ICC Docket No. 326-A-1, initial award of $823, deposited on March 23,1992 and ICC Docket No. 326-A-3, initial award of $29, deposited on September 15, Plaintiffs affirmatively assert that Defendant has waived the right to bring a motion for a more definite statement of claim by failing to do so before the submission of its answer to the Court. See RCFC 12. Thus, Defendant s expectation of a statement from Plaintiffs of detailed 2

3 specific claims and the factual and legal bases for those claims, including the damages claims is understood by the Plaintiff to be in the context of discovery and the presentation of claims by Plaintiffs in dispositive motions and / or at trial. II. DEFENDANT S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Plaintiffs filed this case against the United States under the Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. 1491, and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C Plaintiffs allege broad claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Defendant in its management of Plaintiffs trust funds and seek monetary damages. In 2004, Congress passed legislation to permit distribution of these judgment funds. Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, Pub. L. No , 118 Stat. 805 ( Distribution Act or Act ). Section 3 of the Distribution Act authorizes the Secretary to make a per capita distribution of one hundred percent of the Western Shoshone judgment funds to each person listed on the judgment roll (which is now being compiled). 25 C.F.R 87.1(l) defines per capita payment as that aspect of a plan which pertains to the individualization of the judgment funds in the form of shares to tribal members or to individual descendants. Given that the lawsuit named tribal Plaintiffs (see Complaint and Second Amended Complaint), instead of individual plaintiffs, notwithstanding the Act s directive of per capita, not tribal, distributions, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the tribal Plaintiffs under RCFC Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). See Defendant s Motion to Dismiss Tribal Claims and supporting Memorandum filed on March 28, Dkt. No. 27. On October 31, 2008 the Court issued an Opinion denying the motion. By acknowledging this Court s ruling concerning the tribal Plaintiffs, Defendant does not waive any right of appeal or any of the arguments set forth in its motion to dismiss the tribal 3

4 Plaintiffs in this case. As set forth in its Answer filed on December 23, 2008 (Dkt. No. 41) and as discussed in greater detail below, Defendant asserts various defenses that may bar Plaintiffs claims in this litigation. Defendant s assertion of its defenses, however, must await Plaintiffs detailed specific claims and the factual and legal bases for those claims, including the damages claims. Once Plaintiffs have defined and delineated their claims clearly, through their submissions to Defendant and, if appropriate, the Court, including but not limited the work of Plaintiffs expert witnesses, Defendant may raise other appropriate defenses. Defendant believes that such defenses may be susceptible to resolution by dispositive motions. III. PARTIES REPORT PURSUANT TO RCFC APPENDIX A Pursuant to the requirements of RCFC Appendix A, counsel for the parties conducted the early meeting of counsel on January 29, 2009, February 13, 2009, and February 27, 2009, by telephone conference calls. The following attorneys participated in the first conference call: 1. Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs: Thomas E. Luebben; 2. Other Counsel for Plaintiffs: Samuel D. Hough; 3. Counsel of Record for Defendant: Daniel G. Steele, United States Department of Justice; 4. Other Counsel for Defendant: Michael A. Bianco, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Interior. The following attorneys participated in the second and third conference calls: 1. Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs: Thomas E. Luebben 4

5 2. Other Counsel for Plaintiffs: Samuel D. Hough; 3. Counsel of Record for Defendant: Daniel G. Steele, United States Department of Justice; 4. Other Counsel for Defendant: Michael A. Bianco, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Interior; Rebecca Saltiel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Financial Management Service, United States Department of the Treasury. Counsel for the parties discussed their positions on the required elements of this JPSR, as set forth in RCFC Appendix A and RCFC 26. A. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the action? This Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C (the Tucker Act) and 28 U.S.C (the Indian Tucker Act). Defendant s Position: Depending on Plaintiffs detailed specification of their claims, Plaintiffs claims may be barred by application of the statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C Further, the Court may lack jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), 1505, over those claims for which Plaintiffs are unable to identify an appropriate legal or factual basis that would sustain such claims (e.g., a specific fiduciary money-mandating duty). Defendant can determine which, if any, of Plaintiffs claims are viable only upon the completion of expert discovery, including the completion of Plaintiffs expert witness work and Plaintiff s submission of their final expert reports. B. Should the case be consolidated with any other case and, if so, why? 5

6 The parties do not believe this case should be consolidated with any other case. C. Should the trial of liability and damages be bifurcated, and if so, why? Plaintiffs do not believe that it would be necessary to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases. To the extent that the statutory and common law fiduciary duties of the Defendant and the liability of the Defendant for the breach of those duties do not entail complex factual and legal issues, and may be susceptible to an order on summary judgment, and to the extent that the trust funds at issue in this case lack the complexities of multitudinous transactions involved in other trust fund mismanagement cases, the Plaintiffs believe that the factual and legal issues can be presented concisely and with clarity in a single trial. Defendant s Position: Defendant believes that it would be appropriate to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases. Such a bifurcation would afford Defendant the opportunity in the liability phase to evaluate, inter alia, whether Plaintiffs claims, including their alleged measure of damages, are viable as a matter of law in advance of a trial on damages. D. Should further proceedings in the case be deferred pending consideration of another case before this court or any other tribunal and, if so, why? The parties are unaware of another case before this Court or any other tribunal or any circumstance that would warrant deferral of further proceedings in this case. E. In cases other than tax refund actions, will a remand or suspension be sought and, if so, why and for how long? Although Plaintiffs may seek non-adr or ADR settlement negotiations in the future 6

7 after further development of the evidence, Plaintiffs do not intend to do so at this time, and are otherwise unaware of any circumstances that would warrant a remand or suspension in this case. Defendant s Position: Defendant is presently unaware of any case or circumstance that would warrant a remand or a suspension in this case except, should the need arise to accommodate Plaintiffs possible request to conduct ADR/non-ADR settlement negotiations. F. Will additional parties be joined? If so, the parties shall provide a statement describing such parties, their relationship to the case, the efforts to effect joinder, and the schedule proposed to effect joinder. At this time, the parties do not know of any additional parties who will seek joinder. Each of the three Tribal Plaintiffs, Yomba, Timbisha and Duckwater, are federally recognized tribes and members of the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group that are eligible to represent the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group without joinder of any other Western Shoshone Tribes pursuant to 28 U.S.C However, either of two additional Western Shoshone tribal governing bodies, which are members of the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group, or individuals eligible for inclusion on the Western Shoshone Judgment Roll, may seek intervention in this lawsuit upon proper and timely motion pursuant to RCFC Rule 24. Defendant s Position: At this time, Defendant does not know of any additional parties who will seek joinder. As Defendant has set forth in the papers supporting its motion to dismiss the tribal Plaintiffs, however, other Western Shoshone Indian individuals who have beneficial interests in the Western Shoshone Judgment Fund, including those individuals who have protectable interests 7

8 and who are members of some or all nine of the Western Shoshone Tribes or groups of Indians (see, e.g., S.Rep. No at 3-4), may seek joinder in their own right, pursuant to RCFC 20 or 24, in this lawsuit. The participation or adequate representation of those Western Shoshone Indian individuals in this case may be necessary for purposes of a final adjudication, settlement, or ADR of the claims being asserted herein. G. Does either party intend to file a motion pursuant to RCFC 12(b), 12(c), or 56, and, if so, what is the schedule for the intended filing? Plaintiffs are contemplating the filing of a motion for summary judgment on the issue of duty, including the fiduciary standards applicable to Defendant as trustee. Plaintiffs may also file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for Defendant s breach of duty and failure to properly administer the trust funds in accordance with fiduciary standards applicable to Defendant as trustee. Plaintiffs contemplate the sequential filing of such motions pursuant to RCFC 56, including possible motions on other dispositive issues, within 90 days following the close of discovery. Defendant s Position: As to a proposed liability phase, Defendant contemplates the possibility of raising affirmative defenses or other dispositive legal issues by motion pursuant to RCFC 12(b) or 56. Defendant anticipates at this time that such a motions practice could include a challenge to Plaintiffs alleged measures of damages after the Court s determination of liability and in the event that Defendant determines that Plaintiffs alleged measures are not legally viable. In Defendant s experiences with other Tribal trust accounting and trust mismanagement cases involving similar breach of trust claims, Plaintiffs full articulation of their claims, as well as the 8

9 legal and factual bases for those claims, typically do not occur until after Plaintiffs have disclosed expert witnesses and those experts have submitted their final expert reports. Accordingly, Defendant proposes that its expert witness disclosures be required no less than 120 days after Plaintiffs expert disclosures. This will afford Defendant a necessary opportunity to conduct further research, after it has received Plaintiffs expert reports, so as to identify and develop evidence not only to rebut Plaintiffs claims but also to support Defendant s own expert analyses. Without sufficient time to conduct this additional research, Defendant would be prejudiced in its ability to prepare and present an adequate defense in trial proceedings. As soon as the parties have exchanged all expert reports, including rebuttal reports, Defendant proposes that the parties would have 60 days thereafter to complete discovery and to file any legal motions on unresolved issues. H. What are the relevant factual and legal issues? The Plaintiffs preliminary factual and legal issues, subject to revision through further legal and factual development dependent upon further rulings of this Court and discovery, include: 1. The Western Shoshone Identifiable Group, as represented by the named Plaintiffs herein, is entitled to a judgment for money damages necessary to make the Western Shoshone Judgment Fund and Joint Judgment Funds whole; 2. The applicable fiduciary standards of care that are owed to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant, with respect to the funds in the trust accounts, as established by federal statute, regulation and the common law; 9

10 3. The investment, accounting, recordkeeping, reporting, and other practices necessary to achieve compliance with the applicable standards of care and defendant s fiduciary obligations; 4. The Defendant s failure to comply with such standards and obligations and to implement such practices; 5. The Defendant s failure to establish trust fund accounts and properly invest the funds within a reasonable time following the certification of the awards in ICC Dockets 326-K, 326-A-1 and 326-A-3 by the Court Clerk to the office of the Comptroller General, or other office, division, or agency of the United States Treasury; 6. The Defendant s failure to furnish the Plaintiffs with an accounting of Western Shoshone Identifiable Group trust funds from which the Plaintiffs could have determined a loss due to mismanagement of those funds; 7. The Defendant s failure to properly and prudently manage and invest the funds in federally approved instruments and in a manner that would achieve the maximum rate of return on the investments; 8. The Defendant s liability for the breaches of its fiduciary responsibilities owed to the Plaintiffs; and 9. The damages arising from the Defendant s breaches of its fiduciary responsibilities that are necessary to make the Western Shoshone Judgment Fund and Joint Judgment Funds whole for the benefit of the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group. 10

11 Defendant s Position: The precise contours of factual and legal issues depend on Plaintiffs development, prosecution, and proof of sufficiently specific claims of trust fund mismanagement and of resulting damages. Defendant sets forth the following relevant and factual issues based on its present knowledge of Plaintiffs trust fund mismanagement claims: 1. To the extent that Plaintiffs claims are based on specific duties established in substantive sources of law, whether a breach of those duties would mandate the payment of compensation; 2. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendant has failed to perform any specific money-mandating duties; and 3. Whether Plaintiffs assert claims for relief that, if granted, would violate the terms and requirements of the distribution of the Judgment accounts, as set out under the Distribution Act. I. What is the likelihood of settlement? Is alternative dispute resolution contemplated? Plaintiffs believe that potential exists for settlement through ADR or less formal non- ADR settlement negotiations. However, Plaintiffs are not currently contemplating the use of ADR. Plaintiffs believe that the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group is adequately represented by the Plaintiffs in this case. Defendant s Position: Defendant believes that there should be a potential for settlement, ADR, or other 11

12 informal resolution of Plaintiffs claims, without the need for protracted litigation. Thus, Defendant remains open to the possibility of settlement options, including the possibility of staying formal litigation and engaging in informal measures, such as the production of relevant or potentially relevant documents and data about Plaintiffs trust funds, outside of the context of formal discovery or litigation, so as to inform the parties in their settlement, ADR, or informal resolution process. At the same time, however, as discussed in Section F. above, to the extent that not all of the beneficiaries of the Western Shoshone Judgment Fund are represented in this case at this time, the participation or adequate representation of those beneficiaries, including those beneficiaries who have protectable interests, may be necessary for any final settlement or ADR of the claims being asserted herein. J. Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial? Does either party, or do the parties jointly, request expedited trial scheduling and, if so, why? Although the Plaintiffs remain open to settlement through ADR, or through informal means, the Plaintiffs currently anticipate proceeding to trial. The Plaintiffs believe that the pretrial scheduling should continue as required by the RCFC. The Plaintiffs do not request expedited trial scheduling and do not believe that this case is appropriate for such scheduling. Defendant s Position: Defendant believes that it is possible that legal challenges to Plaintiffs claims, including but not limited to any inappropriate alleged measures of damages that Plaintiffs may propose, can be resolved, in whole or in part, by dispositive motion, rather than a trial on liability issues. As stated by Defendant in its response to Section I above, Defendant remains willing to engage in settlement discussions, ADR, or other means of informally resolving Plaintiffs issues and 12

13 claims without the need for extended litigation. K. Are there special issues regarding electronic case management needs? The parties do not foresee any special issues regarding electronic case management. L. Is there other information of which the court should be aware at this time? Plaintiffs do not believe there is any other information of which the Court should be aware at this time. The Plaintiffs are willing to consider a draft confidentiality or other protective order presented by the Defendant for stipulation by the Plaintiffs. Otherwise, the Defendants should present the need for a confidentiality or protective order by appropriate motion. Defendant s Position: Defendant notes the following for the Court s information: 1. Defendant believes that a protective order may be necessary to enable Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs certain documents and data that contain confidential information (e.g., protected by the Privacy Act). Defendant notes that, as a general matter, the Office of Historical Trust Accounting ( OHTA ) of the Interior Department provides to a Tribe only those materials that relate to that Tribe s results under the Trust Funds Reconciliation project. If, as part of those materials, the Tribes receive documents relating to the trust funds of other Tribes or individual Indians, it is generally because the Tribes have an interest in those funds. Although there are three tribal Plaintiffs and three individual Plaintiffs in this case, there are two other Western Shoshone tribal governments and four other groups of Western Shoshone Indians, who may have an indirect interest, and possibly thousands of Western Shoshone Indian individuals, who have a 13

14 direct interest in the Judgment Fund. 2. One of the two other Western Shoshone tribal governments, i.e., the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, has filed a case against the Interior and Treasury Departments in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to a full and complete historical accounting of the Tribe s trust funds and non-monetary trust assets. Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians v. Salazar, No. 1:05-cv (JR). The district court has administratively closed the case, based on the parties joint representation that they would engage in informal settlement negotiations. Based on the issues and claims raised by the Te-Moak Tribe, the resolution of that case, through litigation, ADR, or informal settlement, may have an impact on the instant case before this Court. 3. As this Court is aware, there is currently a total of 96 Tribal trust accounting and trust mismanagement cases pending in this Court, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States District Courts in Oklahoma. Of those 96 cases, about 51 cases are pending before various judges on this Court. M. Proposed Discovery Plan The parties agree by stipulation that the initial disclosures required by RCFC 26(a)(1)(A) shall be provided within 45 days of the filing of this JPSR with the Court. Further, Plaintiffs and Defendant set out their respective proposed discovery plans below. Plaintiffs do not agree with the lengthy discovery plan set forth by the Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate for Defendant to have 120 days to analyze 14

15 and rebut Plaintiffs expert witness reports. Plaintiffs believe that 270 days of concurrent discovery leading up to the disclosure and exchange of Plaintiffs and Defendant s expert witness reports will be sufficient. Plaintiffs anticipate the use of document production, interrogatories, requests for admission and depositions of fact witnesses during the discovery period leading up to the disclosure and exchange of the parties expert witness reports. Following the initial disclosure of the parties expert witness reports the parties shall have 90 days to disclose and exchange their rebuttal expert witness reports. Discovery will close 70 days after the initial disclosure and exchange of the parties expert witness reports. If additional time is needed then appropriate motions for good cause may be submitted to the Court to modify the discovery schedule. Defendants Position: Depending on Plaintiffs desired scope of discovery, formal discovery should proceed in two distinct stages and should be conducted in accordance with the RCFC. The first stage would consist of the factual discovery that Plaintiffs may deem necessary. Such discovery should be limited to document productions, interrogatories, and requests for admission. The documents relevant or potentially relevant to Plaintiffs issues and claims herein are possibly located at multiple locations that may include federal records repositories, around the country, however, it is most likely that the vast, if not all, of these documents will be found either at the Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA ) Western Regional Office, Western Nevada Agency Office, or the American Indian Records Repository (the AIRR ). In order for Defendant to adequately respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests, if it is determined that the responsive documents are stored at the AIRR, the parties would have to undertake the following 15

16 process: a. The parties would have to identify the boxes that may contain responsive documents; b. The Solicitor s Office of the Interior Department would have to conduct a preinspection privilege review of those identified boxes; c. Plaintiffs counsel would have to inspect the boxes at the AIRR and identify those documents it wishes to have produced; and d. Defendant would have to image, code, and conduct a post-inspection confidentiality and privilege review, before producing the images of the requested documents to Plaintiffs, pursuant to a confidentiality protective order negotiated by the parties and approved and entered by this Court. Until Plaintiffs propound document or other discovery requests, Defendant is unable to estimate accurately the amount of time that the Court should allow to complete discovery for this first stage of discovery. Based on Defendant s experience in other Tribal trust accounting and trust mismanagement cases, depending on the documents requested by Plaintiffs, it likely will take longer than 270 days to complete this production process. The second stage of discovery would begin after Plaintiffs have defined their claims through the work of their experts and the experts reports. Following Defendant s receipt of the Plaintiffs initial expert reports, Defendant proposes that stage 2 discovery would commence and 120 days following commencement of discovery Defendant would exchange its initial reports with Plaintiffs. Discovery would conclude 60 days after the exchange of rebuttal reports. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February 2009, 16

17 /s/ Thomas E. Luebben /s/ Daniel G. Steele THOMAS E. LUEBBEN DANIEL G. STEELE Luebben, Johnson & Barnhouse, LLP United States Department of Justice th Street, N.W. Environment Division Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM P.O. Box 663 Tel: (505) Washington, D.C Fax: (505) Tel: (202) Fax: (202) Attorney of Record for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: Attorney of Record for Defendant OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: SAMUEL D. HOUGH ANTHONY P. HOANG Luebben, Johnson & Barnhouse, LLP United States Department of Justice th Street, N.W. Environment Division Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM P.O. Box 663 Tel: (505) Washington, D.C Fax: (505) Tel: (202) Fax: (202) MICHAEL BIANCO United States Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor Washington, D.C REBECCA SALTIEL THOMAS KEARNS United States Department of the Treasury Financial Management Service Office of the Chief Counsel Washington, D.C

In United States Court of Federal Claims

In United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:06-cv-00896-EJD Document 34 Filed 06/25/2008 Page 1 of 16 In United States Court of Federal Claims THE WESTERN SHOSHONE IDENTIFIABLE ) GROUP, represented by THE YOMBA ) SHOSHONE TRIBE, a federally

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 06-896 L (Filed: October 31, 2008) ***************************************** THE WESTERN SHOSHONE IDENTIFIABLE * GROUP, represented by the YOMBA * SHOSHONE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 5:06-cv-01436-C Document 71 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE OF INDIANS, OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. No. 5:06-CV-01436-C

More information

Case 1:06-cv SGB Document 133 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.

Case 1:06-cv SGB Document 133 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. Case 1:06-cv-00900-SGB Document 133 Filed 04/05/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ROUND VALLEY INDIAN TRIBES, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 06-900L

More information

Case 6:06-cv RAW Document 73 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 10

Case 6:06-cv RAW Document 73 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 10 Case 6:06-cv-00558-RAW Document 73 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ALABAMA-QUASSARTE TRIBAL TOWN, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:02-cv JR Document 78 Filed 01/29/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:02-cv JR Document 78 Filed 01/29/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:02-cv-00253-JR Document 78 Filed 01/29/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE ) FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 93 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 93 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 Case 1:06-cv-02239-JR Document 93 Filed 01/30/2009 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 06cv02239-JR KENNETH

More information

Case 1:06-cv EJD Document 36 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:06-cv EJD Document 36 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:06-cv-00896-EJD Document 36 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) YOMBA SHOSHONE TRIBE, ) TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE, ) DUCKWATER SHOSHONE TRIBE, ) ET AL. ) )

More information

Case 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) BUSH-CHENEY 04, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 04:CV-01612 (EGS) v. ) ) FEDERAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 6:06-cv-00556-SPS Document 16 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 05/25/2007 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) SEMINOLE NATION OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:06-cv-02236-JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY ) No. 06-2245 (JR) v. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, et al., )

More information

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 3:18-cv-01099-NJR-RJD Document 19 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #348 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TODD RAMSEY, FREDERICK BUTLER, MARTA NELSON, DIANE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 0 0 Randolph H. Barnhouse Justin J. Solimon (Pro Hac Vice Johnson Barnhouse & Keegan LLP th Street N.W. Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM 0 Telephone: (0 - Fax: (0 - Email: dbarnhouse@indiancountrylaw.com

More information

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:06-cv-02249-JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS ) OF OKLAHOMA v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0283 (JR) KEMPTHORNE,

More information

CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES. Non-Administered. Arbitration Rules. Effective March 1, tel fax

CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES. Non-Administered. Arbitration Rules. Effective March 1, tel fax CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES Non-Administered Arbitration Rules Effective March 1, 2018 tel +1.212.949.6490 fax +1.212.949.8859 www.cpradr.org CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

More information

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:08-cv-01689-EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE POLAR BEAR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING AND 4(d) RULE LITIGATION Misc. Action

More information

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION In re ) ) Clean Water Rule: ) MDL No. Definition of Waters of the United States ) ) ) MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS

More information

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims

More information

Case 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-cv-00160-BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:11-CV-00160-BJR v.

More information

Arbitration Rules. Administered. Effective July 1, 2013 CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES. International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

Arbitration Rules. Administered. Effective July 1, 2013 CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES. International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution CPR PROCEDURES & CLAUSES Administered Arbitration Rules Effective July 1, 2013 30 East 33rd Street 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 tel +1.212.949.6490

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Case 4:02-cv-00427-GKF-FHM Document 79 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/31/2009 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, CHARLES A. PRATT, JUANITA

More information

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE INSIGHT KENTUCKY PARTNERS II, L.P. vs. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ) ROCKY BOY'S RESERVATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 92-675 L ) Judge Emily C. Hewitt THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

More information

STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES

STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective JULY 15, 2009 STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution Centers

More information

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective October 1, 2010 JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution

More information

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143 Case: 2:15-cv-01802-MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THE OHIO ORGANIZING : COLLABORATIVE,

More information

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CODE REVISION COMMISION on behalf of and for the

More information

ARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties

ARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter

More information

R U L E S. of the A R M E D S E R V I C E S B O A R D O F C O N T R A C T A P P E A L S

R U L E S. of the A R M E D S E R V I C E S B O A R D O F C O N T R A C T A P P E A L S R U L E S of the A R M E D S E R V I C E S B O A R D O F C O N T R A C T A P P E A L S Approved 15 July 1963 Revised 1 May 1969 Revised 1 September 1973 Revised 30 June 1980 Revised 11 May 2011 Revised

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. A- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPLICANT JICARILLA APACHE NATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. A- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPLICANT JICARILLA APACHE NATION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. A- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPLICANT v. JICARILLA APACHE NATION APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST

NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST February 21, 2018 NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES FOR NARCO ASBESTOS TRUST CLAIMS North American Refractories Company

More information

The Federal Employee Advocate

The Federal Employee Advocate The Federal Employee Advocate Vol. 10, No. 2 August 20, 2010 EEOC ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE S HANDBOOK This issue of the Federal Employee Advocate provides our readers the handbook used by Administrative Judges

More information

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:11-cv-21757-JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 11-21757-CIV-MARTINEZ-MCALILEY

More information

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES (Including Mediation and Arbitration Rules) Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2014 available online at icdr.org Table of Contents Introduction.... 5 International

More information

Case 1:90-cv LH-KBM Document 1159 Filed 08/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:90-cv LH-KBM Document 1159 Filed 08/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:90-cv-00957-LH-KBM Document 1159 Filed 08/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, and PUEBLO OF ZUNI, for

More information

Tuesday 28th November, 2006.

Tuesday 28th November, 2006. Tuesday 28th November, 2006. On November 10, 2005 came the Virginia State Bar, by Phillip V. Anderson, its President, and Thomas A. Edmonds, its Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, and presented

More information

REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014

REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014 REVISED AS OF MARCH 2014 JUDICATE WEST COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES RULE 1. INTENT AND OVERVIEW 1 RULE 1.A. INTENT 1 RULE 1.B. COMMITMENT TO EFFICIENT RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES 1 RULE 2. JURISDICTION 1 RULE

More information

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part

More information

JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures

JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution

More information

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Important Notice...3 Introduction...3 Standard Clause...3 Submission Agreement...3 Administrative

More information

Case 6:01-cv MV-WPL Document Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 6:01-cv MV-WPL Document Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 6:01-cv-00072-MV-WPL Document 3167-1 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. STATE ENGINEER,

More information

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)

More information

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Plaintiff Case No. RG11 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE JO-LYNNE Q. LEE DEPARTMENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE OAK RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL PEACE ) ALLIANCE, NUCLEAR WATCH OF NEW ) MEXICO, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE ) COUNCIL, RALPH HUTCHISON, ED SULLIVAN, )

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PLAINTIFF(S), Plaintiff(s), Case No. RG CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL DEFENDANTS, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: DEPARTMENT

More information

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Scope. 2. Applicability. 3. Pleadings. 3.1. Commencement of action [Effective until June 1 2018.] 3.1. Commencement of action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), as an organization and representative of its

More information

Case 1:92-cv ECH Document 289 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:92-cv ECH Document 289 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:92-cv-00675-ECH Document 289 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky : Boy s Reservation, et al., : : Plaintiffs : : No. 92-675 L v.

More information

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES Effective September 15, 2005 Introduction Standard Arbitration Clause Administrative Fees Wills and Trusts Arbitration Rules 1. Incorporation of These Rules into a Will

More information

IVAMS Administrative and Arbitration Rules (Amended September 22, 2015) IVAMS Administrative Rules

IVAMS Administrative and Arbitration Rules (Amended September 22, 2015) IVAMS Administrative Rules IVAMS ARBITRATION & MEDIATION SERVICES Corporate Offices: 8287 White Oak Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: (909) 466-1665 Fax: (909) 466-1796 E-mail: info@ivams.com www.ivams.com IVAMS Administrative

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Minkler v. Apple Inc Doc. PAUL J. HALL (SBN 00) paul.hall@dlapiper.com ALEC CIERNY (SBN 0) alec.cierny@dlapiper.com Mission Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () -00 Fax: () -0 JOSEPH COLLINS (Admitted

More information

BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD. Finance Docket No

BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD. Finance Docket No 240886 BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ENTERED Office of Proceedings June 9, 2016 Part of Public Record Finance Docket No. 36025 TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. & TEXAS CENTRAL

More information

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA105 FERC 63, 016 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA105 FERC 63, 016 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA105 FERC 63, 016 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Portland General Electric Company Enron Power Marketing, Inc. PRESIDING JUDGE S CERTIFICATION OF UNCONTESTED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

More information

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, : : Plaintiff : : v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS

More information

Case 1:16-cv EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-01008-EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:16-cv-01008-EGS S. M.

More information

Case 1:15-cv NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:15-cv NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:15-cv-00342-NBF Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 15-342L

More information

Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)

Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 149 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GARNET TURNER individually and on behalf of

More information

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:15-cv-22782-MGC Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 15-22782-Civ-COOKE/TORRES BENJAMIN FERNANDEZ, GUSTAVO

More information

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

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

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial

More information

INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL

INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE FEI TRIBUNAL 3 rd Edition, 2 March 2018 Copyright 2018 Fédération Equestre Internationale Reproduction strictly reserved Fédération Equestre Internationale t +41 21 310 47 47

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, Plaintiff v. Civ. Action No. 208-cv-04083-RBS BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants ORDER

More information

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,

More information

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190 Case :-cv-0-jak-as Document Filed // Page of Page ID #:0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELLE FLANAGAN, et al.,, vs. KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,. Case No.: LA CV-0 JAK (ASx ORDER

More information

THE PHI KAPPA TAU FRATERNITY CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES

THE PHI KAPPA TAU FRATERNITY CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN 1. Purpose and Construction The Plan is designed to provide for the quick, fair, accessible, and inexpensive resolution of

More information

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 557 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 1 of 7

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 557 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 1 of 7 Case M:0-cv-0-VRW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 MICHAEL F. HERTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DOUGLAS N. LETTER Terrorism Litigation Counsel JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs

More information

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

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

More information

Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12

Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for

More information

ELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE

ELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE [Rev. 10/10/2007 2:43:59 PM] ELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE I. APPLICABILITY OF RULES RULE 1. SCOPE, CONSTRUCTION OF RULES (a) Scope of Rules. These rules govern procedure in appeals to the Appellate

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 2:17-cv-4720

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 2:17-cv-4720 Case :-cv-00 Document - Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, v. Commercial Credit Consultants (d.b.a.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LISA BOE, ET AL., v. Plaintiffs, CHRISTIAN WORLD ADOPTION, INC., ET AL., NO. 2:10 CV 00181 FCD CMK ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS

More information

Case 3:15-cv VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 52

Case 3:15-cv VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 52 Case 3:15-cv-01113-VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 52 Case 3:15-cv-01113-VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 52 Case 3:15-cv-01113-VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 52 Case 3:15-cv-01113-VAB

More information

Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh Tel:

Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh Tel: SCCA Arbitration Rules Shaaban 1437 - May 2016 Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh 11481 Tel: 920003625 info@sadr.org www.sadr.org

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. JOINT RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL REPORT vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. JOINT RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL REPORT vs. CASE 0:11-cv-01319-MJD -FLN Document 15 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA R.J. Zayed, In his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for Trevor G. Cook, et al.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case :-cv-0-lrs Document Filed // 0 Rob Costello Deputy Attorney General Mary Tennyson William G. Clark Assistant Attorneys General Attorney General of Washington PO Box 00 Olympia, WA 0-00 Telephone:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:15-cv-00299 Document 2-1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Navajo Nation, Civil Action No. 15-cv-00299

More information

Case 1:16-cv TSC Document 9 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv TSC Document 9 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-01641-TSC Document 9 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEYOND NUCLEAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Defendants

More information

Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Construction Disputes)

Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Construction Disputes) Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Construction Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2009 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective

More information

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows: Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Case :-cv-00-ben-jlb Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 VIRGINIA DUNCAN, et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity

More information

WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES

WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES APPENDIX 3.17 WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES (as from 1 October 2002) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Abbreviated Expressions Article 1 In these Rules: Arbitration Agreement means

More information

RULE CHANGE 2018(06) COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE CHANGE 2018(06) COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE CHANGE 2018(06) COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 16.1. Simplified Procedure for Civil Actions (a) Purpose and Summary of Simplified Procedure. (1) Purpose of Simplified Procedure. The purpose

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket

More information

Case 1:11-cv NLH-KMW Document 19 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:11-cv NLH-KMW Document 19 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:11-cv-00848-NLH-KMW Document 19 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LISA A. ARDINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly

More information

COMMERCIAL DIVISION PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER PURSUANT TO PART 202 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE SUPREME COURT KINGS COUNTY

COMMERCIAL DIVISION PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER PURSUANT TO PART 202 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE SUPREME COURT KINGS COUNTY COMMERCIAL DIVISION PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER PURSUANT TO PART 202 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE SUPREME COURT KINGS COUNTY DATE 200 Plaintiff(s) -against- Index # Defendant(s) Plaintiff is represented

More information

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-01053-RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 8 FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiffs, Civil No. 13-1053 (RCL) v. THE

More information

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES

Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES Wills and Trusts Arbitration RULES Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2009 Introduction Standard Arbitration Clause Administrative Fees Wills and Trusts Arbitration Rules 1. Incorporation of These Rules

More information

Case 1:12-cv GBL-JFA Document 67 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 748

Case 1:12-cv GBL-JFA Document 67 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 748 Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 67 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 748 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division GRAHAM SCHREIBER, Plaintiff, vs. Case

More information

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:10-cv-02119-RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY SHAFFER * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Civil Action No: 10-2119 (RMC) DEFENSE

More information

Case 2:08-cv SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969

Case 2:08-cv SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969 Case 2:08-cv-02192-SHM-dkv Document 327 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 8969 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION In re REGIONS MORGAN KEEGAN SECURITIES,

More information

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AND OTHER RELIEF Case 8:14-cv-03078-CEH-EAJ Document 7 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 15 PageiD 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Office of the

More information

Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:14-cv-00403-ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Sai, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No: 14-0403 (ESH) ) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION,

More information

SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES Amended and Effective October, 1, 2013 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES: 1. Mediation R-9. Mediation: Mediation is increasingly relied upon and is an accepted part of

More information

Case 2:16-cv JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:16-cv JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:16-cv-02816-JAR-JPO Document 69 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, JOEL JEROME TUCKER, individually and as an officer

More information

Case 1:02-cv MMS Document 86 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:02-cv MMS Document 86 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS Document 86 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SAMISH INDIAN NATION, a federally ) recognized Indian tribe, ) Case No. 02-1383L ) (Judge Margaret

More information

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs The following is a list of procedural Tasks and Deadlines for actions in the Central District of California

More information