UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C SBA CLASS ACTION
|
|
- Anna Wheeler
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Menghini Group's Consolidated Reply to Plaintiff John Houx's: (1 Opposition to Motion to Consolidate; and (2 Opposition to Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs Source: Milberg Weiss Date: 09/12/01 Time: 4:10 PM MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN ( JOHN K. GRANT ( SHIRLEY H. HUANG ( Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA Telephone: 415/ / (fax - and - WILLIAM S. LERACH ( West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA Telephone: 619/ / (fax Attorneys for Plaintiff [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] DAVID MILLER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, VENTRO CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION No. C SBA CLASS ACTION MENGHINI GROUP'S CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JOHN HOUX'S: (1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; AND (2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFFS DATE: September 25, 2001 TIME: 1:00 p.m. COURTROOM: Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong 1 of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Overwhelming Weight of Authority Supports Single Consolidation in Securities Cases II. No Basis Exists to Reject Consolidation III. The Court Can Easily Resolve Any Real Conflicts If and When They Arise The Menghini Group (1 files this joint reply to John Houx's ("Houx": (1 Opposition to Motion to Consolidate All Related Actions Against Ventro Corporation; and (2 Opposition to Motion to Appoint Laura Porcelli Menghini, Marco Carnevale, Anthony Ross, Brad Brewer, William Murphy and Glenn Aber as Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel ("Appointment Opp.". Because Houx's oppositions rely on the same law and argument, the Menghini Group believes that a joint reply is appropriate and will benefit the Court. MENGHINI GROUP'S REPLY I. The Overwhelming Weight of Authority Supports Single Consolidation in Securities Cases In his separate motion and oppositions, Houx asks this Court to bifurcate the prosecution of this litigation, which would result in substantial additional expense and effort. As demonstrated by the Menghini Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Appoint John Houx as Lead Plaintiff in Bond Actions, the vast majority of courts have rejected such attempts to Balkanize securities class actions into unnecessary subclasses. Even Houx's own authorities fail to support his opposition. Houx cites In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 144 (D.N.J. 1998, throughout his papers. In fact, that case amply demonstrates that consolidation is appropriate here in order to avoid wasteful duplication. In Cendant, different claims were asserted for four separate types of investors. Id. at 146. As Houx does here, numerous plaintiffs argued that conflicts of interest required the appointment of separate lead plaintiffs, and that the largest movant might "tilt" the litigation as a result of his portfolio. Id. at There, as here, some plaintiffs had 10(b claims and some had 11 claims. Id. at 146. Indeed, different plaintiffs, as here, had purchased different securities. Id. The court rejected the argument that the existence of different securities and types of claims required separate representations. Id. at 148. The court correctly recognized, for example, that investor portfolios will always differ, but that fact does not justify the appointment of different lead plaintiffs. Id. "[E]very warrior in this battle cannot be a general." Id. Indeed, the court noted that "representation by a disparate group of plaintiffs, each seeking only the protection of its own interests, could well hamper the force and focus of the litigation." Id. The court in Cendant did appoint a separate lead plaintiff to represent investors who had purchased "Feline Prides," a separate derivative security. The justification for that separate appointment, however, was simply that the lead plaintiff suffered from a conflict due to a substantial financial relationship, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with Merrill Lynch, which had been named as a defendant with respect to the claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased Feline Prides. Id. at 149. No such conflict exists 2 of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
3 in this action, and the Cendant decision strongly rejects the position Houx argues here. Houx also cites two United States Supreme Court decisions, neither of which suggests that the consolidation and appointment of a single class would not be appropriate here. Both of the decisions deal with class certification, not the appointment of lead plaintiff. In Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 597 (1997, a mass accident asbestos exposure case, the district court had certified a class for settlement purposes only. The settlement was intended to cover both claims resulting from existing injury and claims that would result from injuries in the future. Id. After an exhaustive discussion of the specific facts of that case, including that some class members had no manifesting physical injury, while others were gravely ill from lung cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma; some had a history of smoking, while others did not; the fact that different class members were exposed to different products, for different amounts of time, in different ways, and over different periods, id. at 624, the Supreme Court concluded that the interests were too diverse for treatment as a class. Id. at 627. Significantly, for purposes of this motion, the Supreme Court also noted that it was applying a heightened level of scrutiny to interclass conflicts because the parties had sought "settlement only" certification of the class: "Such attention is of vital importance, for a court asked to certify a settlement class will lack the opportunity, present when a case is litigated, to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold." Id. at 620. Here, in contrast, these motions are not for certification, but for the appointment of lead plaintiff and for consolidation. The Court here will always have the power to approve a separate subclass in the event an actual conflict arises and, indeed, will be in a better position to do so as this action develops. Houx's second Supreme Court decision, Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999, parallels the Court's analysis in Amchem. The parties in Amchem sought the certification of a mandatory settlement class of individuals who had been exposed to asbestos. Id. at 821. The proposed settlement was intended to resolve both existing claims, including pending actions, and the future claims of potential plaintiffs, who had not suffered any injury at the time of the settlement. Id. at 824. Here, as in Amchem, the Supreme Court noted that special scrutiny was required because the class had been certified for settlement only. Id. at 847. Indeed, an even stricter standard was applied because the parties had sought certification of a mandatory class without an opportunity to opt out. Id. Once again, after an extensive discussion of mandatory, limited fund cases, the Supreme Court held that certification of a single class was not appropriate. In particular, the Supreme Court was concerned with the direct conflict of interest between class members (and their counsel with pending claims and class members whose claims might not arise until years in the future. Id. at 854. Importantly for the present case, the Supreme Court recognized that the existence of diverging interests does not necessarily require separate counsel. Id. at 857 ("at some point there must be an end to reclassification with separate counsel". Unlike the present case, Ortiz and Amchem both involved settlement-only classes. Indeed, Ortiz was intended to be a mandatory class. The proposed classes sought to include hundreds of thousands of individuals who had suffered from a broad range of physical ailments due to varying degrees of exposure to dozens of different products. The classes also sought to include individuals who, as of yet, had not manifested any injury. Here, in contrast, a much smaller group of plaintiffs, who purchased one of two securities, have suffered a defined injury due to a single common course of conduct. Little or no similarity exists between these cases, and the "elephantine mass of asbestos cases," id. at 821, that the Supreme Court faced in Ortiz and Amchem. 3 of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
4 Houx's remaining authorities, for the most part, also fail to support his position. In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998, did not carve out a subgroup for lead plaintiff purposes. (Indeed, none was sought. The court appointed a unified lead plaintiff group to direct a single, consolidated action, notwithstanding the existence of diverse interests. Id. at 49. If anything, this ruling supports the position of the Menghini Group and undercuts Houx's oppositions. In Chill v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 181 F.R.D. 398, 406 (D. Minn. 1998, the court declined to consolidate the claims of certain options purchasers with the claims of investors who had purchased common stock. The decision, however, was based on the fact that under Third Circuit law, an open question existed regarding the standing of option purchasers to assert any cause of action. Id. Here, however, no such uncertainty exists. Houx's remaining slip opinion authorities are also unpersuasive. In Mark v. Fleming Cos., et al., Case No. CIV M, Order (W.D. Okla. Mar. 23, 1997 (Ex. 2 attached to the Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold ("Manifold Decl." in support of Houx's oppositions, it is worth noting that all plaintiffs in the various cases opposed consolidation. Id. at 1. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the Court declined to "force" the other plaintiff group to accept representation of the Mark case claims at trial, when the other plaintiffs did not want to represent those claims. In fact, however, the Court did consolidate the cases for all purposes except for trial. Id. at 4. As a result, the Mark decision carries little or no weight. Clearly, the vast majority of decisions, in the context of actions for securities fraud, have permitted the consolidation of claims brought on behalf of investors who purchased different types of securities or who assert claims under different sections of the federal securities laws. SeeCendant, 182 F.R.D. at 147; In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Sec. Litig., 110 F. Supp. 2d 427, 440 (E.D. Va. 2000; Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1151 (N.D. Cal. 1999; In re Donnkenny Inc. Sec. Litig., 171 F.R.D. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1997; In re Waste Mgmt., Inc. Sec. Litig., 128 F. Supp. 2d 401, 432 (S.D. Tex. 2000; In re Cephalon Sec. Litig., No , 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12321, at *14 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 1998; In re Tel-Save Sec. Litig., No. 98-CV-3145, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10134, at **17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 19, II. No Basis Exists to Reject Consolidation Houx also attempts to identify conflicts that would prevent the consolidation of the bond claims with the balance of the actions. None of Houx's assertions are persuasive. First, there is little or no reason to believe that jury confusion will result from consolidation. Houx argues that a jury may be confused because the elements of a 11 claim differ from the elements of a 10(b claim. Houx also points out that different remedies and evidentiary burdens exist. Hundreds, however, if not thousands, of actions have simultaneously asserted claims under both 10(b and 11. In fact, because of the damages limitation under 11, it is highly unusual for a plaintiff to assert a 11 claim without also asserting a claim for violation of 10(b. Not surprisingly, the complaint in Sunshine Wire and Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust DTD 01/01/92 v. Ventro Corp., et al., Case No. C BZ (N.D. Cal. (Manifold Decl., Ex. 1, itself asserts both 10(b and 11 claims. Clearly, Houx (i.e., his counsel does not really believe his own argument, since he has asserted the same combination of claims that he now insists would result in "jury confusion." (Here again, this is a conflict that would best be resolved at the time of trial, when the Court can determine if a conflict really exists. Houx also argues that the bond purchasers would be prejudiced because their discovery might not take as long, i.e., that the stock purchasers may want greater discovery, which may take longer. Appointment 4 of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
5 Opp. at 7. This does not appear, however, to be a serious argument as Houx has in fact already agreed to the coordination of discovery in the bond and common stock actions. Appointment Opp. at 2. Unless the defendants are going to appear for multiple depositions, coordination will result in discovery in both cases ending at the same time. III. The Court Can Easily Resolve Any Real Conflicts If and When They Arise In Amchem, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that a trial court has the power "to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold." 521 U.S. at 620. In MicroStrategy, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 431, the court noted that it could certify subclasses at a later time if conflicts subsequently arose. Similarly, Judge Whyte in McKesson, 79 F. Supp. 2d at 1151 n.4, recognized that conflicts that are not necessarily germane to the lead plaintiff appointment can be resolved, if necessary, at a later point. Precisely the same is true here. If a separate subclass, with separate counsel, is appointed at this point, duplication of effort and further complication of these proceedings will be inevitable. On the other hand, this Court retains the power, throughout the litigation, to "adjust" the structure of class representation as this action develops. There is no reason to commit to duplication and wasted effort at this point, when no showing has been made that such extravagance is justified or necessary, particularly where, as here, the Menghini Group includes a representative who purchased notes. DATED: September 12, 2001 Respectfully submitted, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP PATRICK J. COUGHLIN JOHN K. GRANT SHIRLEY H. HUANG JOHN K. GRANT 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA Telephone: 415/ / (fax MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP WILLIAM S. LERACH 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA Telephone: 619/ / (fax SAVETT FRUTKIN PODELL & RYAN, P.C. STUART H. SAVETT 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
6 I, the undersigned, declare: Philadelphia, PA Telephone: 215/ / (fax DYER & SHUMAN, LLP KIP B. SHUMAN 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO Telephone: 303/ / (fax Attorneys for Plaintiff DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-2(c(2 1. That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of San Francisco, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within action; that declarant's business address is 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, California That on September 12, 2001, declarant served the MENGHINI GROUP'S CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO PLAINTIFF JOHN HOUX'S: (1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; AND (2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFFS by facsimile and by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at San Francisco, California in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed on the attached Service List and that this document was forwarded to the following designated Internet site at: 3. That there is a regular communication by facsimile and by mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of September, 2001, at San Francisco, California. DEBORAH R. DASH 1. Laura Porcelli Menghini, Marco Carnevale, Anthony Ross, Brad Brewer, William Murphy and Glenn Aber, collectively, the "Menghini Group." 6 of 6 8/20/02 7:44 PM
Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against
Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against Sagent Technology, Inc. for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice Source: Milberg Weiss Date: 11/15/01 Time: 9:36 AM MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP REED R. KATHREIN (139304 LESLEY E.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
Case 4:18-cv JSW Document 18 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 0 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHAWN A. WILLIAMS ( Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: /- /- (fax shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
Notice of Motion and Motion to Appoint UFCW Local 56 Retail Meat
Notice of Motion and Motion to Appoint UFCW Local 56 Retail Meat Pension Fund, Robert D. Sawyer, Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund and Drifton Finance Corp. as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-GAF -CT Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 S. FIGUEROA ST., SUITE 00 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00- TELEPHONE ( -00 FAX ( - Andrew R. Hall (CA SBN andyhall@dwt.com Catherine E. Maxson (CA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8
Case3:15-cv-01723-VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAYER BROWN LLP DALE J. GIALI (SBN 150382) dgiali@mayerbrown.com KERI E. BORDERS (SBN 194015) kborders@mayerbrown.com 350
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 113-cv-02668-KBF Document 36 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY ROSIAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
[FORM OF FINAL DISMISSAL ORDER] UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
[FORM OF FINAL DISMISSAL ORDER] UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION In re: LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P., Chapter 11 Case No. 02-38335-SAF Debtor. The Regents of
Case MDL No Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Case MDL No. 2388 Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: MORTGAGE LENDER FORCE- PLACED INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2388 FEDERAL
Case 4:11-cv SBA Document 93 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-0-sba Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 BRYAN WILSON (CA SBN ) BWilson@mofo.com DIEK VAN NORT (CA SBN ) DVanNort@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 0-0 Telephone:
Page 1 of 13. Case 1: 05-cv-003-LY Document 23 Filed 01/2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION OS CV-923
Case 1: 05-cv-003-LY Document 23 Filed 01/2006 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION.S LAURENCE PASKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETT S CLASS ACTION JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETT S In re ALKERMES SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To : Master Docket No. 03 -CV- 1209 1 -RC L CLASS ACTION ALL ACTIONS. JOINT STIPULATION
Case 2:15-cv JAK-AJW Document 26 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:233
Case 2:15-cv-01654-JAK-AJW Document 26 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:233 Present: The Honorable Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter
Case 1:17-cv NRB Document 20 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:17-cv-08983-NRB Document 20 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DROR GRONICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff,
18 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY 19 OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT 20 PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WAYNE W. SMITH 2 JOSEPH P. BUSCH, III JARED M. TOFFER 3 KRISTOPHER P. DIULIO 3161 Michelson Drive 4 Irvine, CA 912-4412 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 5 Facsimile: (949) 451-42
Case 4:11-cv RC-ALM Document 132 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2483
Case 4:11-cv-00655-RC-ALM Document 132 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2483 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION)
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 David J. Miclean (#1/miclean@fr.com) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 00 Arguello Street, Suite 00 Redwood City, California 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile:
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the Courts of the Commonwealth o f
BRUCE G. MURPHY, pro se 265 Llwyds Lane Vero Beach, FL 32963 772-231-4202 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTI-TERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A OAKLAND DIVISION In re TUT SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case :-cv-0-kjm-dad Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. E-mail: mrh@pacificlegal.org ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: alf@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T
Robert S. Green (State Bar No. ) GREEN WELLING LLP Pine Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -1 0 [Proposed] Liaison Counse l Stuart L. Berman Sean M. Handler Robin Winchester
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 209-cv-05262-PD Document 26 Filed 02/12/2010 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
JOSEPH M. BURTON (SB No. 142105) STEPHEN H. SUTRO (SB No. 172168) DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 Spear Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 371-2200 Facsimile: (415)371-2201 Attorneys for
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Doc. Case :0-cv-0-RMW Document Filed /0/00 Page of 0 RICHARD L. KELLNER, SBN FRANK E. MARCHETTI, SBN 0 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 0 South Grand Avenue,
Case 3:11-cv JAH-WMC Document 38 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-000-jah-wmc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JOHN J. STOIA, JR. ( RACHEL L. JENSEN ( THOMAS R. MERRICK ( PHONG L. TRAN (0 West Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Case 1:11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT Document 125 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley
Case3:12-cv JCS Document47 Filed09/28/12 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-000-JCS Document Filed0// Page of 0 Aaron K. McClellan - amcclellan@mpbf.com Steven W. Yuen - 0 syuen@mpbf.com MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY Kearny Street, 0th Floor San Francisco, CA 0-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 Daniel A. Sasse, Esq. (CA Bar No. ) CROWELL & MORING LLP Park Plaza, th Floor Irvine, CA -0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () - Email: dsasse@crowell.com Donald
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 MILBERG LLP JEFF S. WESTERMAN (SBN ) E-mail.-jwesterman@milberg.com One California Plaza 00 South Grand Ave., Suite 00 Los Angeles, CA 001 Telephone : () - Facsimile : () - LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. SHOHET,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183) GREEN WELLING LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 50 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-671 0 Email : cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION } } } } } } } } } } } } } } /
Case :-cv-0-kjm-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 California State Bar No. Attorney At Law Town Center Boulevard, Suite El Dorado Hills, CA Telephone: -- Facsimile: -- E-Mail: brian@katzbusinesslaw.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
David L. Kagel (Calif. Bar No. 1 John Torbett (Calif. State Bar No. Law Offices of David Kagel, PLC 01 Century Park East, th Floor Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( - Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
Case 5:09-cv JW Document 214 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case :0-cv-00-JW Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. ) SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. ) Douglass Street San Francisco, California Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-doc -SS Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 JOHN M. MCCOY III, Cal. Bar No. Email: mccoyj@sec.gov JASON P. LEE, Cal. Bar No. 0 Email: leejas@sec.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities
Case: 1:02-cv Document #: 953 Filed: 02/11/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:21143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 953 Filed: 02/11/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:21143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of
Case 1:13-cv KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9
Case 113-cv-02668-KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x ANTHONY ROSIAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
Case 3:17-cv RS Document 196 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-0-rs Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Enoch H. Liang (SBN ) 0 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 00 South San Francisco, California 00 Tel: 0--0 Fax: -- enoch.liang@ltlattorneys.com James M. Lee (SBN 0)
Case 6:13-cv MHS Document 14 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:13-cv-00247-MHS Document 14 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION LOCAL 731 I.B. OF T. EXCAVATORS AND PAVERS PENSION TRUST
Case: 1:02-cv Document #: 289 Filed: 09/06/05 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:4822 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 289 Filed: 09/06/05 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:4822 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION. LAURA FAUGHT and STEVEN FAUGHT, Case No.
Case 2:07-cv-01928-RDP Document 69 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 15 FILED 2010 Feb-08 PM 12:39 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN
Case 4:02-cv Document 661 Filed 11/01/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-cv-0 Document Filed /0/00 Page of 0 JORDAN ETH (BAR NO. ) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. ) PHILIP T. BESIROF (BAR NO. 0) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Market Street San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:..000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 JOSEPH M. BURTON (SB No. 0) STEPHEN H. SUTRO (SB No. ) GREGORY G. ISKANDER (SB No. 00) DUANE MORRIS LLP One Market Plaza, Spear Tower Suite 000 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: ()-0 Attorneys
Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5 Jon B. Eisenberg, California Bar No. 88278 (jon@eandhlaw.com William N. Hancock, California Bar No. 104501 (bill@eandhlaw.com Eisenberg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CARLOS PEREZ, ERIC ZIMELMAN, ANGELA D. RIEKE and DOROTHY HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 1 1 0 Richard G. McCracken, SBN 00 Andrew J. Kahn, SBN Paul L. More, SBN Yuval M. Miller, SBN DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP Market Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA Tel: () -00 Fax: () -01 Attorneys for
Case M:06-cv VRW Document 160 Filed 02/08/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case M:0-cv-0-VRW Document 0 Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 0 BRENDAN V. SULLIVAN, JR. JOHN G. KESTER GILBERT O. GREENMAN WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Tel.: (0-000 Fax: (0-0
Case 3:08-cv VRW Document 9 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :0-cv-0-VRW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Guido Saveri (SBN ) guido@saveri.com R. Alexander Saveri (SBN 0) rick@saveri.com Pine Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: ()
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, vs. Plaintiff, HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL,
Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 9. Case 1:05-cv GEL Document 451. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x. 05 Civ.
Case 1:05-cv-08626-GEL Document 451 Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re REFCO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL) ---------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE In re AMAZON.COM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master File No.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Regina Bozic, the Proposed Classes, and the Appeals Class (See FRAP 3(c)(3))
Case :-cv-00-bas-mdd Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 0) ron@consumersadvocates.com MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN (SBN 0) Arroyo Drive San Diego, California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-bas-jma Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 Charles S. LiMandri, SBN 0 Paul M. Jonna, SBN Teresa L. Mendoza, SBN 0 Jeffrey M. Trissell, SBN 0 FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND P.O. Box
Case 1:08-cv RMB Document 24 Filed 05/12/2008 Page 1 of 15. x : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x
Case 108-cv-02495-RMB Document 24 Filed 05/12/2008 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PHILLIP J. BARKETT, JR., vs. SOCIĖTĖ GĖNĖRALE, et al., Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Robert B. Hawk (Bar No. 0) Stacy R. Hovan (Bar No. ) 0 Campbell Avenue, Suite 00 Menlo Park, CA 0 Telephone: (0) -000 Facsimile: (0) - robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Patricia Ihara SBN 180290 PMB 139 4521 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949)733-0746 Attorney on Appeal for Defendant/Appellant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IMPORTANT NOTICE The only official website from which to submit a claim is www.accountholdsettlement.com/claim. DO NOT submit a claim from any other website, including any website titled Paycoin c. PayPal
EV22fl $ JEFFREY R. KRINSK, State Bar No FINKELSTEIN & KRINS K UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A
1 8 JEFFREY R. KRINSK, State Bar No. FINKELSTEIN & KRINS K 01 West Broadway, Suite San Diego, CA 1- Telephone: 8-1 Facsimile: 1/8- Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
Case 2:17-cv SVW-AGR Document Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:2261
Case :-cv-0-svw-agr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP JENNIFER L. JOOST (Bar No. ) jjoost@ktmc.com STACEY M. KAPLAN (Bar No. ) skaplan@ktmc.com One Sansome
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-rgk-sp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 C. Benjamin Nutley () nutley@zenlaw.com 0 E. Colorado Blvd., th Floor Pasadena, California 0 Telephone: () 0-00 Facsimile: () 0-0 John W. Davis
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP KEITH F. PARK ( DANIEL S. DROSMAN (0 West Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 1 Telephone: /1- /1- (fax keithp@rgrdlaw.com ddrosman@rgrdlaw.com and DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM
Case 1:12-cv NRB Document 6 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:12-cv-04202-NRB Document 6 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID CASPER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
Case3:11-mc CRB Document11 Filed08/19/11 Page1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-mc-0-CRB Document Filed0// Page of MELINDA HARDY (Admitted to DC Bar) SARAH HANCUR (Admitted to DC Bar) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of the General Counsel 0 F Street, NE, Mailstop
brl Doc 111 Filed 12/17/13 Entered 12/17/13 15:22:56 Main Document Pg 1 of 12
Pg 1 of 12 WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP 156 West 56 th Street Presentment Date: December 30, 2013 New York, New York 10019 Time: 12:00 p.m. Telephone: (212) 237-1000 Facsimile: (212) 262-1215 Objections
Case 3:09-cv IEG -BGS Document 55 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5
Case :0-cv-0-IEG -BGS Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 C. D. Michel SBN Clint B. Monfort SBN 0 Sean A. Brady SBN 00 cmichel@michellawyers.com MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 0 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 00 Long Beach,
Case 5:15-md LHK Document 408 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 10
Case :-md-0-lhk Document 0 Filed // Page of 0 0 Craig A. Hoover, SBN E. Desmond Hogan (admitted pro hac vice) Peter R. Bisio (admitted pro hac vice) Allison M. Holt (admitted pro hac vice) Thirteenth Street,
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:99-cv MMC
US District Court Civil Docket as of 04/06/2001 Retrieved from the court on Thursday, May 25, 2006 U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:99-cv-02185-MMC
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-01439
US District Court Civil Docket as of 03/03/2003 Retrieved from the court on Friday, July 29, 2005 U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-01439
Case 7:13-cv RDP Document 5 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 7:13-cv-01141-RDP Document 5 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 10 FILED 2013 Jul-03 AM 08:54 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN
Case 4:07-cv CW Document 39 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:07-cv-03402-CW Document 39 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 5 325 S. Flores San Antonio, Texas 78204 Tel: (210) 223-1099 Fax: (210) 227-5353 edcanoattorney@sbcglobal.net Texas State Bar No.: 03756700
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case :0-cv-0-PJH Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 Leodis C. Matthews [SBN 00] Leesq@aol.com D. P. Sindicich (Of Counsel) [SBN ] JurPython@roadrunner.com MATTHEWS & PARTNERS, P.C. SUITE 00 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
Case4:09-cv CW Document42 FUedi 0/07/09 Pagel of 9
Case4:09-cv-03362-CW Document42 FUedi 0/07/09 Pagel of 9 1 BORIS FELDMAN, State Bar No. 1838, borisfeldman@wsgr.com 2 IGNACIO E. SALCEDA, State Bar No. 4017, isalceda@wsgr.com 3 DIANE M. WALTERS, State
a. Name of person served:
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address: GREEN & HALL, APC Samuel M. Danskin (SBN 136044 Michael A. Erlinger (SBN 216877 1851 E. First Street, 10th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92705
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Cz 00 ALEXANDER LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Citation to New Authority (Vetoed Legislation)
Law Offices of Donald Kilmer A Professional Corporation. 1645 Willow Street, Suite 150 San Jose, California 95125 Don@DKLawOffice.com Phone: 408/264-8489 Fax: 408/264-8487 October 16, 2013 Chief Justice
PARKER, et al., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., STIPULATION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF PURSUANT TO RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.
- J IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PARKER, et al., v Plaintiffs and Respondents, Case No. F06249Q HFTH/AL ST0Cr THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO : MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, SECTION : "R"(5) INC., ET AL.
0 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANDREW TARICA, ET AL. CIVIL ACTIO N VERSUS NO : 99-383 1 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, SECTION : "R"(5) INC., ET AL. ORDER AND REASON S Before
Case3:09-cv RS Document78 Filed05/03/11 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of C. D. Michel - S.B.N. Glenn S. McRoberts - S.B.N. Clinton B. Monfort - S.B.N. 0 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, PC 0 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 00 Long Beach, CA 00 Telephone:
mg Doc 8336 Filed 03/18/15 Entered 03/18/15 18:02:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 19
Pg 1 of 19 ROSALES DEL ROSARIO, P.C. 39-01 Main Street, Suite 302 Flushing, NY 11354 T: (718) 762-2953 John B. Rosario Counsel for claimant Martha Panaszewicz UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. JOSHUA MARTIN MIRACLE, Defendant and Appellant. CAPITAL CASE No. S140894 Santa Barbara County
Case 3:06-cr LAB Document 378 Filed 09/01/07 Page 1 of 3
Case :0-cr-0-LAB Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 0 Larry A. Hammond Arizona State Bar No. 000 Diane M. Meyers Arizona State Bar No. 0 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona
Stipulated Protective Order and Order 09mc0110, 0111, 0112, 0113 and 0114
Byrum et al v. Compass Vision, Inc., et al Doc. 0 1 1 1 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. Attorney General of California JANICE K. LACHMAN, SBN Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOHN PADRICK, SBN 1 Deputy Attorney
Case: 1:02-cv Document #: 717 Filed: 10/16/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:15692 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 717 Filed: 10/16/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:15692 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, On Behalf of Itself
Case 4:08-cv SBA Document 180 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 5
Case :0-cv-0-SBA Document 0 Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 JOHN F. DAUM (SBN ) jdaum@omm.com 00 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 00- Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: () 0-0 JONATHAN D. HACKER (Pro hac vice) jhacker@omm.com
Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5
Baykeeper v. Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd Doc. 0 Case:-cv-0-HRL Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Jason Flanders (Bar No. 00) Andrea Kopecky (Bar No. ) SAN FRANCISCO, INC. Market Street, Suite 0 San
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-00145-RMC Document 29 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES RYAN, DAVID ALLEN AND ) RONALD SHERMAN, on Behalf of ) Themselves and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
"The Apple ipod itunes Anti-Trust Litigation" Doc. 1 Robert A. Mittelstaedt #00 Tracy M. Strong #0 JONES DAY California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () - Facsimile: () -00 ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
Case 1:12-cv NRB Document 12 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 112-cv-04202-NRB Document 12 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID CASPER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, - against
Case 3:05-cv JGC Document 229 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-07309-JGC Document 229 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., : Plaintiffs, : VS.
Case3:11-cv WHA Document33 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,
Case3:11-cv-05386-WHA Document33 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Brian J. Barry (SBN #135631) LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN BARRY 1925 Century Park East, Suite 21000
2:12-cv MOB-MKM Doc # 107 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1470
2:12-cv-00601-MOB-MKM Doc # 107 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1470 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION CASE
Case3:07-cv SC Document283 Filed03/18/11 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:0-cv-000-SC Document Filed0// Page of Scott Edward Cole, Esq. (S.B. #0 Molly A. DeSario, Esq. (S.B. #0 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, California Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -00 email: scole@scalaw.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of THOMAS J. KARR (D.C. Bar No. 0) Email: KarrT@sec.gov KAREN J. SHIMP (D.C. Bar No. ) Email: ShimpK@sec.gov Attorneys for Amicus Curiae SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
No [DC# CV MJJ] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants,
No. 99 17551 [DC# CV 99-4389-MJJ] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, vs. MARY V. KING; et al., Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL
Case 2:14-cv JCC Document 16 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable John C. Coughenour KIM BAROVIC, derivatively on behalf of MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case 1:11-cv AWI-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02071-AWI-JLT Document 3 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID J. RAPPORT - SBN 054384 RAPPORT AND MARSTON 405 West Perkins