Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 16
|
|
- Emily King
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION Bernard McKay, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Gary D. Tharaldson, and Plaintiff, Defendant, Tharaldson Motels, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Nominal Defendant. Civil No. 3:08-cv-113 REDACTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS Defendant Gary D. Tharaldson (hereafter Tharaldson moves for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (Docs. #103 & 105. Plaintiff Bernard 1 McKay (hereafter McKay moves for partial summary judgment on Tharaldson s Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #132. On November 9, 2011, the Court heard arguments from the parties and took the motions under advisement. Having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and order. 1 The Court previously granted Plaintiff Bernard McKay s motion to certify this action as a class action (Doc. #102. Thus, the designation of Plaintiffs in this Order refers to McKay and others similarly situated, including All persons who were participants of the Tharaldson Motels, Inc. ( TMI, Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the TMI ESOP or the Plan at any time from December 30, 1998 to the present and who received an allocation of Plan assets to their accounts which they did not subsequently forfeit under the terms of the Plan and the beneficiaries of such participants. 1
2 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 2 of 16 SUMMARY OF DECISION In order to prove a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for failure to pursue a shareholder derivative action, the plaintiff must prove that the lawsuit would have been successful. Herman v. Mercantile Bank, N.A., 137 F.3d 584, 587 (8th Cir. 1998; Martin v. Feilen, 965 F.2d 660, 667 (8th Cir Under North Dakota s Business Corporation Act, a derivative action asserting a right of a corporation may not be brought unless the plaintiff is a holder of record of shares at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains or that the plaintiff s shares devolved by operation of law from a person who was a holder of record at such time. N.D. Cent. Code Because Plaintiffs do not fall into either category, they cannot establish that the claim they assert should have been brought by the fiduciary would have been successful. Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the Court than any equitable doctrine, including the continuing harm exception to the contemporaneous ownership requirement, is applicable under the circumstances of this case. Defendant Gary Tharaldson s motion for summary judgment is granted. Tharaldson s alternative motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on certain affirmative defenses are dismissed as moot. BACKGROUND This is an action brought under ERISA 502(a(2, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a(2, and ERISA 409, 29 U.S.C Plaintiff Bernard McKay is a beneficiary of the Tharaldson Motels, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (hereafter TMI ESOP or Plan. Defendant Gary D. Tharaldson, the sole director of TMI at the time, appointed himself trustee of the TMI ESOP on 2
3 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 3 of 16 December 17, 1998, and remained trustee until August 2006, when he was forced to resign (Doc. #1, 7; Doc. #15, 7. Linda Tharaldson is the former wife of Gary Tharaldson (Doc. #1, 11; Doc. #15, 11. The central issue in this case is a term made part of a Settlement Agreement (hereafter Agreement dated March 28, 1998, and signed by Gary Tharaldson, individually; Gary Tharaldson, President of TMI; Gary Tharaldson, President of Tharaldson Motels II, Inc.; and Linda Tharaldson (Doc. #34-1. The Agreement provides, in relevant part, as follows: IV. 2 That Tharaldson Property Management Company will retain Linda 2 Tharaldson Property Management Company ( TPM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TMI and is responsible for managing motels and other related non-tmi motel properties (Doc. #1, 10; Doc. #15, 10. 3
4 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 4 of 16 for a period of twenty (20 years as a consultant, and Linda will provide consulting services for marketing operations of the company. That said service shall include assistance in future international marketing and research. It is agreed that Linda will receive Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500, a year for said services to be paid in equal monthly payments of Forty-one Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-six Dollars ($41, commencing January 1, 1998, with payment becoming due on January 31, That Linda shall be allowed use of the corporate plane a maximum of six (6 trips a year for U.S. travel. (Doc. #34-1 (information redacted by the Court as it contains confidential information filed under seal. The parties dispute the implications of the Agreement s terms. Tharaldson asserts the consulting agreement (provision IV of the Agreement was a no-cut contract that was not part of the divorce, but rather was executed by TPM to compensate Linda for past, present, and future work (Doc. #104, p. 6. In contrast, Plaintiffs believe that Linda Tharaldson was required to provide something of value in return for payments. Plaintiffs further believe, as part of the divorce settlement, Linda Tharaldson transferred her interest in common stock in exchange for the sham 20-year consulting contract with TPM. Plaintiffs reference handwritten and draft versions of the Agreement as evidence that the consulting agreement was part of Gary and Linda s divorce. The plain language of the Settlement Agreement belies Tharaldson s contention that the 4
5 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 5 of 16 consulting agreement was not part of the divorce settlement. The introductory recitals refer to the marriage and divorce of Linda and Gary Tharaldson. Following the terms of the Agreement, the parties agree the document is intended to be a full and final compromise, adjustment, and settlement of any and all claims, disputes or otherwise between the parties. (Doc. #34-1. Nonetheless, the many tangential issues raised by Plaintiffs, including whether the consulting agreement was part of the divorce or not, whether Linda Tharaldson simply was required to make herself available for consulting or was contractually obligated to provide something of value in return for her salary, and whether the consulting agreement is voidable do not need to be decided for purposes of this motion. These issues are not material to the ultimate determination of whether Gary Tharaldson breached his fiduciary duties, as alleged in this action. Plaintiffs assert that Linda Tharaldson performed little or no services to justify monthly payments of approximately $40, (Doc. #1, 19. They claim Tharaldson violated his corporate fiduciary duty under N.D. Cent. Code and by failing to bring a derivative action against himself for the misuse, dissipation and misappropriation of approximately $4 million in TMI assets that were paid to his ex-wife. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs contend this dissipation and waste of TMI assets from 1998 until 2007 resulted in a diminution in the value of TMI stock. Id. at 22. They contend the ESOP, as holder of almost all of the common shares of TMI stock, was entitled to bring an action under N.D. Cent. Code for equitable relief against Gary Tharaldson for the violation of North Dakota law. They argue that Tharaldson s failure to sue himself on behalf of the ESOP violated ERISA 404(a(1. In a companion case, Hans v. Tharaldson, 3:05-cv-115 (D.N.D., the Court determined 5
6 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 6 of 16 that the TMI ESOP acquired company stock on December 27, The contested issue was decided as part of the parties summary judgment motions in that case. As of the date of this Order, there has been no final determination on the merits of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims against Gary Tharaldson pertaining to the sale of the stock in the Hans case. In this case, however, the finding that the shares were acquired on December 27, 1999, makes plain that the TMI ESOP did not own any shares of company stock on March 28, 1998, the time the consulting agreement was entered into. Gary Tharaldson became trustee of the ESOP on December 17, 1998, approximately nine months after the consulting agreement had been executed. Tharaldson brings the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, for summary judgment, claiming the complaint in this action fails because (1 the TMI ESOP did not own any shares of company stock at the time the consulting agreement was executed and, as a result, the ESOP never had a viable derivative claim under North Dakota law, and (2 Tharaldson was not a fiduciary when the consulting agreement was executed and, therefore, there is no viable cause of action under ERISA. ANALYSIS I. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, (1986. The burden is on the moving party to establish the basis for its motion. Donovan v. Harrah s Md. Heights Corp., 289 F.3d 527, 529 (8th Cir Evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the nonmoving party enjoys the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts. 6
7 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 7 of 16 Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir If the moving party shows there are no genuine issues of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Donovan, 289 F.3d at 529. II. Application 1. Precise Nature of Plaintiffs Claim The Court s first task is to ascertain the specific nature of Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiffs complaint alleges this action is brought to remedy ERISA breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendant Gary D. Tharaldson arising out of his failure, as the Trustee of the ESOP, to bring a derivative action against himself as the sole Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of TMI for breaches of corporate fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of TMI, including the ESOP. (Doc. #1, 1 (emphasis added. For relief, Plaintiffs seek to recover any losses to the Plan resulting from this breach and other equitable and remedial relief as the Court deems just. Id. at 2 (emphasis added. The single count identified in the complaint mirrors the introductory allegations recited above: Defendant Gary Tharaldson breached his fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to discharge their [sic] duties with respect to the Plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries... by failing to bring a derivative action against himself as the sole Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of TMI to recover losses to TMI and its subsidiary TPM for breaches of corporate fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of TMI, including the ESOP... (Doc. #1, 39 (emphasis added. Moreover, as to the specifically enumerated corporate fiduciary breach, Plaintiffs allege Tharaldson failed to act in good faith in violation of N.D. Cent. Code and
8 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 8 of Sections and , N.D. Cent. Code, set forth the standards of conduct for officers and directors of North Dakota corporations. Brandt v. Somerville, 692 N.W.2d 144, 149 (N.D If a shareholder seeks to sue individually, he must allege an injury that is separate and distinct from other shareholders or a wrong involving a contractual right that exists independently of any right of the corporation. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward County Farm Bureau, 676 N.W.2d 752, 759 (N.D (quotation and citation omitted. On the other hand, a shareholder alleging an injury to the corporation may bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation where the shareholder suffers only derivatively through the decreased value of his investment. Id. In this case the Plaintiffs have only alleged aclaim that generally applies to all shareholders i.e. that the value of their investment was diminished by the trustee malfeasance, and thus the proper legal framework falls within the context of a derivative action. Consistent with the allegations in the complaint, McKay repeatedly informed the Court in his memorandum in support of his motion for class certification that there was a single claim for relief, specifically that [T]he Complaint alleges a single count of breach of fiduciary duty against Gary Tharaldson for failing to bring a derivative action against himself for his improper dissipation, misuse and waste of TMI assets. (Doc. #37, p. 3. Several pages later, Plaintiff stated: In this case, the sole claim under ERISA 502(a(2 is brought on behalf of the Plan against its then-fiduciary Gary Tharaldson for any losses or profits attributable to his breach (or other relief.... The Complaint alleges that Gary Tharaldson breached his ERISA fiduciary duties... by failing to take steps to prevent the dissipation of the ESOP s assets (i.e. TMI and its subsidiary, including by failing to bring a derivative action against himself... for misusing corporate assets by improperly paying his ex-wife for his own obligation. Id. at p. 10. Plaintiff 8
9 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 9 of 16 advised that [t]his claim requires proof that (1 Gary Tharaldson, as the fiduciary of the TMI ESOP, breached his fiduciary duties by failing to bring such a claim, and (2 the underlying derivative suit against him as President of TMI would have been successful. Id. Plaintiffs now set forth a newly minted interpretation of their claim and a different legal analysis for the claim in their brief in opposition to Defendant s summary judgment motion. They assert the claim is that Tharaldson failed to take any actions whatsoever to protect the ESOP s sole asset (TMI, including but not limited to a derivative action. (Doc. #117, p. 9 of 49. They now broadly contend this case is brought under ERISA [and] Plaintiff s sole claim is based on Defendant s failure, in his capacity as ESOP Trustee, to protect the Plan s assets. Id. at 14. In their brief, they now revise their previous analysis and contend there is no legal requirement that they prove a shareholder derivative suit would have been successful. Id. The deadline to amend pleadings in this case was October 1, 2010 (Doc. #24, Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs have never properly moved to amend the complaint to include such a broad 3 sweeping claim. When a party seeks to amend pleadings beyond the district court s scheduling order, he must show good cause. Morrison Enterprises, LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594, 610 (8th Cir The primary measure of good cause is the movant s diligence in attempting to meet the order s requirements. Id. (citation and quotation omitted. Plaintiffs have neither followed the proper channels to amend their pleadings nor attempted to establish good cause justifying leave to amend the complaint. Moreover, [p]ost-dismissal motions to amend are disfavored because [m]uch of the 3 Plaintiffs merely drop a footnote in their brief in which they say the Court should allow them to amend the complaint if the Court construes Plaintiff s Complaint narrowly (i.e. that his fiduciary breach claim under ERISA is based solely on the Defendant s failure to bring a derivative suit under N.D.C.C (Doc. #117, p.26 of 49 n
10 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 10 of 16 value of summary judgment... would be dissipated if a party were free to rely on one theory in an attempt to defeat a summary judgment and then, should that theory prove unsound, come back... and fight on the basis of some other theory. Morrison Enterprises, LLC, 638 F.3d at 610 (citations omitted. Here, that is precisely what Plaintiffs are attempting to do. Until the filing of their brief in opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiffs continuously construed the nature of the breach of fiduciary duty as Tharaldson s failure to bring a derivative action against himself. This was a tactical choice. If Plaintiffs believed their claim against Tharaldson was broader than simply the failure to bring a derivative action, they could have made that clear in the complaint and, more importantly, should have informed the Court, prior to their summary judgment response, of all potentially viable claims. In order to maintain an actionable claim, a plaintiff must do more than merely refer to it in an obscure way. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 863 (8th Cir (finding complaint did not state a vicarious liability claim when such a claim was only referred to in an obscure way and the defendant did not have fair notice that the plaintiff was making such a claim. The precise claim before the Court, as construed by all parties prior to the summary judgment motion, is whether Tharaldson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to bring a shareholder derivative action to recover alleged losses to the ESOP caused when Tharaldson entered into a consulting contract with his ex-wife prior to the formation of the ESOP. Tharaldson has moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment on this claim. 2. Law Applicable to Plaintiffs Claim The Eighth Circuit has expressly determined that in order to prove a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for failure to pursue any lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove a lawsuit would 10
11 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 11 of 16 have been successful and advantage the beneficiaries of the plan. Herman v. Mercantile Bank, N.A., 137 F.3d 584, 587 (8th Cir. 1998; Martin v. Feilen, 965 F.2d 660, 667 (8th Cir (suit against ERISA fiduciary for failing to assert a derivative claim requires proof of a breach of fiduciary duty and that the derivative suit would have prevailed. In order to determine if Plaintiffs have met their burden, the Court must examine North Dakota law. Generally, the fiduciary duties of a corporation s officers and directors are governed by the law of the state of incorporation. Potter v. Pohlad, 560 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Minn. Ct. App Sections and , N.D. Cent. Code, set forth the standards of conduct for officers and directors of North Dakota corporations. Brandt v. Somerville, 692 N.W.2d 144, 149 (N.D They require corporate officers and directors to discharge their duties in good faith, in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the corporation, and with the care an ordinary prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances. Id. The North Dakota Legislature enacted an expansive definition of the best interest of the corporation while providing directors with a significant amount of latitude in determining whether an action is in the corporation s best interest. See N.D. Cent. Code (6. A director is allowed to consider the interests of: (1 the corporation; (2 the corporation s employees, customers, suppliers, and creditors; (3 the economy; (4 community and societal considerations; and (5 long-term and short-term interests of the corporation and its shareholders. Id. In order to bring an action against a corporate director, the North Dakota Business Corporation Act provides, in relevant part: No action may be brought in this state by a shareholder in the right of a domestic or foreign corporation unless the plaintiff is a holder of record of shares or voting trust certificates at the time of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains, or the 11
12 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 12 of 16 plaintiff's shares or voting trust certificates thereafter devolved upon the plaintiff by operation of law from a person who was a holder of record at such time. 4 N.D. Cent. Code Similarly, Rule 23.1(b(1, Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that a complaint brought in federal court as a derivative suit seeking to enforce a right of a corporation must allege that the plaintiff was a shareholder at the time of the transaction complained of, or that the plaintiff s share or membership later devolved on it by operation of law. North Dakota s statute and Rule 23.1 are commonly referred to as the contemporaneous ownership rule. See 7C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1828 (3d ed The contemporaneous ownership requirement was initially viewed as a means of discouraging collusive practices, such as transferring stock to a nonresident for the purposes of manufacturing federal diversity jurisdiction. Id. (citations omitted. The requirement is now often described in terms of a principle of equity aimed at preventing courts from interfering with purchased grievances. Id. (citations omitted. At the time of the transaction at issue - the execution of the consulting agreement - the ESOP was not yet formed. Thus, it is indisputable that Plaintiffs were neither participants in the ESOP at the time of the transaction nor did the ESOP own shares of company stock at the time of the alleged wrongful transaction. Unless Plaintiffs can show they acquired shares after the transaction at issue by operation of law, they cannot satisfy their burden of demonstrating the claim they believe Tharaldson should have brought would have been successful under North Dakota law. 4 The complaint alleges a violation of N.D. Cent. Code , which allows for equitable relief in an action brought by a shareholder of the corporation. Because the complaint seeks monetary damages and alleges a claim actionable in a shareholder derivative suit, the Court believes N.D. Cent. Code frames the proper analysis. 12
13 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 13 of 16 North Dakota has not addressed the meaning of the phrase by operation of law in this context. Other courts have construed it as any nonconsensual transaction by which the plaintiff acquired the stock. 7C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1828 (3d ed (citing examples of cases where wife acquired shares after husband s death pursuant to a settlement agreement and decree, where stock was obtained by will, and where plaintiff obtained shares pursuant to a consent decree in a federal antitrust suit. Shares that are acquired through a will or intestacy are held to devolve by operation of law since neither the decedent nor recipient had control over the transfer following the death. Pessin v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 586 N.Y.2d 584, 578 (N.Y. App. Div (citations omitted. On the other hand, shares that are obtained through some deliberate act, such as by gift or contract, do not devolve by operation of law. Id. (citations omitted. Plaintiffs, as employees of TMI, acquired shares of company stock, not by operation of law, but by the affirmative act of Gary Tharaldson who decided to create an ESOP for the benefit of TMI employees and in doing so made a contractual arrangement favorable to the employees, giving them a retirement benefit that they would not otherwise possess. The creation of the ESOP and Plaintiffs ownership of company stock came, therefore, by way of contract and not under the circumstances that would ordinarily be considered a transfer by operation of law. Neither Plaintiffs nor the ESOP were holders of shares of stock at the time of the transaction at issue and did not acquire shares by operation of law from a holder of record at such time. Because Plaintiffs have not proven that either one of the statutory requirements necessary for a shareholder derivative brought under North Dakota law are present, they have failed to establish an essential element of their claim - that is, that the lawsuit Tharaldson should have brought would have been successful. 13
14 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 14 of 16 Plaintiffs attempt to avoid these unambiguous statutory requirements by asserting the continuing harm or continuing wrong exception to the contemporaneous ownership requirement. North Dakota has never adopted or rejected the continuing harm doctrine, nor has the Eighth Circuit decided this issue in the context of Rule The continuing harm doctrine is often considered an equitable doctrine. In re Bank of New York Derivative Litigation, 320 F.3d 291, 298 (2d Cir The continuing harm doctrine has not been universally adopted by the federal courts, and those that have invoked it, have done so sparingly. In re Bank of New York Derivative Litigation, 173 F.Supp.2d 193, 198 (S.D.N.Y (quotation and citation omitted. Assuming for purposes of analysis that this Circuit or North Dakota would recognize the continuing harm doctrine, this Court believes the doctrine is inapplicable under the circumstances of this case because the alleged wrongdoings occurring after the ESOP was formed (the ongoing payments to Linda Tharaldson are simply the effects of the prior wrongdoing (the execution of the consulting agreement. A key fact in determining whether there is a continuing wrong is when the specific acts of alleged wrongdoing occurred, and not when their effect is felt. Schreiber v. Bryan, 396 A.2d 512, 516 (Del. Ch The limitation is necessary because every wrongful transaction may be viewed as a continuing wrong to the corporation until remedied. Blasband v. Rales, 971 F.2d 1034, 1046 (3d Cir In this case, the specific alleged wrongdoing occurred before the ESOP was formed and Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan. At the time the 20-year consulting agreement was executed, the alleged wrongdoing was consummated. If the contractual obligation to make the payments was construed as continuing, the contemporaneous ownership requirement of Rule 14
15 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 15 of and North Dakota law would be substantially subverted. Even if this Circuit or North Dakota adopted the continuing harm doctrine, it would not be applicable under the circumstances of this case. See In re Bank of New York Derivative Litigation, 320 F.3d at 298 (in order for the continuing harm doctrine to apply a plaintiff is not required to own stock in the company during the entire course of all relevant events; however, a plaintiff must have acquired his or her stock in the corporation before the core of the allegedly wrongful conduct transpired. ; Lowell Wiper Supply Co. V. Helen Shop, Inc., 235 F.Supp. 640, 647 (D.C.N.Y (dividends paid on the stock subsequent to the time the plaintiffs became stockholders were not a continuing wrong. DECISION In order to establish a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for failure to pursue a lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove the lawsuit would have been successful. Herman, 137 F.3d at 587; Martin, 965 F.2d at 667. Here, the derivative action contemplated by Plaintiffs would not have succeeded under the plain language of North Dakota law. Moreover, when a plaintiff would not be entitled to maintain a derivative suit in a court of the forum state because the plaintiff is not considered a shareholder under the governing law, the same result will be reached in a federal court. 7C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 1826 (3d ed Plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that there is some other recognized equitable doctrine, including the continuing harm doctrine, that demands a different result. Defendant Gary Tharaldson s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and his alternative motion for judgment on the pleadings is dismissed as moot. Plaintiffs motion to adjudicate certain affirmative defenses is dismissed as moot. 15
16 Case 3:08-cv RRE-KKK Document 170 Filed 01/05/12 Page 16 of 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated this 5th day of January, /s/ Ralph R. Erickson Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge United States District Court 16
Case: 2:17-cv WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500
Case: 2:17-cv-00045-WOB-CJS Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/23/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 1500 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-45 (WOB-CJS)
More informationCarol S. East v. PaineWebber, Inc., et al., No. 506, Sept. Term, 1999
HEADNOTE: Carol S. East v. PaineWebber, Inc., et al., No. 506, Sept. Term, 1999 PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS INCORPORATED INTO A JUDGMENT OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY WAIVE RIGHTS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 18-C-643 ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THE CHESAPEAKE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-C-643 GATHEL D. PARKER, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT The
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-3804 Schnuck Markets, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. First Data Merchant Services Corp.; Citicorp Payment Services, Inc.
More informationCase 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 4 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:16-cv-00103-DLH-CSM Document 4 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION ENERPLUS RESOURCES (USA CORPORATION, a Delaware
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTION
Case 2:15-cv-01798-JCW Document 62 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CANDIES SHIPBUILDERS, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-1798 WESTPORT INS. CORP. MAGISTRATE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, and JOHNS HOPKINS BAYVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. RDB-03-3333 CAREFIRST
More informationCase 1:15-cv KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01927-KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01927-KLM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO GINA M. KILPATRICK, individually
More informationCase 0:17-cv JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-60471-JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 GRIFFEN LEE, v. Plaintiff, CHARLES G. McCARTHY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-WHA Document Filed/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 LORINDA REICHERT, v. Plaintiff, TIME INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE TIME
More informationCase 0:06-cv JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-61337-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 KEITH TAYLOR, v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER JUNE 7, 2002 LINDA D. SHAFER
Present: All the Justices LORETTA W. FAULKNIER v. Record No. 012006 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER JUNE 7, 2002 LINDA D. SHAFER FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY Robert G. O Hara, Jr.,
More informationCase 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:
Morlock, LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MORLOCK, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02106-JWL-DJW Document 36 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS YRC WORLDWIDE INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 10-2106-JWL ) DEUTSCHE
More informationBarbara D. Underwood, for appellant. Gerson Zweifach, for respondent. This appeal arises out of compensation paid by the New
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationCase 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs,
Case 2:06-cv-01238-JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X JEFFREY SCHAUB and HOWARD SCHAUB, as
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:10-cv-06264-PSG -AGR Document 18 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:355 CENTRAL DISTRICT F CALIFRNIA Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION THOMAS W. MCNAMARA, as the Court- Appointed Receiver for SSM Group, LLC; CMG Group, LLC; Hydra Financial Limited
More information4:11-cv RBH Date Filed 12/31/13 Entry Number 164 Page 1 of 9
4:11-cv-00302-RBH Date Filed 12/31/13 Entry Number 164 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Mary Fagnant, Brenda Dewitt- Williams and Betty
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Emerick v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION WILLIAM EMERICK, pro se, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTHEM, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 4:15-cv-00009-RLY-WGH Document 13 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 383 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION LEE GROUP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC.; LESTER L.
More informationMorawski v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company et al Doc. 50
Morawski v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION THEODORE MORAWSKI, as Next Friend for A.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 16-1791 Twin City Pipe Trades Service Association, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Wenner Quality Services, Inc., a Minnesota
More informationCase: 4:16-cv ERW Doc. #: 105 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 915
Case: 4:16-cv-01138-ERW Doc. #: 105 Filed: 05/15/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 915 MARILYNN MARTINEZ, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION v. Plaintiffs, Consolidated
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COME Defendants Michael P. Daniel, M.D. and Daniel Urological Center, Inc.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ALAMANCE BRIAN S. COPE, M.D., v. Plaintiff, MICHAEL P. DANIEL, M.D. and DANIEL UROLOGICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants. IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Debtor. Case No Chapter 7
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Richard Michael Wilcox, Debtor. Case No. 02-66238 Chapter 7 / Michigan Web Press, Inc., v. Richard Michael Wilcox, Plaintiff,
More informationHOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWE...
Page 1 of 6 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., MIKHAIL TRAKHTENBERG, and WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29DNF.
More informationUnited States District Court District of Massachusetts
Afridi v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. Doc. 40 United States District Court District of Massachusetts NADEEM AFRIDI, Plaintiff, v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [24]
Weston and Company, Incorporated v. Vanamatic Company Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WESTON & COMPANY, INC., v. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-10242 Honorable
More informationNo. 1:13-ap Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8
No. 1:13-ap-00024 Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8 Dated: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:27:41 PM IN THE UNITED STATED BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pending before the Court is the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Dogra et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA MELINDA BOOTH DOGRA, as Assignee of Claims of SUSAN HIROKO LILES; JAY DOGRA, as Assignee of the
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-2041 Thomas M. Fafinski, Respondent, vs. Jaren
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0307n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0307n.06 No. 09-5907 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, BRIAN M. BURR, On Appeal
More informationCase 2:10-cv HGD Document 31 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-02990-HGD Document 31 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 10 FILED 2011 Jun-27 PM 02:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District v. Fieldturf USA, Inc. Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MIDDLETON-CROSS PLAINS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. FIELDTURF
More informationCourt upholds Board s immunity from lawsuits in federal court
Fields of Opportunities CHESTER J. CULVER GOVERNOR PATTY JUDGE LT. GOVERNOR STATE OF IOWA IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE M A RK BOW DEN E XE C U T I V E D I R E C T O R March 9, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Eric Bondhus, Carl Bondhus, and Bondhus Arms, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Laser Aiming Systems Corporation, Inc., Civil No. 15-510 (DWF/FLN) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Eric Bondhus, Carl Bondhus, and Bondhus
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION. ) No. 2:10-cv JPM-dkv
West et al v. Americare Long Term Specialty Hospital, LLC Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION LINDA WEST and VICKI WATSON as ) surviving natural
More informationCase 3:15-cv TLB Document 96 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 791
Case 3:15-cv-03035-TLB Document 96 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 791 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION ZETOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. PLAINTIFF V. CASE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON. DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al., : Case No.
McCarty et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al.,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 16-3068 Johnson Regional Medical Center lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dr. Robert Halterman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number Honorable David M.
Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Parrish et al Doc. 159 GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case Number
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP JUNE 12, 2003 Most courts have held the insured versus insured exclusion
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:284
Case: 1:14-cv-10230 Document #: 22 Filed: 11/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION REBA M. O PERE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case
More informationCase 3:13-cv L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052
Case 3:13-cv-02920-L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS, P.A., Plaintiff, v.
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL James F. D Alton, Jr., Judge 1
PRESENT: All the Justices DOROTHY C. DAVIS, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 171020 JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH May 31, 2018 MKR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL. FROM
More informationIn their initial and amended complaints, the plaintiffs, who are beneficiaries of
Cunningham v. Cornell University et al Doc. 198 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x CASEY CUNNINGHAM, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division. v. ) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harmon v. CB Squared Services Incorporated Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division OLLIE LEON HARMON III, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION. CASE NO. 3:07cv528-RS-MD ORDER
Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION 316, INC., Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 3:07cv528-RS-MD MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER Before
More informationCase: 3:14-cv DAK Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/27/15 1 of 17. PageID #: 987
Case: 3:14-cv-01699-DAK Doc #: 27 Filed: 01/27/15 1 of 17. PageID #: 987 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION LARRY ASKINS, et al., -vs- OHIO DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.
Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 23 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, -vs- ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION EBRAHIM SHANEHCHIAN, et al., Plaintiff, v. MACY S, INC. et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:07-cv-00828-SAS-SKB Judge S. Arthur Spiegel
More informationREVERSE and REMAND in part; AFFIRM in part; and Opinion Filed February 20, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
REVERSE and REMAND in part; AFFIRM in part; and Opinion Filed February 20, 2019 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00130-CV BRYAN INMAN, Appellant V. HENRY LOE, JR.,
More informationCase 1:08-cv Document 50 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:08-cv-02767 Document 50 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RALPH MENOTTI, Plaintiff, v. No. 08 C 2767 THE METROPOLITAN LIFE
More informationCase 2:08-cv JLL-CCC Document 46 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:08-cv-04143-JLL-CCC Document 46 Filed 10/23/2009 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY THOMASON AUTO GROUP, LLC, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 08-4143
More informationCase 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331
Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 8, 2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 8, 2008 GEORGE H. NASON, INDIVIDUALLY & AS TRUSTEE OF THE CHURCH STREET REALTY TRUST v. C & S HEATING, AIR, & ELECTRICAL, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Melvin S Waymire, DDS, et al v. Sharon J Leonard, et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON MELVIN S. WAYMIRE, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:10-CV-072 Judge
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Schrempf, Kelly, Napp & Darr, Ltd. v. Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 2015 IL App (5th) 130413 Appellate Court Caption SCHREMPF, KELLY, NAPP AND DARR,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-03919-PAM-LIB Document 85 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Anmarie Calgaro, Case No. 16-cv-3919 (PAM/LIB) Plaintiff, v. St. Louis County, Linnea
More informationCase 7:14-cv VB Document 25 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 8 : : : :
Case 714-cv-04694-VB Document 25 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
More informationEmery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York (Andrew G. Celli, Jr. of counsel), for appellants.
Lichtenstein v Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 2014 NY Slip Op 06242 Decided on September 18, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 211-cv-06861-SVW -SS Document 91 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #2257 Case No. No. 211-cv-06861-SVW (SSx) Date February 8, 2012 Present The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE CHAPTER ELEVEN ADAMS COUNTY ASPHALT, CO., BANKRUPTCY NO. 1-03-bk-00722 DEBTOR ADAMS COUNTY
More informationCase 1:11-cv WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-05988-WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (as Trustee under
More informationCase 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:13-cv-00185-S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ) DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 13-185
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. No. 12 C 1856 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Fish v. Hennessy et al Doc. 161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM A. FISH, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH J. HENNESSY, No. 12 C 1856 Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland
More informationCase 1:07-cv RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-00146-RAE Document 32 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
More informationEugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-18-2013 Eugene Wolstenholme v. Joseph Bartels Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3767
More informationCase: 1:13-cv DCN Doc #: 137 Filed: 03/02/16 1 of 13. PageID #: 12477
Case: 1:13-cv-00437-DCN Doc #: 137 Filed: 03/02/16 1 of 13. PageID #: 12477 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WALID JAMMAL, et al., ) CASE NO. 1: 13
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-19-2006 In Re: Weinberg Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2558 Follow this and additional
More informationCase 3:16-cv RRE-ARS Document 46 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 3:16-cv-00144-RRE-ARS Document 46 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 10 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA vs. Plaintiff, Intercept Corporation,
More informationJOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN *
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY PRECLUSION IN SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP OCTOBER 11, 2007 The application of preclusion principles in shareholder
More informationBain, Buzzard, & McRae, LLP by Edgar R. Bain for Plaintiff. Shanahan Law Group, PLLC by Brandon S. Neuman and John E. Branch, III for Defendants.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PATRICIA M. BRADY, v. Plaintiff, BRYANT C. VAN VLAANDEREN; RENEE M. VAN VLAANDEREN; MARC S. TOWNSEND; LINDA M. TOWNSEND; UNITED TOOL & STAMPING COMPANY OF NORTH
More informationCase 1:17-cv LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:17-cv-00083-LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION JESSICA C. McGLOTHIN PLAINTIFF v. CAUSE NO.
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More informationCase 2:11-cv JES-CM Document 196 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3358
Case 2:11-cv-00459-JES-CM Document 196 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3358 STACEY SUE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts aka Stacey Berlinger O
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:07-cv-491-RJC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Rowl v. Smith Debnam Narron Wyche Saintsing & Myers, LLP et al Doc. 49 PAULINE ROWL, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:07-cv-491-RJC
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MAIN STREET DINING, L.L.C., f/k/a J.P. PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., UNPUBLISHED February 12, 2009 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 282822 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS FIRST
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ESTATE OF JOHN P. CONTOS, by and through its Personal Representative ALLEN MENARD, Plaintiff(s, vs. Case No. 4:09CV998 JCH ANHEUSER-BUSCH
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00111-CV IN THE INTEREST OF N.M.B., a Child From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CI05268
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Yarbrough v. First American Title Insurance Company et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JACK R. YARBROUGH, Plaintiff, 3:14-cv-01453-BR OPINION AND ORDER v. FIRST
More informationCase 3:06-cv AWT Document 104 Filed 07/28/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:06-cv-01320-AWT Document 104 Filed 07/28/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ------------------------------x : IN re NYFIX, Inc. Derivative : Master File No. 3:06cv01320(AWT)
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2016 03:15 PM INDEX NO. 653343/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:11-cv-14630-DPH-MKM Doc # 62 Filed 01/16/18 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 1364 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-nc Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 JERRY JOHNSON, et al., v. Plaintiffs, FUJITSU TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0 NC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document39 Filed11/18/13 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 STEVEN POLNICKY, v. Plaintiff, LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; WELLS FARGO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:11-cv-00461-DWF -TNL Document 46 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA William B. Butler and Mary S. Butler, individually and as representatives for all
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Green Tree Servicing L.L.C. v. Hoover, 2016-Ohio-1169.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC : JUDGES: : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee
More informationZien Halwani, J.D. Candidate 2017
The Prudent Person Standard in ESOP Breach of Duty of Care Claims 2016 Volume VIII No. 7 The Prudent Person Standard in ESOP Breach of Duty of Care Claims Zien Halwani, J.D. Candidate 2017 Cite as: The
More informationCase 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,
More informationJ.B. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, CERIDIAN CORP., Defendants-Appellees.
Page 1 J.B. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, CERIDIAN CORP., Defendants-Appellees. No. 08-16097 Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES COURT
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION In re JAMES DAMAS and MARIA KOLETTIS, Chapter 7 Case No. 12 15313 FJB Debtors JAMES DAMAS and MARIA KOLETTIS,
More informationCase 3:08-cv AET-DEA Document 256 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 4580 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:08-cv-05046-AET-DEA Document 256 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 4580 NOT FOR PUBLICATION HARVEY D. WOLINETZ, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiffs, Counter
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LOREN L. CASSELL, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) NO. 3:16-cv-02086 ) CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, et al. ) )
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2016 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 155249/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs One North Lexington Avenue
More informationFEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
954 776 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES have breached the alleged contract to guarantee a loan). The part of Count II of the amended counterclaim that seeks a declaration that the post-termination restrictive
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-03012-TWT Document 67 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC. D/B/A AMERICAN HYDRO; AND ASH EQUIPMENT CO., INC., A
More information