IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
|
|
- Joanna Stone
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MomsWIN, LLC and ) ARIANA REED-HAGAR, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No KHV JOEY LUTES, VIRTUAL WOW, INC., ) and TODD GORDANIER, ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment And For Other Sanctions (Doc. #76) filed March 27, For reasons stated below, the Court sustains plaintiffs motion in part. Procedural History MomsWIN, LLC and Ariana Reed-Hagar bring state and federal claims against Joey Lutes, Virtual Wow, Inc. and Todd Gordanier, in connection with the creation and development of plaintiffs web site. Specifically, plaintiffs bring claims under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, K.S.A et seq., the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). On October 10, 2002, defendants filed notice of withdrawal of counsel, D.A.N. Chase and James J. Kernell, and entry of appearance of substituted counsel, Tarak A. Devkota. (Doc. #43). 1 On October 14, 2002, plaintiffs served interrogatories and document production requests. Defendants did not timely 1 Devkota was not even admitted to practice in this Court until nearly three months later, on December 31, 2002.
2 respond and on November 22, 2002, Katherine Miller, plaintiffs attorney, sent Devkota a letter requesting discovery. Devkota did not respond. During the first two weeks of December, Miller left four telephone messages at Devkota s office. Devkota responded once, with a telephone message on December 16, The next day Miller faxed Devkota a second letter requesting discovery responses. That same day, Devkota advised Miller that defendants would begin to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests on December 18. He did not indicate when the responses would be served, 2 and on December 18, 2002, plaintiffs filed their motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. #53). Defendants did not oppose plaintiffs motion and on January 10, 2003, Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse entered an order compelling defendants to answer plaintiffs discovery requests, without objections, by January 27, Three days late, on January 30, 2003, defendants served their responses. Plaintiffs then noticed the depositions of all three defendants for March 14 and 17, On March 14, plaintiffs deposed Joey Lutes and Virtual WOW. In his deposition, Lutes testified that the notarized signature on his interrogatory answers was not his. 3 The notarized signature which purports to be that of Joey Lutes is actually that of Devkota and, while Lutes had authorized Devkota to do whatever was necessary to provide discovery, 2 What it means to begin to respond to discovery is not clear. 3 The primary duty of a notary public is to acknowledge the authenticity of signatures. Dickey v. Roal Banks of Mo., 111 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the notary public must either personally know that the signer is the person described, see State v. Farmer, 201 S.W. 955 (Mo. App. 1918), or take and preserve evidence of the signer s identity, see State v. Plass, 58 Mo. App. 148 (1894) and State v. Meyer, 2 Mo. App. 413 (1876). In Missouri, notary publics take an oath in which they swear to faithfully perform... all notarial acts in conformance with the law. Mo. Stat Gina R. Rodriguez, a notary public in Jackson County, Missouri, notarized Lutes signature. She is a legal assistant to Devkota, and she apparently knew that the signature was not genuine. This is a serious violation of a notary s duties which the Court must report to the State of Missouri. -2-
3 he did not authorize Devkota to sign his interrogatory answers. 4 To this date, Lutes has not personally signed the interrogatory answers. On March 17, 2003, plaintiffs took the deposition of Todd Gordanier. Gordanier also testified that the notarized signature on his interrogatory answers was not his. Gordanier testified that he had authorized Devkota to sign the answers, 5 but his signature bears no indication that someone other than Gordanier signed it, with or without his authorization. Furthermore, to date, Gordanier has not personally signed his interrogatory answers. On March 27, 2003, plaintiffs asked the Court to order default judgment, alleging that defendants have not complied with a court order, that they have submitted untimely interrogatory answers which bear false signatures, and that they have refused to produce Exhibit 12 (which was marked and identified in the Lutes deposition). Plaintiffs also ask the Court to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs damages and the amount of attorneys fees to be awarded. Alternatively, plaintiffs ask the Court to order (1) production of Exhibit 12, (2) a resumed deposition of Lutes and Virtual WOW at defendants expense, and (3) an award of plaintiffs attorneys fees incurred in connection with this motion. Six days after the deadline, without good cause or leave of Court, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs motion. 6 4 Further, Lutes purported signature bears no indication that someone signed it for him, with or without his authority. not genuine. 5 Rodriguez also notarized Gordanier s signature, apparently knowing that the signature was 6 D. Kan. Rule 6.1(e)(1), which became effective March 20, 2003, provides that [r]esponses to nondispositive motions (motions which are not motions to dismiss or for summary judgment) shall be filed and served within 14 days. Plaintiffs filed their motion on March 27, 2003, and defendants therefore had until April 10, 2003 to file any opposition. Defendants filed their opposition on (continued...) -3-
4 Analysis I. Defendants Answers To Plaintiffs Interrogatories On January 10, 2003, Judge Waxse ordered defendants to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests within ten days. Taking into account weekends and a federal holiday, that ten-day period expired January 27. Defendants did not provide their interrogatory answers until January 30, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should disregard defendants answers because they were unsigned and untimely. Defendants acknowledge that the notarized signatures are not genuine, but argue that in their standard attorney-client contract, Lutes and Gordanier expressly authorized Devkota to sign their interrogatory answers. A. Rule 33 Interrogatory Answers Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., expressly provides that interrogatories shall be answered in writing under oath,... signed by the person making them. While [c]ourts are aware that a party often will require and receive assistance from counsel in the preparation of responses to interrogatories,... it is not proper or acceptable for the attorney alone to sign or verify responses. 7 Moore s Federal Practice, [1] (2000). Rule 33 makes no exception where a party is unavailable to sign his or her answers. See McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468, 472 (4th Cir. 1972); Cabales v. United States, 51 F.R.D. 498, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Furthermore, Devkota did not overtly sign as an authorized agent for his clients he forged their signatures and prevailed on his paralegal to fraudulently verify that the signatures were genuine. 6 (...continued) April 16, On April 16, 2003, nearly three months after the deadline for their answers to plaintiffs interrogatories, defendants filed Defendant s [sic] Motion For Enlargement Of Time (Doc. #86) asking the Court to accept the answers which they had filed three days late. Judge Waxse overruled that motion by order dated May 8, (Doc. #100). -4-
5 In addition, he apparently took pains to disguise his handwriting, so that the signatures would appear to be authentic. The signatures provided by Devkota are not valid and, since defendants have not re-submitted answers with authentic signatures, they remain in violation of Judge Waxse s order of January 10, B. Rule 37 Sanctions Rule 37(b)(2) provides: If a party... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under subdivision (a) of this rule... the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following: * * * (C) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof,... or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party. The harsh remedy of default judgment under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) is appropriate when a party s failure to comply [with discovery] has been due to... willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of [the party]. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212 (1958). In Nat l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1970), the Supreme Court stated that the most severe in the spectrum of sanctions provided by statute or rule must be available to the district court in appropriate cases, not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent. By the same token, a Rule 37 sanction must be just and specifically related to the claim which was at issue in the order to provide discovery. Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). Rule 37(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that: If a party... fails... to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories... the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among -5-
6 others it may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. Here, defendants filed interrogatory answers three days late, without signing them. 8 Defense counsel compounded the problem by forging their signatures and procuring a fraudulent attestation from a notary public. From the record, however, it is not clear that defendants as opposed to their attorney acted willfully or in bad faith. Default judgment is a severe sanction, and Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes an alternative sanction which is more appropriate in this case: [i]n lieu of... the forgoing orders... the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Defendants failure to comply with Judge Waxse s order of January 10, 2003 was not substantially justified and the record suggests no reason why an award of fees and expenses would be unjust. Defendants argue that they would have signed the interrogatories, but that they were working through the internet and internet transmission does not permit physical signatures. Defendants have not suggested that this problem occurred for reasons beyond their control or resulted from excusable neglect. Further, nearly five months after plaintiffs served their discovery requests and more than three months after Judge Waxse s deadline, defendants still have not provided interrogatory answers with authentic signatures. The Court therefore orders defendants to provide interrogatory answers which they have personally subscribed and sworn, on or before May 16, Defendants are expressly warned that failure to comply with this and 8 Plaintiffs rightly complain that defendants have otherwise failed to comply with applicable rules and schedules in this case. The Court has dealt with these issues as they have arisen, however, and the Court is not persuaded that they should be further addressed in this context. -6-
7 other court orders and deadlines will result in further sanctions, up to and including entry of default judgment. Defendants are also ordered to pay plaintiffs reasonable expenses, including attorney s fees, which they incurred in bringing this motion. On or before May 16, 2003, plaintiffs shall file an itemized affidavit in support of their request for fees and expenses. If the parties reach agreement regarding the fee request, they shall file an appropriate stipulation on or before May 23, 2003, along with a certificate that the agreed fees have been paid. If they are unable to agree, on or before May 28, 2003, plaintiffs shall file a statement of consultation and supporting memorandum. See D. Kan. Rule Defendants may respond on or before June 2, 2003 and plaintiffs may reply on or before June 6, II. Exhibit 12 In their notice of deposition duces tecum, plaintiffs specifically requested that Lutes bring to his deposition each and every diary, calender, journal, note, or other document related to this case. At his deposition, Lutes produced several documents which had not previously been provided. Lutes identified one document, marked Exhibit 12 by the court reporter, as a diary or chronology of events related to this case. Defense counsel withdrew the document without giving plaintiffs counsel an opportunity to see, review or copy it. Plaintiffs argue that defendants violated the Court s order of January 10, 2003 by not producing this document by January 27, 2003, and ask the Court to compel production of Exhibit 12 because it is not privileged or work product. Defendants claim that they did not produce the document by January 27 because Lutes did not prepare until March 13, the day before his deposition, and that defense counsel refused to disclose it at the deposition because he had not reviewed it. Defendants did serve Exhibit 12-7-
8 with their brief in opposition to plaintiffs motion for default judgment. See Exhibit 2 in Defendant s [sic] Reply To Plaintiff s [sic] Motion For Default Judgment (Doc. #85) filed April 16, Because defendants have now produced Exhibit 12, the issue of compulsion is moot. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that defense counsel s wrongful refusal to produce Exhibit 12 prejudices them and that his late production does not relieve the prejudice. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that they are prejudiced because discovery has closed, the dispositive motion deadline was May 2, 2003, and plaintiffs cannot re-depose Lutes and Virtual Wow without requesting a change in deadlines and a continuance of the trial. Plaintiffs claim that without re-deposing Lutes and Virtual Wow, they have no way to examine defendants concerning Exhibit 12. Defendants could not have disclosed Exhibit 12 by January 27, 2003 because it apparently did not exist until March 13, Nonetheless, plaintiffs deposition notice required Lutes to produce Exhibit 12 at his deposition. Defendants have no proper justification for withholding Exhibit 12 at the deposition. The Court therefore grants plaintiffs leave to re-depose Lutes and Virtual WOW regarding Exhibit 12, on five days notice and at defendants expense. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment And For Other Sanctions (Doc. #76) filed March 27, 2003 be and hereby is SUSTAINED in part. On or before May 16, 2003, defendants shall submit answers to plaintiffs interrogatories which they have personally subscribed and sworn. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before May 16, 2003, plaintiffs shall file an affidavit in support of their request for fees which itemizes all fees and expenses incurred in bringing this motion. If the parties reach agreement regarding the fee request, they shall file an appropriate stipulation on or -8-
9 before May 23, 2003, along with a certificate that the agreed fees have been paid. If they are unable to agree, on or before May 28, 2003, plaintiffs shall file a statement of consultation and supporting memorandum. Defendants may respond on or before June 2, 2003 and plaintiffs may reply on or before June 6, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may re-depose Joey Lutes and Virtual WOW regarding Exhibit 12 on five days notice and at defendants expense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk send copies of this order to the Disciplinary Administrator, Stanton A. Hazlett, 701 Jackson Street, First Floor, Topeka, Kansas and Matt Blunt, Secretary of State, Commissions, 600 West Main, Room 367, Jefferson City, Missouri Dated this 9th day of May, 2003 at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Kathryn H. Vratil Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Judge -9-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER
Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC AT ~ Q V LESLIE G Y cl 7b~FR CLERK u
More informationCase 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:00-cv-01081-FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More information1:12-cv TLL-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 01/29/13 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
1:12-cv-11249-TLL-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 01/29/13 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 83 WILLIAM BLOOD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No. 12-11249 Honorable Thomas
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Omega Hospital, L.L.C. v. Community Insurance Company Doc. 121 OMEGA HOSPITAL, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2264 COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE Proposed Recommendation No. 241 Proposed Rescission of Rule 4014, Promulgation of New Rules 4014.1, 4014.2 and 4014.3 Governing Request for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES INC., D/B/A HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (USA) Plaintiff, V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455 E. OLIVER CAPITAL GROUP,
More informationCase 1:05-cv IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:05-cv-00051-IMK-JSK Document 338 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ALLISON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. // Civil Action No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, vs. Plaintiff, LOCKHEED MARTIN, ETC., Defendant. CHARLES DANIELS, vs. Plaintiff, LOCKHEED MARTIN,
More informationCase 3:14-cv K Document 1118 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID 61388
Case 3:14-cv-01849-K Document 1118 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 22 PageID 61388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ZENIMAX MEDIA INC. and ID SOFTWARE, LLC, Plaintiffs,
More informationThe 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques
The 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques Materials By: James Bryan Moseley Moseley & Moseley, Attorneys At Law 237 Castlewood Drive, Suite D Murfreesboro,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:00-CV Defendant/Counterclaimant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The Regents of the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, The Board of Trustees of MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, and VETGEN, L.L.C., Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
-DJW Sloan et al v. Overton et al Doc. 187 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS DAVID SLOAN, Plaintiff ad Litem ) for the Estate of Christopher Sloan, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
BRAY & GILLESPIE MANAGEMENT LLC, BRAY & GILLESPIE, DELAWARE I, L.P., BRAY & GILLESPIE X, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:07-cv-222-Orl-35KRS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ) ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM ) NOW, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 1:06-CV-1891-JTC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Hunter v. Salem, Missouri, City of et al Doc. 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ANAKA HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY, et
More informationCase 2:12-cv DN-DBP Document 91 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00023-DN-DBP Document 91 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION R. WAYNE KLEIN, the Court-Appointed Receiver of U.S. Ventures
More informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL PROCEEDINGS
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL PROCEEDINGS Rule 1:18. Pretrial Scheduling Order. A. In any civil case the parties, by counsel of record, may agree and submit for approval
More informationbeing preempted by the court's criminal calendar.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF «County» «PlaintiffName», vs. «DefendantName», Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. «CaseNumber» SCHEDULING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information & Instructions: Petition to enforce foreign judgment 1. The following form, Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, is used to enforce a judgment obtained in a state other than Texas. 2. In order
More informationCase 5:16-cv CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
Case 5:16-cv-00435-CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION Flint Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL
More informationLegal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION. Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena.
A. Motion to Quash Assignment Legal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena. Recently you prepared a subpoena. Look at the front of the subpoena where it tells you how to oppose a subpoena.
More informationCase 3:06-cv VLB Document Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:06-cv-01710-VLB Document 277-1 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES INC. : Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO.: vs. : 3:06CV01710 (VLB)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION AVAINE STRONG * CIVIL ACTION NO VERSUS * JUDGE DONALD E.
Strong v. Grambling State University et al Doc. 60 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION AVAINE STRONG * CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0808 VERSUS * JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER GRAMBLING
More informationCase 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-wha Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Henrik Mosesi, Esq. (SBN: ) Anthony Lupu, Esq. (SBN ) Pillar Law Group APLC 0 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 0 Beverly Hills, CA 0 Tel.: 0--0000 Fax: -- Henrik@Pillar.law
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. MDL No SCHEDULING ORDER NO. 2
Case 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO Document 1098 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Case
More informationDEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION. Notice; Method of Taking; Production at Deposition.
RULE 1.310. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION (a) When Depositions May Be Taken. After commencement of the action any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 17, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-21 Lower Tribunal No. 12-6752 David Ledo, Appellant,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA. vs. Case No: ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, vs. Case No: 2017- Defendant. / ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE THIS CAUSE is before the Court
More informationDepositions upon oral examination. A. When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any
1-030. Depositions upon oral examination. A. When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral
More informationHAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47
HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Subchapter 1
More informationADR CODE OF PROCEDURE
Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims
More informationRules for Qualified & Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators
Part I. STANDARDS Rules 15.000 15.200 Part II. DISCIPLINE Rule 15.210. Procedure [No Change] Any complaint alleging violations of the Florida Rules For Qualified And Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY Plaintiff(s, Case No. v. Division 3 Defendant(s. CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER Now on this day of, 20, this matter is called and
More informationCase 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:16-cv-02899-CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
More informationORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE. THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of
ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE THIS COURT, having determined the need to facilitate an orderly progression of certain civil matters before this Court, finds as follows: A. Discovery motions
More informationJUDICIARY OF GUAM ELECTRONIC FILING RULES 1
1 1 Adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 15-001-01 (Oct. 2, 2015). TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION I - AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Page EFR 1.1. Electronic Document Management System.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Case 1:12-cv-01118-JMS-DML Document 35 37 Filed 11/30/12 12/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 263 308 MARIE FRITZINGER, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORT
Hernandez v. Swift Transportation Company, Inc. Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BRANDON HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information or instructions: Motion affidavit & order for a new trial 1. A motion for new trial requests the court to reconsider its judgment for the reasons stated in the motion. 2. The motion should
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SIMONTON CONSENT CASE
Rodriguez v. Greenberg Doc. 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-23051-CIV-SIMONTON CONSENT CASE GIOVANNI RODRIGUEZ v. Plaintiff, SUPER SHINE AND DETAILING, INC., CRAIG
More informationRESOLUTION DIGEST
RESOLUTION 04-02-04 DIGEST Requests for Admissions: Service of Supplemental Requests Amends Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 to allow parties to propound a supplemental request for admission. RESOLUTIONS
More informationCase: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:14-cv-02331-JRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Ellora s Cave Publishing, Inc., et al., ) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
More informationCase 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-hrl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of E-filed 0//0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
More informationRULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS (Revised effective January 1, 2011)
RULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS (Revised effective January 1, 2011) TITLE I. INTRODUCTION Rule 1. Title and Scope of Rules; Definitions. 2. Seal. TITLE II. APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Agueros et al v. Vargas et al Doc. 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION RICHARD AGUEROS and CYNTHIA RABAGO, Plaintiffs, VS. Civil Action No: SA-07-CV-904-XR MARK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
McGary v. Cunningham et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 DARNELL O McGARY, v. Plaintiff, KELLY CUNNINGHAM, DON GAUNTZ, Dr. HOLLY CORYELL, ED YOUNG, Dr. BRUCE
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationMONTANA UNIFORM DISTRICT COURT RULES
MONTANA UNIFORM DISTRICT COURT RULES Rule 1 Form of Papers Presented for Filing. (a) Papers Defined. The word papers as used in this Rule includes all documents and copies except exhibits and records on
More informationDISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY
DISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY The Supreme Court of Hawai i seeks public comment regarding proposals to amend Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, and 45 of the Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposals clarifies
More informationChapter 6 MOTIONS. 6.1 Vocabulary Introduction Regular Motions 7
Chapter 6 MOTIONS 6.1 Vocabulary 3 6.2 Introduction 6 6.3 Regular Motions 7 6.3.1 "Notice of Motion 8 6.3.1.1 Setting the Hearing 8 6.3.1.2 Preparing the Notice 8 6.3.2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER 1220-01-02 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1220-01-02-.01 Definitions 1220-01-02-.12 Pre-Hearing Conferences 1220-01-02-.02
More informationRULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER-0310-1-1 RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS 0310-1-1-.01 Applicability of Tennessee Rules 0310-1-1-.03 En Banc Hearings of Civil Procedure and Correlation
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION., ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant.
NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION -CVD-, ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant. ) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Eight Mile Style, LLC et al v. Apple Computer, Incorporated Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EIGHT MILE STYLE, LLC, and MARTIN AFFILIATED, LLC,
More informationCase 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423
Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE INSIGHT KENTUCKY PARTNERS II, L.P. vs. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 27, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, James M.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-183 / 05-2023 Filed June 27, 2007 ALEXANDER TECHNOLOGIES EUROPE, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACDONALD LETTER SERVICE, INC., Substituted Party for Amazing Products
More informationLOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 8 CRIMINAL
DIVISION 8 CRIMINAL Rule Effective Chapter 1. Felony Cases 800. Pretrial Motions in Felony Cases 07/01/98 805. Motions in Capital Cases 07/01/09 806. Subpoena Duces Tecum 07/01/12 Chapter 2. Misdemeanor
More informationGoing through the Motions. Alicia S. Hall Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC April 28, 2017
Going through the Motions Alicia S. Hall Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC April 28, 2017 Why Motion Practice? Motions throughout Litigation Pleadings Discovery Motions Pre-trial Motions Trial
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-00-BTM-KSC Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ANDREW DREMAK, on Behalf of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ALISON FINLAY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-0786 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SUSSEX COUNTY James A. Luke, Judge. In these consolidated appeals from two separate
Present: All the Justices PAULINE BROWN v. Record No. 992751 WILLIAM BLACK, ET AL. ELAINE HUGHES OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. September 15, 2000 v. Record No. 992752 WILLIAM BLACK, ET AL. FROM
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: ) MISC. NO. 325 RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF ) THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL ) AMENDMENT DIVISION AMENDMENT OF LOCAL ) COURT RULES RULE
More informationCase3:07-md SI Document7618 Filed02/19/13 Page1 of 8
Case:0-md-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION / This Order Relates to: INDIRECT-PURCHASER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:14-cv-01843-GCS-CMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 06/29/17 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 892 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. MICHAEL DeWINE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Hogsett v. Mercy Hospital St. Louis Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LURLINE HOGSETT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:18 CV 1907 AGF ) MERCY HOSPITALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 14 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ERIC M. ALBRITTON v. C. A. NO. 6:08-CV-00089 CISCO SYSTEMS,
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationCase: 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Doc #: 120 Filed: 08/02/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 2274
Case: 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Doc #: 120 Filed: 08/02/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 2274 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-575
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 5 1
Article 5. Depositions and Discovery. Rule 26. General provisions governing discovery. (a) Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 In re Los Angeles Asbestos Litigation General Orders SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No. C 00000 THIRD AMENDED GENERAL ORDER NO. 0 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
More informationLegalFormsForTexas.Com
Information or instructions: Motion & order to retain case on the docket 1. The following motion is required to prevent the case from being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Courts routinely dismiss cases
More informationTITLE 9. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 63. OATH, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND OTHER PROOF ARTICLE 1: OATHS, CERTIFICATIONS, NOTARIZATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS
ALASKA STATUTES TITLE 9. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 63. OATH, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND OTHER PROOF ARTICLE 1: OATHS, CERTIFICATIONS, NOTARIZATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS Sec. 09.63.010. Oath, affirmation, and
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. ) PUBLIC In the Matter of ) ) INTEL CORPORATION, ) Docket No ) Respondent.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ) PUBLIC In the Matter of ) ) INTEL CORPORATION, ) Docket No. 9341 ) Respondent. ) ) COMPLAINT COUNSEL S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST
More informationInformation or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package PREVIEW
Information or instructions: Motion Order Affidavit for substituted service package 1. Motions for Substituted Service must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit. 2. An unsworn Motion for Substituted Service
More informationTITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER n: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ISBE 23 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 475 TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES : EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION : DISPUTE RESOLUTION PART 475 CONTESTED CASES AND OTHER FORMAL HEARINGS
More informationCity Court of Bossier City COURT RULES
City Court of Bossier City COURT RULES PARISH OF BOSSIER STATE OF LOUISIANA THOMAS A. WILSON, JR. JUDGE RULES OF CITY COURT OF BOSSIER CITY RULE NO. 1 TERM OF COURT The regular sessions of the Bossier
More informationUnited States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A Sept. 17, 1996.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A. 94-4603. Sept. 17, 1996. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RUETER, Magistrate J. Presently
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI Department of Banking and Consumer Finance Post Office Box Jackson, Mississippi
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY LICENSE NUMBER LICENSE EXPIRES TP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Department of Banking and Consumer Finance Post Office Box 12129 Jackson, Mississippi 39236-2129 Title Pledge License Application
More informationSTREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective JULY 15, 2009 STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution Centers
More information14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES
14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 1: GENERAL RULES...3 RULE 2: CASE MANAGEMENT...6 RULE 3: CALENDARS...7 RULE 4: COURT-ORDERED ARBITRATION...9 RULE
More information2:13-cv PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
2:13-cv-11415-PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-11415-PDB-MKM v.
More informationCase 3:08-cv MCR-CJK Document 246 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:08-cv-00428-MCR-CJK Document 246 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 9 PATRICIA M. SKELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION Plaintiff, Page 1 of 9 v. OKALOOSA
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-484 NICHOLAS ROZAS AND BETTY ROZAS VERSUS KEITH MONTERO AND MONTERO BUILDERS, INC. ************ APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
More information[CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff TO:
TO: [CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NO.: Defendant, [DEFENDANT S NAME] Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF S NAME]
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A 1
1A-1. Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of Civil Procedure are as follows: Chapter 1A. Rules of Civil Procedure. Article 1. Scope of Rules One Form of Action. Rule 1. Scope of rules. These rules shall
More informationU.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:01-cv RAL
1 of 14 7/25/2007 1:49 PM CLOSED, EAJ, SL DOC U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:01-cv-00379-RAL EEOC v. Norstan Apparel Assigned to: Judge Richard A. Lazzara
More informationTohono O odham Rules of Court
Tohono O odham Rules of Court Table of Contents Section 1. General Rules of Procedure Section 2. Rules of Civil Procedure Section 3. Rules of Criminal and Traffic Procedure Section 4. Children s Court
More informationCHAPTER ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION 231 Rule 1301 CHAPTER 1300. ARBITRATION Subchap. Rule A. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION... 1301 B. PROCEEDING TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND CONFIRM AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN A CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTION...
More informationRule 1.8 Service Methods. (a) Except as provided in Rule 4.2 and Rule 8.9, any pleading or document required under these rules to be served on an
Rule 1.8 Service Methods. (a) Except as provided in Rule 4.2 and Rule 8.9, any pleading or document required under these rules to be served on an accused, or applicant, or attorney shall be (1) sent to
More informationSUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES
SUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES Justice: HON. THOMAS RADEMAKER Secretary: MARILYN McINTOSH Part Clerk: TRINA PAYNE Phone: (516) 493-3420 Courtroom: (516) 493-3423 Fax:
More informationGranados et al v. Traffic Bar And Restaurant,INC., et al Doc. 72
Granados et al v. Traffic Bar And Restaurant,INC., et al Doc. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: NINOSKA GRANADOS, KRISTINA GRIGGS, : 13
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION
RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION CHAPTER 1360-04-01 UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARING CONTESTED CASES BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationSmith v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Smith v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC Doc. 35 TERRY L. SORENSON SMITH, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION v. Case No: 2:13-cv-502-FtM-38CM RJM ACQUISITIONS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 9, 2008 Session. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY v. NEW HOPE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 9, 2008 Session VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY v. NEW HOPE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 07-1663-IV Richard
More informationAdministrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents
Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part
More informationBLAKE ROBERTSON NO CA-0975 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
BLAKE ROBERTSON VERSUS LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-0975 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2008-176,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SAMUEL K. LIPARI, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 07-CV-02146-CM-DJW U.S. BANCORP, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants. DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM
More information